Your Top 3 Political Issues

39 posts / 0 new
Last post
donOld
Your Top 3 Political Issues

If you were asked to help design a new political party, what would be the 3 most important issues that you would want it to address? Rank the issues in their order of importance, with 1 being the most important to you, etc. To give you an example, here are my top 3 issues.

1) all Canadian money and credit should be created interest-free, by the Government of Canada.
(this will provide the financial resources necessary to build the kind of Canada that average Canadians really want)

2) the overbearing influence of money on politics, elections and legislation must be eliminated permanently.
(all professional lobbying must be stopped, and as a part of their licensing requirements, all media companies, at the time of an election, must provide free and equal media coverage to all registered candidates)

3) all international trade deals (FTA, NAFTA, MAI, GATT, etc.) that limit Canada's sovereign rights or ability to independently develop her human, natural and economic resources in the best interests of her people must be rescinded immediately.
(this will enable Canada to regain control over it's vast resources, rebuild its manufacturing industries and become far more economically self-reliant)

Got the idea? ...now give it back to me!

milo204

1) Inability to see climate change/environmental destruction as an urgent threat.

continuing to act as if nothings wrong, even though our groundwater is getting used up, oceans are getting killed, etc.

 

2) It's time to reform and change our political system.

we need to move to a much more democratic system that takes things other than just the economy into consideration.  A more balanced approach would mean more democracy, more stability and a more just system that can continue to change in the future.

 

3) Time to treat FN's with the respect they deserve.

No more BS on treaty issues, land issues and economic issues.  Time to have a real truth and reconciliation process that tells the truth about our treatment of FN people and makes a real effort to move in a new direction.

Fidel

1) Money and credit brought under democratic control

2) Democracy and replacing our corrupt corporate stooges in Ottawa and Toronto with real people

3) Exopolitics and full disclosure. Biggest story of the millennium.

donOld

Thank you fellow insomniacs.

George Victor

A very interesting topic and approach, donOld.

Pleae explain how you would sever ties with the existing international political and economic organizations and bring homegrown corporations - manufacturing and finance - onside, after you had brought about the structural changes in democratic fashion. Magic mushrooms in all drinking water sources? 

donOld

George Victor wrote:

A very interesting topic and approach, donOld.

Thanks... and your top 3 issues are?

Quote:

Pleae explain how you would sever ties with the existing international political and economic organizations and bring homegrown corporations - manufacturing and finance - onside, after you had brought about the structural changes in democratic fashion. Magic mushrooms in all drinking water sources?

This topic isn't about my ideas, it's about how others define the issues.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture
  1. Democratic reform - proportional representation, and the elimination of the influence of money in the electoral system - particularly foreign money.
  2. Media reform - Cutting the connections between information providers and distribution networks (ie/ satellite & cable providers should never own radio, television or internet providers directly). Returning local media to local ownership. Given the increasing importance of telecommunications, I would propose the nationalization of such services. Without a vibrant and independent media, democratic reform is meaningless. Our citizens must be informed for democracy to flourish.

There is no equivalent third item for me. These two things must occur before any progress can be made on anything else that concerns me.

    George Victor

    Okay. Parliamentary and political reform generally will be required as as Earth's poisoned biosphere and its mushrooming population instill a sense of urgency into even the wielders of capital.  Regaining our sovereignty in a Globalized world - including control over the capital we generate - will be right up there on the to do list.

    I've just picked up from the library a copy of Doug Saunders' Arrival City: The final migration and our next world.  Doug is a columnist for that terrible capitalist rag the Globe and Mail, and has been reporting from every continent - primarily Europe, where he's bureau chief - for a few years now. Reading the dust jacket, I see that there are now "more people living in cities than in rural areas. The world is currently gaining five million new city-dwellers each month, expanding its urban population by 3.1 billion in the next four decades...In Arrival City, Doug Saunders argues that this migration is one of the most important trends of the twenty-first century...and it has profound implications for the success of local, national and international economies."

