CloudwalkingOwl @ CloudwalkingOwl @lemmy.ca

I'm a semi-retired blogger in Ontario who writes about politics, philosophy

---

Read more

Posts

19

Comments

29

Joined

5 mo. ago

In general you make a good point. I suppose in some cases it would be possible to cut costs and increase service.

Unfortunately, Carney is committed to dramatically increase spending but not taxation. I don't know much about how he views things like wealth stratification but as someone who has been involved in politics I do know politicians have to support crazy stuff to get elected.

We were in a nasty place before the last election and stuck having to choose between Carney and Milhouse while the orange goof threatened our existence. As I said in the article, I don't know what Carney wants or plans on doing, but I do believe we should expect more from our civil services and I don't think the real problem is lack of funds.

Of course, there are nuances. The graphic was only a mechanism for showing readers that there is an issue that is orthogonal to the standard left-right continuum. When someone comes up with a way of measuring legalism objectively (sorta like the way the Gini coefficient measures inequality), I'll think about parsing things out with more precision. ;-)

"Capitalism is the enemy of all who seek to seize liberty. Only through full anarchocommunism can all be freed."

Agreed. My concern is always how to get from where we are now to where we want to be.

One of the problems that I tangentially referred to, but didn't get into because of space constraints is the way capitalism is colonizing governance. Any large project or disagreement brings in highly-paid consultants like ants to a picnic. And for them, there is every inducement to stretch-out the process as long as possible because they get paid by the hour. I wonder how long things would stretch if all consulting contracts were by the job instead of by the hour?

I've never liked the word 'progressive' because it's a classic case of loaded language: a way of speaking that assumes a disputed point in the words used. That's why I put the term in scare quotes whenever I use it. Because of all the loaded language, the self-described 'progressives' I'm talking about (who totally dominate the NDP and Green Parties) dismiss anyone who disagrees with their assumptions out of hand.

I was recently at a rally where Charlie Angus spoke and it was just assumed---totally without any discussion at all---that Bills C-2 and C-5 were evidence that Mark Carney's govt are total and complete sell-outs. That's just like the people I meet who would think they were grooviest, most compassionate, 'progressive' people possible---yet fight like Hell against any changes that would speed up the supply of new housing.

One of the people who spoke at that rally is an NDP Council member. I've talked to him about housing in the past. I asked him why the city's official plan has nothing in it about making sure that there's enough housing for everyone in the city and he flat out refused to consider this. He said it just isn't the city's job to think about housing. He also said that the only solution would be if the federal government paid for enough social housing to get everyone a home. That's flat-out insane as it would cost an astronomical amount of money and there's no way there would ever be enough public support for it. This is what happens if a political movement substitutes aspirations and process for actually getting the job done.

I suppose what I hope Carney will be is something of a Canadian Deng Xiaoping. He was famous for saying "I don't care if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice".

Not quite sure what you mean by this comment, but there's lots of talk. But most of seems to me to be deflections from admitting that we need to change zoning rules that keep developers from building new housing. The common refrains are things like "developers won't build affordable housing", "it's because of financialization", "I'm all for more density---just not in this neighbourhood", "I just don't think it's fair for people who already own their own home to pay for the infrastructure needed to build new housing", etc. I've put a lot work into researching this subject for a lot of articles, and when I looked into all of these things I found that they really aren't the problem---it's the nest of legalization that makes the process of home-building super slow and piles a lot of unnecessary costs onto the developers.

Unfortunately, a great many 'progressives' are baby boomers who already own their own homes and they simply don't understand the housing crisis because it doesn't directly affect them.

My concern is a suspicion that a lot of the support for people like Trump, Poilievre, and other populists comes from the fact that 'progressives' don't even acknowledge that the sclerotic ways of modern govt are doing things like driving up the cost of housing. In the third part of this series I'll be talking about this. There's a graph from Naxos polling that I find is really interesting---it seems to show a lot of the people who used to support Poilievre have moved not so much to Carney as to 'undecided'.

Please note, I'm not completely sold on Carney. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now. I'm also of the opinion that if we won't support politicians who at least say the right things, we are never going to get anyone in office that will do a good job.

