Canada’s Debate

It’s too fucking early.

That is all.

At least once a week I come across an editorial, blog or essay lamenting the death of the Middle Class. The Middle Class is “shrinking” or under pressure, etc.

I think it’s time as post-modern thinkers to accept facts; the Middle Class no longer exists because only vestigial traces of the manufacturing economy that it supported remain. As markets have expanded and manufacturing has become automated it is no longer labour which drives economic activity.

In the same way that the Agricultural Revolution allowed the societal elite to move away from labour and pursue non-agricultural efforts (religion, art, philosophy… the bedrocks of a culture-based society); the Industrial revolution allowed those who were skilled to turn their wealth into owned property, something only the elite had until the 18th century. Unfortunately, almost as soon as this started to happen, middle-class labourers started to purchase material goods which they had otherwise made themselves or gone without.

Well, the scale has finally tipped; the “Middle Class” no longer exists because labour is no longer a gateway to ownership, it is a gateway to consumption. With the decreasing value of consumer goods and the shrinking of labour pools widespread and consistent consumption is driving the economy almost exclusively. Home-ownership has skyrocketed, but it has been financed by debt and questionable practices. Owning four walls while borrowing money to pay for your groceries and clothes is indicative of an economy of consumption, not ownership. And so I give you the new Consumption Class. The “middle class” is still there; it’s just the at the centre of a new economy, and centuries-old labels no longer apply.

For once, a post that’s not about Warren Kinsella… although it does stem from a reader comment on his site.

but it suffers rather badly from something I see as a flaw with many Liberal ideas - too much emotion, not enough reason.

Ignoring for a moment the ambiguous use of the capital-L, lets consider this statement for a moment. What are liberal ideas? (The “L”iberal party’s only real idea is “stick to the middle and don’t do anything crazy”) I know how people like to talk about how “liberal” and “conservative” values have been transposed in recent centuries, and so on, but that’s bullshit. Liberalism always has been and always will be achieving the greatest liberty, for the greatest number, while Conservatism always has been, and always will be about having as little government intervention as possible. Sometimes these ideologies agree, but that’s the subject of another post.

What sticks to the roof of my mouth is this idea that “liberal” values are emotional, and “conservative values” are rational. I’ve heard this same sort of argument whenever I’ve challenged the doctrine that the free market is inherently more efficient than mixed-market or public-sector services, and various I’ve advanced similar ideas.

The fact is that all philosophy stems from an intuitive (read ‘emotional’) response, and then is developed through a rational thought process. Edmund Burke and Thomas Hobbes were both rational people who took emotional conceits (liberty can only be provided by the state; the French Revolution is democracy run amok) and developed political treatises which defined the Liberal and Conservative movements (”The Leviathan”, “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”)

Everyone believes their core beliefs to be rational. To a homeless guy wearing a tinfoil hat nothing could be less rational than leaving your brain undefended; our very self-awareness depends on our ability to not only reason, but rationalize. The arguments against Hate-speech laws are no more or less rational than those for them. The difference is the core values that underpin them: the Liberal quest to maximize freedom for all (90% freedom for three people is better than 100% freedom for one), or the Conservative ideal of “creating” freedom by restricting the individual as little as possible.

Personally, I choose the latter… And lets face it, I’m much more rational than your average Conservative.

I’ve got a quick and easy solution for solving the Israel/Palestine debate. Lets take everyone who has publicly declared one “side” of the issue as at fault, and kick them out of their homes. Every single one… We can then shoe-horn them into Israel/Palestine, and give everyone currently occupying that contentious strip of land their pick of the newly vacated homes. Honestly, I can’t see a problem with this solution…

By my estimates at least half of the Arab world would be depopulated… all those Palestinians who profess piety I’m sure would leap at the opportunity to move into the spacious (and ARAB free) palaces of Saudi Arabia; they’d lose Jerusalem but gain Mecca, seems like trading up to me. The Jews and evangelical (read “mentally unstable”) Christians could integrate into the depopulated cultural centres of their respective faiths and find the infrastructure for their beliefs already built, without the fear of terrorism or death. Lastly, about 1-2 billion idiotic demagogues would have to live in a richly deserved Gideon-esque nightmare. (Continue reading…)

Censorship and “hate speech” has been the focus of attention of the blogosphere lately, with the usual suspects leading the charge, with Warren Kinsella on the left, and Small Dead Animals on the right. The latest conflagration is over Human Rights tribunals, and their role in trying to stamp-out hate speech. Specifically Ezra Levant, who is widely acknowledged as an idiot, is the subject of these tribunals. Odd how a single person can be used as the foundation for both sides of an argument about hypocrisy…

Anyways, I’ve been watching this back-and-forth for some time. I read a discussion today on America’s Debate which got me thinking (in the shower, where 75% if my blog posts originate.) Are tribunals censorship? Yes. Do they infringe in our rights? Yes. Are they necessary? Absolutely. Racism comes in many shapes and sizes; and the aforementioned discussion on America’s Debate reminded me of the David Rosenzweig murder in 2002. (Continue reading…)