3 ms·

I understand the reason the article is framed this way: "Suprise! Business interests are on the same side as privacy advocates on this issue!" But if the argume

by habitue 12y ago

I understand the reason the article is framed this way: "Suprise! Business interests are on the same side as privacy advocates on this issue!" But if the argument "this is bad for business" doesn't fly when someone wants to pollute, why is it a persuasive argument when the shoe is on the other foot and progressive interests are aligned with business interests? The real reason this person doesn't support the C-51 is because it's nasty big brother crap. Don't minimize the real reason by saying "There's a grown-up reason I'm against the bill: it's bad for business". Privacy is valuable by itself, whether or not it's good or bad for business.

slavik81 12y ago
> But if the argument "this is bad for business" doesn't fly when someone wants to pollute I think you'll find that it does, actually. As a country highly dependant on extracting primary resources, Canada's quite used to making tradeoffs between protecting the environment and making money.
- habitue 12y ago
  Point taken. But I hope you'll agree that "it's bad for business" isn't a slam dunk argument even in Canada. Think about it this way: if the alignment were reversed, and this law was good for business, do you think anyone would try to fend off critics of C-51 by saying "But look how good for business it is!". This asymmetry indicates the real reasons the law is good or bad lie elsewhere.
kijin 12y ago
Many of the people who signed this letter probably believe that C-51 is bad for other, more fundamental reasons. But since corrupt politicians are more likely to listen to money than moral qualms, Canadian businesses are using "this is bad for business" as a tool to pressure them to do what is right. In other words, this is just a political maneuver to add weight to the opposition's argument. It is a clever maneuver, since it turns the Conservatives' usual emphasis on economic growth on its head. It's not a slam dunk argument, either, but it slightly increases the probability that C-51 will fail. Ideals are great, but in order to make a difference in the real messy world of politics, you often need to make temporary alliances with those who might have other motives. Even worse, you also sometimes need to manipulate bad people into unwittingly serving the greater good.
- chadk 12y ago
  > Many of the people who signed this letter probably believe that C-51 is bad for other, more fundamental reasons. This is basically the reason I signed this letter. I had actually previously signed the regular citizen petition, but when OpenMedia approached me to sign this, I was on board — not just for my business but also personally.
rfrey 12y ago
If a measure is bad for the economy, that's a negative point for the measure. In the case of (many) environmental measures, the good outweighs the bad. It is bad for business, but on balance we think it's worth the cost. There are many negative aspects to C51. The business community is qualified to weigh in with authority on the negative business implications. Highlighting these costs adds to other negative aspects (like, I dunno, descending into a police state) to hopefully move more people to think the cost isn't worth it in this case. Many business people have other reasons for opposing C51, of course, but their voice as businesspeople carries more weight when talking about business. There's no contradiction between this and the environmental issue. Nor is it "more grown up" to claim that there's one and only one true reason to oppose the bill.

by habitue 12y ago

slavik81 12y ago

> But if the argument "this is bad for business" doesn't fly when someone wants to pollute I think you'll find that it does, actually. As a country highly dependant on extracting primary resources, Canada's quite used to making tradeoffs between protecting the environment and making money.

habitue 12y ago
Point taken. But I hope you'll agree that "it's bad for business" isn't a slam dunk argument even in Canada. Think about it this way: if the alignment were reversed, and this law was good for business, do you think anyone would try to fend off critics of C-51 by saying "But look how good for business it is!". This asymmetry indicates the real reasons the law is good or bad lie elsewhere.

kijin 12y ago

Many of the people who signed this letter probably believe that C-51 is bad for other, more fundamental reasons. But since corrupt politicians are more likely to listen to money than moral qualms, Canadian businesses are using "this is bad for business" as a tool to pressure them to do what is right. In other words, this is just a political maneuver to add weight to the opposition's argument. It is a clever maneuver, since it turns the Conservatives' usual emphasis on economic growth on its head. It's not a slam dunk argument, either, but it slightly increases the probability that C-51 will fail. Ideals are great, but in order to make a difference in the real messy world of politics, you often need to make temporary alliances with those who might have other motives. Even worse, you also sometimes need to manipulate bad people into unwittingly serving the greater good.

chadk 12y ago
> Many of the people who signed this letter probably believe that C-51 is bad for other, more fundamental reasons. This is basically the reason I signed this letter. I had actually previously signed the regular citizen petition, but when OpenMedia approached me to sign this, I was on board — not just for my business but also personally.

rfrey 12y ago

If a measure is bad for the economy, that's a negative point for the measure. In the case of (many) environmental measures, the good outweighs the bad. It is bad for business, but on balance we think it's worth the cost. There are many negative aspects to C51. The business community is qualified to weigh in with authority on the negative business implications. Highlighting these costs adds to other negative aspects (like, I dunno, descending into a police state) to hopefully move more people to think the cost isn't worth it in this case. Many business people have other reasons for opposing C51, of course, but their voice as businesspeople carries more weight when talking about business. There's no contradiction between this and the environmental issue. Nor is it "more grown up" to claim that there's one and only one true reason to oppose the bill.