Why politicians should have very little power

I'm just going to keep this post relatively short because I just wanted to mention a few things. Basically when you think about the world and you think about successful people some of the most motivated successful people going to the business world. Perhaps they become lawyers perhaps they enter into other areas such as becoming world-class chefs and so on. But I highly doubt that very many of the top most successful motivated people in the world become politicians. Just think about it for a minute.

The people that get up at 5 in the morning and go for a run and they're at the office at 7 a.m. working on their business being successful all day long - those people do not become politicians. Especially look at Newfoundland. Many of our so-called top politicians basically held low level 9 to 5 jobs sometimes even shorter hours. Some of them were Community organizers or substitute teachers and things of that sort. These are not our top performing people in all of society. Also the people with the highest IQs and the most brilliant people generally will go into Fields such as science technology engineering mathematics Etc. They don't choose the life of a politician generally speaking. So why is it that we think that people who would be considered mediocre in any other area of life we believe should rule our lives and should have control over everything that we do. Because that's basically what we're saying when it comes to politicians.

We say they should make decisions in our everyday lives. And remember they are not just making massive decisions that are going to have massive impact on everybody's lives. They are in fact micromanaging every tiny little aspect of Our Lives. What makes us think they have any idea what to do any better than we do ourselves? That's why our whole system of having politicians being in control of so many things is absolutely ridiculous and must be ended right away.

Our “free” healthcare is nothing to be proud of.

Maybe Canadians gloat and brag about the fact that we have "free" healthcare. We are so much more compassionate, loving, caring. We don't just care about profits, we care about people! We are so morally superior to Americans who couldn't care less if a poor person died on the streets!

 

To me, this sense of moral superiority is annoying, for many reasons.

 

First of all, it's not free. Free would imply volunteers built the hospitals, and doctors volunteer their time to help patients, medical supplies are donated, and it's all just a benevolent endeavor. In actual fact, it costs us massive amounts of money. A huge percentage of our income is taken away to pay for healthcare. So calling it free is one of the most factually inaccurate statements one can make.

 

Objection: "Okay, it costs money, but we are just paying for those who cannot pay. It's a mutually beneficial society. The strong look after the weak."

 

Response: There is no moral merit to forcibly taking money from people and then spending it something, no matter how worthy the cause. It would however be morally viable to spend your own hard-earned money to help the less fortunate or those who couldn't afford it. This can be done through donations. There could be a sort of child sponsorship model for people who need medical care. This is just one possible idea. The bottom line is that you should not be proud of taking money from others by force to pay for some service. There is no moral merit to it.

 

Second point about our healthcare is that it's deplorable. Again "free" doesn't describe the quality. A friend of mine recently, who is still in the hospital, arrived at the hospital complaining of intense pain. She had just given birth to twins and was understandably concerned. She spent around 10 hours before anyone would even see her. She had to stay overnight waiting for a doctor to see her. And in the end they basically only gave her painkillers. Then a couple of days later, they told her to go home. She works in the medical field and so she knows a thing or two about medicine. She insisted on staying for a  number of reasons. They allowed it after she insisted, and she is currently facing many issues. She is having a difficult time. But they just wanted to throw her out.

 

This story reproduces itself many times each day. Ask anyone in Canada, even advocates, and they will tell you a medical horror story that happened to either them or a friend or family member of theirs. Whether it's 10-30 hour wait times, inadequate help, being ignored, and low quality care. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance involved. On the one hand, die-hard advocates will always praise our "amazing system" while being able to also talk about many many terrible incidents. These arent' just "one-off" things, but the norm. You have to take an entire day off to visit the hospital, and there you will get very low-quality care.

 

Canada's healthcare system is expensive and immoral and must be massively reformed.

 

 

CBC Gloating Over Trouble of Private Rivals

CBC is posting article after article after article gloating about The Rebel Media and other conservative outlets being in trouble for various reasons. One reason is the federal government will stop advertising there. To this, CBC has penned several giddy articles mockingly saying “boohoo” to Rebel. They brag about how much better CBC is than these low-brow publications. What is so ironic is that CBC could be (and actually is) the worst news outlet the world has ever seen and this would make one iota of difference to their bottom line. They don’t have to work hard to get advertisers or subscribers. They are protected by the full force of the law and not really required to compete in any real sense. They are given over a billion dollars each year to spout their liberal left-wing agenda and there’s nothing we can do about it.