I suspect a lot of the 'privacy' excuses that various agencies use to make things difficult are ultimately bogus. But that too is an opportunity cost of setting up too many rules. Saying that it isn't is something of a 'no true Scotsman' argument.

Let's just agree to disagree. I'm not particularly set in my ways about this issue, but I don't think you've convinced me yet. Luckily, the decision isn't up to me. But I still am going to use opposition to Bill C-2 as a means of introducing the points I want to raise in the second article on this subject--which I am convinced are important.

As an aside, I just want to mention how civil this conversation has been. It reinforces my feeling that there's no need for social media to be so damn divisive--it's just that the private sector systems are designed to encourage outrage and fear. Yeah Lemmy! Yeah Fediverse!

Interesting you should mention phone location data not requiring a warrant. About ten years ago at work we had a problem with a student who'd posted a message somewhere that they were considering suicide. Someone else who saw this contacted the police, who came with a social worker and asked me to help find the person. (I used to work in an academic library as a porter.) The police said they had 'pinged' her phone, which allowed them to identify which corner of the building she was in. With a description, we were able to find her. So it would appear that there is already some ability to find phone locations without a warrant already.

As for the 'voluntarily shared, "subscriber information"', my understanding is that's pretty much sold to data brokers by most companies---which means the government could just buy if if they wanted. This gets back to my concern that if we tie up the hands of the government too much we end up with a situation where the government--even if it wanted to--couldn't protect us from big business. FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, TicToc, etc---that's what really scare me, not Mark Carney. I get to vote for my government, but not Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.

Also, about being affected by 'too much privacy' legislation, I disagree. I sponsored my wife as an immigrant and I can tell you that the layers of privacy nonsense that the government lays on top our interface with it can be irritating as Hell. It basically means that I cannot use the web-based system to interface with it because I use open source software. Another example, my wife has an account with the CRA but she can't access it on line because they insisted on mailing her a password through snail mail. It got lost. And to get this problem fixed, she has to contact them either through the CRA website (which she cannot access without the password) or call them on the phone number that's never answered and just kicks you off if you wait too long to get an answer. In addition, I still cannot use email to contact my doctor because of privacy rules---and I can only use the phone because the rules were waived during the COVID crisis.

There are a lot of problems with misapplied privacy rules that haven't been created or implemented with any appreciation of the opportunity costs involved. They add a huge burden on the efficiency of government programs and also the private sector when it interfaces with the government. I suspect that if the government tried to streamline the system in the way that Estonia has, it would be fought tooth and nail by people in support of privacy rights---although I think it would be just fear of change more than anything else. See: https://billhulet.substack.com/p/the-estonian-zero-bureaucracy-project

Are you a specialist with specific information that causes your concern? Again, what I read says that there will be a warrant required from a judge plus a ministerial sign-off. Are you opposed to any search warrants at all? Or just in this specific case? Do you not trust any elected officials? If so, why do you think such untrustworthy people would be bothered to follow the existing laws. I really want to parse out whether these concerns are based on real, substantive issues or just a vague 'they're all bastards' feelings. I notice this with regard to the housing crisis, where people simply don't want to admit that there is a supply problem and blame everything on greedy landlords. They do that because they don't want to admit that the equity on their homes is based on sweating it out of young people. (I have lots of arguments with my fellow boomers who don't want higher density housing in their neighbourhoods.

I'm not an expert on anything except philosophy, but I have written a lot of stories on the housing crisis, which is why I feel confident using that as an example.

But as I pointed out in my article on opioids that I referenced I did find it bizarre that I was getting spam about how easy it would be to buy carfentanil and other drugs on line and then have them sent to me. There were even on-line chats to work customers through the process and a delivery guarantee. It seems to me that sort of brazen behaviour suggests that it is far to easy to hide behind an international border. I've also done stories about money laundering (which incidentally has an impact on the cost of housing) and tax evasion. Both of those involve hiding data behind borders.

And recently there was an operation in France that involved sharing information across many borders to break up international organized crime syndicates. (One delightful group of individuals was sharing videos of them grinding up victims and dumping the paste into a river.) If memory serves, part of this involved the French police arresting and threatening the founder of Telegram with long time in prison if he didn't let them access his servers---which he did.