    In this book, Doug is talking to the people who are making the rural-urban move, and explaining why we can't - musn't - ignore the implications of this massive movement of billions of people.  So far, its causing the world poverty rate to fall...since "three-quarters of the world's poor, those with less than a dollar a day, live in rural areas."

    Doug's is a cautiously optimistic capitalistic perspective, but in correspondence with him, you find he's also a humanist.

     

    Pope Teddywang Pope Teddywang's picture

    1. Truth Emergency/ Media reform

    2. Sovereignty Emergency/ abrogate from NAFTA

    3. Environmental Emergency / separation of Oil and State

    6079_Smith_W

    I'll separate the issues from a party, because if I were founding a party I would probably choose more global and national issues. But here are my personal ones (there are more. These are just three which most concern me).

    1) Reducing poverty - Equal access to housing, food, education, medical care, daycare, legal services, and equal treatment under the law.

    2) Food, water and resources - reducing waste, inefficiencies, overuse, and corporate control of  the things we need to survive.

    3) Freedom of access to information and expression, including maintaining open-source as opposed to proprietary technology, and an equitable copyright system, and maintaining strong alternatives to the main stream media.

    Fidel

    George Victor wrote:

    A very interesting topic and approach, donOld.

    Pleae explain how you would sever ties with the existing international political and economic organizations and bring homegrown corporations - manufacturing and finance - onside, after you had brought about the structural changes in democratic fashion. Magic mushrooms in all drinking water sources?

    Well the way it could be done according to the rules of the neoliberal financial regime is to sacrifice stable exchange rates in favour of policy autonomy with full capital mobility. IOW's, a direct challenge to international capital. Let them threaten to pull money out of Canada to let it rot in the Cayman Islands, or let them invest in the big Dubai real estate fiasco. Some banks for sale in the States real cheap right now. Maybe they can build air conditioned beaches and streets on piles of sand. They'd surely show us. And then we could sell our oil and gas and massive amounts of hydro-electric power at full market prices.

     

    absentia

    The things i most want to see in politics each carries a bonus consequence, so you're really getting six.

    1.) massive taxation of financial marketeers, banks, investment brokers, currency speculators - you know, all the people who rake it in without producing anything (This policy will automatically divorce the party from corporate funding and control.)

    2.) invest that fresh capital in sustainable, non-polluting energy technology, public transport, retrofitting of houses and greening the rooftops (New housing will be liberated by the exodus of financial institutions from our cities.)  

    3.) withdraw Canadian troops from all morally questionable foreign entanglements and put them to work on evacuation, flood, rescue and fire-fighting operations (So we won't need those fighter planes and can use the money to fund clinics in rural areas.)

    donOld

    These are really great answers. Far different from what we are led to believe is most important to people according to QMI, Decima, etc.

    kathleen

    Ditto.

    And stop pushing "jobs". Work that is useful, like I do looking after old, sick, needy people. Instead of growth meaning mining and raping.

    I'm drunk. Sorry.

     

    absentia wrote:

    The things i most want to see in politics each carries a bonus consequence, so you're really getting six.

    1.) massive taxation of financial marketeers, banks, investment brokers, currency speculators - you know, all the people who rake it in without producing anything (This policy will automatically divorce the party from corporate funding and control.)

    2.) invest that fresh capital in sustainable, non-polluting energy technology, public transport, retrofitting of houses and greening the rooftops (New housing will be liberated by the exodus of financial institutions from our cities.)  

    3.) withdraw Canadian troops from all morally questionable foreign entanglements and put them to work on evacuation, flood, rescue and fire-fighting operations (So we won't need those fighter planes and can use the money to fund clinics in rural areas.)

    absentia

    kathleen wrote:

    Ditto.

    And stop pushing "jobs". Work that is useful, like I do looking after old, sick, needy people. Instead of growth meaning mining and raping.

