Free Markets and the middle class
Got two ideas that have been touted lately by the liberal left decrying about how unfair it is that publically traded companies have Executives that make millions. But I digress. The title of this post is where the afforementioned discussion goes if they dare to bring up the debate. Point one: Publically traded is not publically owned, example, BlackBerry, a publically traded company is beholden to its shareholders that voluntarily put up private money to invest in same in the prospect of recieving a return on investment. CBC, a publically owned corporation, is funded through non-voluntary contributions from the tax payer and does not have to turn a profit to keep the doors open. So lets review the latest regurgitated talking point. The public is apparently being taken advantage of by an apparent unfair advantage that top earners have over the middle class, and its not fair, cause it somehow violates the philosphy of what a fair market is. This is particularly odious for the middle class...or so they claim. Unfair is it? How is it a free market if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is awarded a billion a year in tax payers dollars to operate yet is still allowed to obtain advertising revenue? How is it anything but bad faith to argue for free markets, but not recognize the impediment imposed by supply management? Go do a search on the term "zap your frozen" for real disingenous bald face lying with regard to government regulated markets. Lets do a comparision to how much those executives are paid, who by the way are subject to a vote of confidence each year when a publically traded company has its yearly general meeting, and how many top bureaucrats are paid through government funding that are not subject to a vote of confidence...ever. You cannot preach fair markets and middle class values while at the same time advocate taking away the freedom of the market to decide by using the government to pick the market winners and losers
Which political ideology is this again?
When you examine what they stand for its becoming evident that the liberals really have lost their way. For example:
That prostitution is a noble trade and should not be referred to as human trafficing.
Drug users should be given a nice safe place to inject instead of stopping them from using the drugs in the first place.
That marijana is harmless, and that it should be legalized and taxed.
That to clean up the environment you must commodify it (Kyoto).
That adscam was just an anomaly.
That you can negotiate with terrorists.
That parents don't have the right to raise their own children.
That the senate is just fine the way it is.
That any constitutional change would be bad.
That the not with standing clause should be abolished because somebody might one day actually use it.
That all references to our historical traditions both military and with regard to the Crown are meaningless and should be abolished.
That abortion should never be limited, there should be a right to die, but celebrating life is equivalent to racism and or homophobia.
That the ban on reproductive technology should be lifted.
That a gun registry is going to stop crimes committed with unregistered weapons.
That private health care doesn't exist in Canada.
That using terms like "barbaric" to describe female genital mutilation is uncanadian.
That if a conservative senator repaid false claims its justification for asking the PM to resign, but if a liberal senator refuses to make the same reparations, its justification to allow him back into caucus.
That when an ex-DM of the education ministry gets arrested on charges of child pornography, no connection should be made to his involvement in producing a controversial sex-education policy being imposed in that province.
That SunNews, a private news broadcaster that produces 100% canadian content should be denied fee for carriage, but the Oprah Network which is based in Chicago USA should not.
That finding out the root causes of why terrorists hate us is more important than tracking down and arresting terrorists.
That if during a federal party leadership race, one candidate is allowed more time to get his "supporters" registered, this should in no way be construed as a coronation.
That even though Pierre Trudeau refused to serve during WWII you can claim he ran towards danger while criticising the RCMP for protecting the PM during a terrorist attack on Parliament Hill.
That communist chinese governments are something to be admired. That we should be sending winter advice to refugees trying to escape ISIS and not using military force against ISIS. That only the liberal party has the hereditary right to rule.
Labels: useful idiots
Liberals say the darndest things
Irony is Katheline Wynne commenting on sexual assault allegations against Bil Cosby, but remaining silent about the charges against her ex deputy minister of education Ben Levin.
Particularly in light of the contriversial sex ed curriculum he developed now being imposed in Ontario schools.
Labels: principles and idealism