Another example that comes to my mind is how countries are going to get sleazes like Mark Zuckerberg under control if we can't create international treaties that force companies like Meta to disclose information. I'd love to see the internal correspondence at Meta around things they did like the Cambridge Analytica manipulation of the Brexit campaign. (I wrote a story about that and was absolute aghast about what they did.) I'd also like to see more info about the genocide they helped create in Burma.

I know people are afraid of authoritarian governments. But the opportunity cost of over-doing protecting ourselves from stuff like this is it ties the government's hands when it comes to building international laws around protecting people from criminals, tax evasion, and sleazy tech-lords.

You don't see any opportunity cost at all in making it hard for law enforcement to chase down data that's been hidden in another jurisdiction? I've noticed that you haven't even tried to answer the issue I raised there through the analogy of housing costs exploding due to regulation. That's not unusual. Every time I've tried to raise this issue in various venues all I've ever gotten was an "X-Files answer"---that's when someone just looks away and ignores the question you've raised. ;-)

I've done a quick scan of part 14 of Bill C-2 and it seems to me that the decision to share data with another country isn't automatic. It requires that it pass the scrutiny of a judge and be signed-off on by the relevant cabinet minister. So I'd suggest that this isn't a question of handing over information to a foreign country.

One thing I'd like to ask you is "have you considered the opportunity costs of not having some sort of Ministerial control over this issue?" For example, if we don't agree to having some mechanism for sharing info with another country will that mean we won't have treaties that allow us to get information from them? And if we don't, what impact will that have on attempts to control money-laundering, tax avoidance, dealing with misinformation being spread on the web (remember Cambridge Analytica, FaceBook, and Brexit), etc.? Remember that a Cabinet Minister is allowed to consider the good of the nation---whereas the legal system and bureaucracy is forbidden to consider anything except the letter of the law.

It is true that there could be (and probably will) instances where Ministers do bad things for dumb or venal reasons. But that happens already. Both Trump and Harper have effectively told the Supreme Court to go pound sand and gotten away with it. The Crown and Police routinely pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to turn a blind eye towards. But as long as we have the vote, citizens can punish Ministers for doing stuff we don't like. And if we create an above-board mechanism that records who made what decision, we have a better chance of getting things fixed than if stuff gets done by bureaucrats who "lose the paperwork" or just decide to not have the funds for enforcement of one particular rule.

When I post the second article, I'm planning to get into these issues. The first one is mostly to set the issue up in people's minds---not deal with the core point I want to make.

Sorry to bug you, but what are you referring to with "22.07"? Do you mean the 7th clause of part 22? (There are only 16 parts.) Are you talking about Bill C-2 or are you referring to the existing legislation? I'm also having a hard time finding the title "Enforcement of Foreign Decisions for Production" in my copy of Bill C-2. Are you working from an original copy or are you referring to someone else's analysis? (I hope you aren't using a so-called AI program--.)

Would it be possible to provide an actual link to the part of the bill in question? If you are looking at the Bill on-line, I think you can just copy the anchor tag on the index part of the page and put that in your reply. That will allow me to find the exact part you are mentioning.

I looked at the links you gave me but couldn't find any actual reference to the relevant language. They are quite long and I don't have the time to do general research over a large amount of information. A large part of the reason why I produce Hulet's Backgrounder is because I find a lot of journalism doesn't offer enough detail of this sort to satisfy myself that what's being reported is actually true. And I have a background in activism, radical politics, and journalism---which has taught me to be wary of people to go off "half-cocked" on a wide variety of issues.

I'm not an expert by any stretch, so I'm happy to be corrected. But here's my response.

****About opening mail. ****How would you deal with things like smuggling carfentanil through the mail? It just seems to me that so few people write snail mail letters anymore that it seems kinda odd to make a big fuss about it--especially when large envelopes and packages have been routinely opened for years. (I worked in a mail room once in a while and remember seeing large manila envelopes with their corners cut off once in a while---I assumed that this was so a detector could test for illegal substances.)