    I'm drunk. Sorry.

     

    I hope the old people are getting some of that booze.

    Yeah, stop pushing "jobs"! Jobs suck. Let's keep telling everyone that every chance we get.

    Fidel

    Kathleen could very well be drunk. And I'm probably going to make her angrier for a moment with saying that economists think of those jobs, looking after the old and sick and the dying,  as unproductive jobs and not "wealth creating" jobs. Apparently school teachers,  and even doctors who heal the sick and raise the nearly dead,  are not considered wealth creators either as sick as that sounds. But that's where our economists heads are at with respect to categorizing who works to pay the country's bills and who does the dirty but socially necessary work in this country and every other one.

    Cuba OTOH has strayed from the pack and counts health care workers and health care expenditures in its gross national production numbers.  And I think it's a good idea. I really don't care how much oil and fossil fuels and hydro-electric power our neighbors siphon out of Canada on the cheap and padding our GDP figures. I think health care is much more important than bragging about how much we're contributing to dangerous climate change in straight dollar terms on the plus side and nothing on the down side. I think there is such a thing as false economy, and robbing from the environment for the sake of fueling the world's most energy intensive and most wasteful economy in world history is bizarre to say the least.

    Jacob Richter

    Although "top three political issues" unfortunately give an edge to skanky economism, I'll give this one a crack:

    1) Hyman Minsky: The realization of zero unemployment structurally and cyclically by means of expanding public services to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services

    2) Rudolf Meidner: The increase of real social savings and investment (in turn for, among additional and exclusively public purposes, sustaining real wage growth and the least the limited Keynesian definition of "full employment"), by first means of mandatory and significant redistributions of annual business profits, by private enterprises with more workers than a defined threshold, as non-tradable and superior voting shares to be held by geographically organized worker funds

    [Meidner's respective specifics were twenty percent of business profits (and no net loss rebates, the exact opposite of "privatize the gains, socialize the losses" bailouts), fifty employees, and regional and not union-level organization of wage-earner funds]

    3) Enabling the full replacement of the hiring of labour for small-business profit by cooperative production, and also society's cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans

    Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

    kathleen wrote:

    Ditto.

    And stop pushing "jobs". Work that is useful, like I do looking after old, sick, needy people. Instead of growth meaning mining and raping.

    I'm drunk. Sorry.

    Bravo, kathleen. The world needs more people like you.

     

    siamdave

    - something far, far too few people understand, I think.

    What Happened?  http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html

    Jacob Richter

    What are your top three political issues, Siam?

    siamdave

    Jacob Richter wrote:

    What are your top three political issues, Siam?

    - I guess for me they'd be about the same as I outline in the last part of the essay in a similar context - in no particular order, they are all necessary -

    * getting control of 'our story' or narrative again - right now, most people have a completely false idea of 'history', they are taught in school, and through the media, about the ascent of Capitalism, and that this is the greatest thing to ever happen - and it is not surprising that so many people believe this. People need to be taught that most of history has been a struggle against the kind of people currently represented by capitalists - those who feel they have a right to rule the 'masses', and that, as 'the masses', our story is considerably different than that of the rulers.

    * we need to get control of the money system, obviously - right now it is an integral part of the way capitalists rule and control us - a true money system, primarily to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and as a store of value, would be controlled democratically for those purposes, and function a great deal differently than the current one.

    * again obviously, we need some kind of functioning democracy, rather than the pretend versions that are pawned off on us now, a democracy where well-informed, engaged citizens make the decisions about what "our" country will do through discussion and consensus.

    * and of course again we need a media that works for us rather than against us, a media truly dedicated to democracy, and giving the citizens *all* the information they need to make informed decisions.