 

The real extreme bias can be seen in their opinion pieces which are pages out of the socialist playbook. Recent articles on CBC have stated that anyone the CBC considers “right wing” or “far-right extremists” or whatever shouldn’t have freedom of speech. They argue for left-wing extremists it’s different. They in fact do have a right to free speech. But far-righters? Not a chance.

 

CBC is pathetic. They are like the trust-fund baby who hasn’t worked a day in his life and then brags about being superior to his hard-working friends who are struggling to make it in the world. They aren’t even aware of their own arrogance and privilege and in fact believe they are champions of the “common man”. In reality, they gloat when their non-wealthy friends, who are trying their best, falter.

 

CBC needs to be defunded. Then we’ll see how much longer they gloat.

Protest at St. John's to fight MASSIVE problem here.

They had that protest apparently yesterday at Bannerman Park in St. John’s against white suprem-acism as if it’s a huge thing in Newfoundland. They said black and indi-genous people are systematically treated badly, etc. but I would ask “what do you want?”

I can guarantee they want other people to give them stuff. I don’t know if that’s an oversimplification. But that seems to be what it boils down to. But isn’t that a position of weakness? How can you say you are equal if you have to be given things? They aren’t even saying they want equality, they want some compensation. But again, it’s like asking for a higher allowance or welfare. Why can’t they just ask to be free and then do their own thing? If there really is systematic discri-mination somewhere, why not fight it? Not vague “attitudes” or perceptions. How can you change those? But I mean laws and regulations. Otherwise you have to admit they don’t exist, on a systematic basis.

Nick Whelan tried to make some comments and he was shouted off stage, because of comments he made a long time ago saying indig-enous people should eat more fish. He apologized for it, and that should be the end of it. But to these fanatics nothing is ever enough. It seems to me they want special treatment, not equal treatment. I’m sure he has said much worse things to many other people, but again, this seems like a special protected group who we can only praise.

Kind of reminds me of how people obsess about se×ism, about comments men make towards women. But men usually make much worse comments towards other men. Take video games for instance. They will say these are not welcome environments for women. As if the gamers should be complimenting them and being chivalrous. At the same time however, men are bashing other men in a much more derogatory manner.

Let land sell for market value

Government officials don’t allow certain land to be used in Labrador for anything but farming. But it could be worth a lot more for other purposes. Also it can’t be passed down. If it can be more valuable, this is the government destroying more wealth, as usual:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/byrne-farming-agriculture-land-1.4248439

 

Don Pittis is Pitiful

Don Pittis writes the most pathetic articles for CBC. Not as bad as Neil Macdonald who doesn’t even write articles but just blabs on about hwo much he loathes conservatives. Anyway Don Pittis is a text-book Keynesian and probably socialist. He can see the dark lining of every white fluffy cloud. He has no idea how the market works. He takes the banal and ever-so-common attitude that the market is stupid, can’t adjust to supply and demand and must be regulated by our government overlords. His articles are predictable and pitiful.

 

Average income goes up? Don Pittis writes about income inequality.

More technology jobs created? Don Pittis writes about the loss of low-end low-wage jobs.

Business profits up? Well, let’s not even go there, that’s just bad news to him.

 

I doubt he even took a single course in economics. He believes in financial stimuli and heavy government control of all aspects of society. He is strongly biased and seeks to prove his anti-conservative bona fides all the time.

 

Why didn’t Pittis write about the low unemployment rate now in the US? Oh right, because Trµmp is in power.

 

Don never talks about the miracles of the market, probably because he sees the market as a threat rather than an opportunity, unless of course it’s a government sponsored green initiative. Then it’s innovative.

 

Practically everything he writes is about the Keynesian concept of boom and bust. To him, it’s absolutely inevitable and for some reason he must write about an inevitability. It’s like being in charge of the physics section of a newspaper and constantly writing about gravity. Or simply stating it exists. Predictably Don Pitti-ful never blames the government for the boom and bust cycle through currency and inflation manipulation, which is the real culprit. That wouldn’t be allowed at CBC.

 

Like Neil Macdonald, Don Pittis has the easiest job ever. Do no research and just sit at a computer and type of random articles about the same thing every week. Glad we are paying these guys hundreds of thousands of dollars. Well, to Pittis that kind of make-work project would be considered an economic stimulus so I’m sure he’s in favor.

Stupid people electing smart people to lead them?

Why do we think some people have to be our overlords? I think for most things people can get along just fine and this has been proven. But government officials always try to interject themselves. Mutual agreements and understanding are a good thing. But think about it. People are allegedly too stupid to make good decisions, but they are smart enough to elect politicians who will make the good decisions for them on their behalf for millions of people. Something wrong with this “logic”.