About 'unconstrained by the rule of law': By definition, it would be constrained by the rule of law---Bill C-2 changes the law, it doesn't just rip of the concept of rule of law. Moreover, there is still a chain of command and a paper trail that would point out when the decision was made and who made it.

About empowered to compel the production. I wouldn't mind a specific reference so I could see what you are talking about. The big reason why I wrote that article was because I kept hearing statements on podcasts and reading them in articles, yet no one produced the actual wording they were so concerned about. And, as I also pointed out, it's very difficult to work through a government Bill and try to figure out exactly what it means.

About Lawful Access Again, if the law says something, anyone who follows that law is, by definition, following the law. There is a process for creating warrants and a paper-trail that identifies who was behind the decision to force access to the data centre. The law has been police are able to get a judge's say-so to bug a phone, plant a tracking device, or raid an office and seize all the paper records for a very long time. Sure thing this could be abused---but as I tried to point out in the article, there's also an opportunity cost associated with making the process of accessing data from server farms so difficult that it allows malefactors to get away with crime.

Beyond these quibbles, there's also the point to remember that this is just a first draft of a policy that is going to go through committee meetings both in the Commons and the Senate. So if there are substantive changes that should be made, there will be ample opportunity for people to raise them. And with a minority govt, there's every chance that these will be listened to if they are in good faith.

I'd say at least some of these problems are caused by the 'opportunity costs' I mentioned in the article. When I write my second article I plan on dealing with this issue. As I see it, most people fear that a strong govt will oppress the citizenry. In my case, I think we need a strong govt to protect people from the free market and capitalism. And I'd suggest the oppressive way our legal and bureaucratic system does things gets in the way of those politicians who might actually want to fix things. But until people of good will are willing to redefine what government needs to do, we aren't going to get to a better place. :-(

Trade will certainly be an issue. I've read that between switching to other countries, plus the boycott of American goods, and the reduction of visits to the USA, on a macro level we've managed to avoid some significant financial problems--so far. But that doesn't mean than some individual businesses and work forces aren't hurting already.

Carney also has to tackle the affordability crisis too. That means he has to find a way to build a lot more housing--both market-based and geared to income.

There's also a national-unity problem with Alberta too. More broadly, there has to be some way of dealing with the people out there who conflate their sense of identity with the oil industry.

Also, we have to get a handle on the disinformation flood coming from the non-fediverse social media. It's really damaging to the public good.

So we have lots of problems and I think going back to smaller, more dynamic cabinets could be one part of crafting solutions to these and other problems.

I suspect most people know that Pierre Poilievre is no friend of anyone who isn't a cis-white-male-Christian

Hmmm. I don't generally like human interest stories, and I grew up in a redneck part of the country, and have worked at a variety of gruesome jobs--so while never working as a rough neck, it sounds familiar. As usual, the title doesn't really describe the article, but you can't blame that on the author. At the end there was a little bit of information but beyond that it's just autobiographical narrative.

If anyone is interested, I've written four articles that give an analysis of how the oil industry has damage Alberta (collectively about the same size as the "Walrus" article): https://billhulet.substack.com/p/something-impossible-just-happened https://billhulet.substack.com/p/the-social-cost-of-oil-part-one https://billhulet.substack.com/p/part-two-about-oil-and-canada https://billhulet.substack.com/p/the-resource-curse

There're several points to this article: first that it's unhealthy to the Parliamentary system to put so much emphasis on the party leader, that this over-emphasis is a result of how they are chosen, second that politics is a lot more than just elections and progressive parties in particular have to work hard at things like public education and community organizing if they want to change the status quo, and finally that the Conservatives aren't really "conservative" anymore because they've formed an unholy alliance with some pretty unsavoury types who are trying to undermine our political system through disinformation campaigns led by neo fascists.

Hmmm.

I must have really screwed-up if your read of my article was that people shouldn't vote strategically to keep the Conservative from winning in their specific riding. I mentioned there is very little chance of the Conservative candidate winning in my particular riding and it's a race between the Green and the Liberal. It's about learning about your own riding instead of assuming that every riding is exactly the same.

Thanks for replying.