    Give us those four things, I would be pretty content to accept whatever direction our society took, led by a majority of engaged, intelligent, well-informed and honest citizens. Right now I can accept most people are honest, quite a few are intelligent and try to be engaged, but very few are well-informed about things that matter. I would note the almost complete lack of interest even here on Rabble, at least one of the centers of 'progressive' discussion in Canada, in my efforts to get people to understand and see the importance of what is going on with the money supply, probably the key to everything.

     

     

    Sean in Ottawa

    I have addressed this at length in other threads such as the economic update thread so will not get in to too much here.

    The political issue of the moment I believe is that the right wing have moved the battle from the control of current government policy to future governments. People are caught up with end to end distractions over individual policies without fulling understanding that this is not a battle over government power as it has been in the past. The people in control of this government do not believe in governance and are not trying to harness the power of government to their own ends as the Liberals and Progressive Conservative Parties did previously.

    This is the Reform party having staged a coup over the Progressive Conservative Party, they intend to destroy the capacity of this government to govern in several key areas. The important political issue of the day, is to achieve an understanding before it is too late that this is not a battle on where the ship is going. The captain of this ship wants to sink it.

    Once people realize this they may stop playing in to the hands of the Cons lulling themselves to sleep with the lullaby that the Cons are economically incompetent. They actually are not incompetent. The effects and destruction of the fiscal capacity of the government are intentional. The Cons are not the old PCs who at least half-believed they wanted to leave the government in better economic shape. These people want to leave government damaged so badly that it will not recover before they get a chance to do it again -- they want to damage the government so it can remain incapable of making decisions even through an economic recovery, even after two terms of being headed by parties not intend on burying it. Then with the usual political alternation they can keep the process going. The major political issue is convincing Canadians that this is the fight over the economic sovereignty of the next government not this one. Then we can see and try to fight what is happening.

    The only way this destruction can be stopped is if people realize this is not a series of mistakes and miscalculations, it is not stupidity. It is all intentional. Credit for the willful destruction of the fiscal position of the federal government needs to be placed on the Cons and that ideology. As long as people think it is mismanagement or stupidity, we are primed to re-buy the same old garbage a few years later as the Cons under new management do the same things.

    They lost the battle in Ontario for example. The Liberals, I think actually are incompetent. But the position they inherited, that made the finances of the province impossible to balance without politically impossible tax increases was no accident. The Cons will get the province back likely next year. Then they will be able to destroy the fiscal capacity of the province for the next cycle. It is no longer relevant what party goes in to power in Ontario-- the place is broken and only a realization about what was done and why could allow the beginning of a restoration of governance there. The McGuinty government was far too dishonest to admit that it never had the economic power to actually take control over the economic agenda of the province and pretended that it could govern with the economic capacity of the government removed without tax cuts. McGuinty was the useful idiot played by the Cons who knew well he would come to power and had no trouble with letting him keep the scheme going.

    George Victor

    And an enlightened electorate will now spontaneously rise up in protest against the lower tax rate being offered to them by Conservatives at all levels of government.

    You're right, Sean. But it may not be part of a grand scheme to eliminate the welfare state and take us back to the purer world of social Darwinism, however, but just power brokers acting out of the Conservative perspective on "what people tend to do" when their own welfare is threatened in a shrinking economy and shrinking life chances. It is not an optimistic view of "human nature," but this forms the basis of their political philosophy. The late Christian Bay brought this to my attention some years back.

    Sean in Ottawa

    I am arguing that it is not conservatism that embraces either the military spending that this country can't use nor especially the massive stimulus spending even more than the opposition required to shut p and play. IT is the plan to effectively bankrupt the country as a means of enforcing that ideology on future governments. Recognize that the military contracts go for many years and cannot be canceled without severe penalty. This current government is not just making its current money go away, but also future government monies.

    The massive prison-spending spree that will have to be maintained by the provinces does to the provincial governments in the present what they are doing to future governments. The huge stimulus spending that largely avoids the projects cities most need is also no accident. This government is not just working within its own mandate in jurisdiction and power but seeking to damage any possibility for any activist government federal, provincial or municipal in the future.

    People need to recognize how this government is going accomplishing this and meet it head on. Otherwise they will fight ongoing, losing tax battles over the next few years with no progress at all.

    George Victor

    sean:

    "People need to recognize how this government is going accomplishing this and meet it head on. Otherwise they will fight ongoing, losing tax battles over the next few years with no progress at all."

     

    I attempted an explanation of how this government is accomplishing this...it depends on a collapsing welfare state and the Conservative perspective on "human nature"...which you may or may not agree with...but I've seen no sign of recognition on your part that this is even a possible explanation of how "this government is going accomplishing this..."

     

    I'll run it by you again:

    "You're right, Sean. But it may not be part of a grand scheme to eliminate the welfare state and take us back to the purer world of social Darwinism, however, but just power brokers acting out of the Conservative perspective on "what people tend to do" when their own welfare is threatened in a shrinking economy and shrinking life chances. It is not an optimistic view of "human nature," but this forms the basis of their political philosophy. The late Christian Bay brought this to my attention some years back."

     

     

    Sean in Ottawa

    I am not arguing that this is their philosophy-- I am saying that what they are doing is a step beyond that into the enacting of policy not just to reduce the government role in the economy in the present but to break the government's ability to do so in the future-- that is more than the ideology in practice that is deliberate sabotage of the nation's finances.

    For example let's look at the stimulus spending. Fiscal conservatives-- the ideology would react to fight this. Then it would act to limit it. But the sabotage sees an opportunity and embraces it-- getting rid of as much money as possible to make further spending they consider repugnant impossible.

    Of course the argument they make is that they do not want government to spend beyond its means is false. The real concern is the ideology that governemnt should not compete with what the private sector can make a profit on. So in this case they spend more money in any way possible in order to break future chances of the government spending in the ways they are concerned with. The ideology does not lead directly here-- the conspiracy to sabotage the government for the future does.

    This is why it is important to distinguish between the political philosophy which would naturally be opposed to any spending but more so that which conflicts with private interests with the designed damage which is to actually spend more in some areas in order to make the kind of spending they oppose impossible because the bank is broken. The ideology is much discussed including how negative and destructive it alone can be, but the willful sabotage to inflict this ideology on unwilling future governments through the destruction of public finances is not being discussed and that is important.

    So in the case of your statement that this is just what right-wingers do -- that does not explain how the government went in to the spending without much of a fight after initial resistance. You might remember they were totally against it and then suddenly and uncharacteristically, they folded. I am submitting that they saw the opportunity to blow a wad of cash and the role that would play in hampering future spending for perhaps an entire generation. As I am aware, and I read a lot of things-- I have not seen anyone pick up this point. That is why I am doing that here.

    George Victor

    I have said, several times, Sean, that I agree with you as to their intent.

    But you refuse to respond to my suggestion as to "how" they will bring it about...on what they depend, to bring it about, why they might be successful. A simple yea or nay would be very rewarding.

     

    But I refuse to carry on this meaningless back and forth.

     

    Sean in Ottawa

    I am not refusing anything George.

    Clearly if you are trying to say anything that is beyond a description of the general ideology I am not seeing it. I see nothing here about the issue of a design that goes beyond that ideology that everyone has accepted-- do you not see the same distinction I am making?

    I am trying to understand you but it seems we are not meeting here. No need to be nasty about this -- I am not refusing and if you recognized the importance of this I don't get why you would call this meaningless- why not try rephrasing rather than repeating-- clearly the repeating is not helping as I read you the first time and the second time as well.

    Indeed, I don't even see a "how" they will bring this about except in general terms and have seen this to be a rejection of the idea of a specific plan to bring down national finances in place of the idea which I reject that they are just right wingers being right wing.

    George Victor

    Try to find a copy of Christian Bay's The Structure of Freedom.   Look up his thoughts on the tendency of the Gread Led to be susceptible  to Conservative appeal in times like these. 

    We agree on the Conservative objective.  That's very Straussian and Libertarian. And what is there, in those philosophical positions, that  may make it possible to bring off?  

    I'm only trying to flesh out the Grand Plot idea of history that the liberal finds difficult to accept...untutored as they are.  Wink

     

    thorin_bane

    Somehow i am now lost?

    donOld

    Getting back to the original purpose of this thread... is there anyone else out there who would like to share their ideas about what the 3 most important issues in Canadian politics really are?

    Ghislaine

    1. Women's rights (a huge area that encompasses a lot, so I will leave it at that for brevity). 

    2. Justice/rights for FN people 

    3. Restructuring of economy to a more environmentally-friendly, local model. 

    DaemonNice

    It seems this thread digressed somewhat...

    As for my political platform I have given this a lot of thought,

    1) electoral reform-primarily proportional representation

    2) legislation that would make it illegal for government to borrow from private banks, it is what the Bank of Canada is for

    3) tax reform-fading out of income taxes(why tax productivity?) and increasing gst (tho I would also remove gst from healthcare, most foods, and prescription drugs) and increase it for recreational, and entertainment,etc

    4) a soil health tax on industry and farming to encourage industry to better manage its wastes and farms to use more natural methods of farming

    5) consecutive term limits-no more than two consecutive terms in office

    6) investing in human capital-interest free tuition loans for students scoring over 80% via Bank of Canada, and those in workforce for 20 yrs

    7) introduce accrual accounting in government books

     

    I know it is more than three. Sorry, I just could not stop at three. It like eating chocolate, one is never enough.

    siamdave

    DaemonNice wrote:

    It seems this thread digressed somewhat...

    As for my political platform I have given this a lot of thought,

    1) electoral reform-primarily proportional representation

    2) legislation that would make it illegal for government to borrow from private banks, it is what the Bank of Canada is for

    3) tax reform-fading out of income taxes(why tax productivity?) and increasing gst (tho I would also remove gst from healthcare, most foods, and prescription drugs) and increase it for recreational, and entertainment,etc

    4) a soil health tax on industry and farming to encourage industry to better manage its wastes and farms to use more natural methods of farming

    5) consecutive term limits-no more than two consecutive terms in office

    6) investing in human capital-interest free tuition loans for students scoring over 80% via Bank of Canada, and those in workforce for 20 yrs

    7) introduce accrual accounting in government books

     

    I know it is more than three. Sorry, I just could not stop at three. It like eating chocolate, one is never enough.

    - you seem to be on the right path. Look more, look deeper, get outside the box.

    I agree we should be using the Bank of Canada, but why through legislation? If "we" control our government democratically, why would we need legislation to control them? And what good would it do? - even if somebody did pass such legislation - why couldn't the next government pass 'new' legislation to cancel the old stuff? It's interesting that the neocons regularly pass legislation cancelling old democratic legislation they disagree with - but nobody ever cancels what they have done (i.e. re tax cuts for the wealthy, etc). Maybe - if we actually have "democracy" - we don't need to 'control' the government  - because 'we' *are* the government, together!

    - an idea few if any here in babble seem to be able to engage - but it is where I think we need to go -

    - if *we* *are* the government - why would we need to tax ourselves? Taxes are simply a new version of 'titheing' - the feudal system of peasants giving a certain amount of their crops etc to 'the lord' every year - again, if "we" are the gov - why would we tax ourselves?!? - much thinking needs to be done about how we produce the things we need - whether we produce them for ourselves, together, collectively somehow - or whether we are just laborers working in factories for masters who control everything

    - you can find more out of the box ideas here - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html or here - They're Building a Box - and You're In It  http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.htm - keep thinking -

     

    Caissa

    1) capitalism

    2)capitalism

    3)capitalism

    thorin_bane

    1)Getting rid of capitalism

    2)Getting rid of capitalism

    3)Getting rid of capitalism-media has to go first.

    DaemonNice

    Quote:

    - you seem to be on the right path. Look more, look deeper, get outside the box.

    I agree we should be using the Bank of Canada, but why through legislation? If "we" control our government democratically, why would we need legislation to control them? And what good would it do? - even if somebody did pass such legislation - why couldn't the next government pass 'new' legislation to cancel the old stuff? It's interesting that the neocons regularly pass legislation cancelling old democratic legislation they disagree with - but nobody ever cancels what they have done (i.e. re tax cuts for the wealthy, etc). Maybe - if we actually have "democracy" - we don't need to 'control' the government  - because 'we' *are* the government, together!

    - an idea few if any here in babble seem to be able to engage - but it is where I think we need to go -

    - if *we* *are* the government - why would we need to tax ourselves? Taxes are simply a new version of 'titheing' - the feudal system of peasants giving a certain amount of their crops etc to 'the lord' every year - again, if "we" are the gov - why would we tax ourselves?!? - much thinking needs to be done about how we produce the things we need - whether we produce them for ourselves, together, collectively somehow - or whether we are just laborers working in factories for masters who control everything

    - you can find more out of the box ideas here - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html or here - They're Building a Box - and You're In It  http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.htm - keep thinking -

     

    I am trying to look outside the box. If you read any of my other posts, you will see that I do mention that we need to look outside the box. I see the whole thing as not being left wing vs right wing. It is not about some extremist neo-con agenda vs some extremist socialist agenda. It is about trying to find a balance between the two. Too often I hear from the socialists that capitalism is evil. It isn't. What some have done with it, particularly the Friedmanites is evil.

    Your right, we shouldn't have to legislate at all. And if the neo-cons got in power, damn right they would just legislate it out. I'm working on it. And the reason no-one ever cancels the neo-con agenda is that truly both dominant parties in Canada serve the same bosses. I don't want the Liberals and their social programs that make them look like the good guys when in truth they are just entrenching the disparity of wealth.

    And BOOM

    You are absolutely right about 'we the people' are the government of Canada. What your saying reminds me of some stuff that I read over at COMER.org. And I totally agree. In fact I will take it one step further. The fiscal conservatives want government run as a business which in my mind makes us, the citizens of Canada, shareholders of the corporation that is the government of Canada, and as a shareholder we should be receiving dividends. Particularly from those that are using our natural resources for their own profits.

    Thanks for your input and I will look into those websites that you mentioned. Keep spreading the good word.

    j.m.

    Ideal

    1. Getting rid of the nation-state/sovereign problem and coming up with better forms of local to global organization.

    2. Capitalism

    3. Addressing individual fear of the "Other"

    Practical

    1. Bringing finance markets under severe regulation

    2. Disciplining TNCs for poor practices.

    3. Funding social programs without concessions nor with private money (stronger taxation of capitalists)

    Sean in Ottawa

    1- accountability (this includes democratic process, openness, a free media but also fundamental policy-making requirements of disclosure and explanation-- read Henry McCandless on this)

    2- more accurate political representation (gender and other balances in politics)

    3- economic equality (this includes social programs, fair non-exploitative trade both within Canada and with other countries, fair taxation, recognition of public goods global economic justice, etc.)

     

    To name three-- the environment is implicit in both 1 and 3 as you can have neither without environmental sustainability and you need 2 to get environmental sustainability. Economic and social sustainability are also implicit for the same reason. You could argue then the three could be:

    1 Economic sustainability

    2 Environmental sustainability

    3 Social sustainability

    ...since to achieve these you need everything else I mention.

    Most people are speaking of the same things since what one misses saying directly is a prerequisite to what that person does say.

    Most of these themes are so interdependent that you cannot push for one without acknowledging the others at least to some degree and the differences between most of us is order, degree and priority.