I had an interesting trip the other day. I was attending a CCI Huronia Conference in Barrie.
The event started with singing the Canadian anthem. I was surprised. It would be unimaginable in multicultural Toronto.
Any time I come across the issue of the minimum wage, I think that there is absolutely nothing more to say about it. It has all been said. The data is all there. Then I get struck again by the incredible degree of the political opportunism, cynicism and sleaze. Yes, I am talking about Kathleen Wynne.
No self-respecting economist would argue for the ‘benefits’ of the minimum wage. The idea has ZERO economic value, it is purely political. If you want to see just one set of arguments, you can read my posts on it (Minimum wage – Maximum confusion – A perfect storm – Maximum defense).
The dialog didn’t, doesn’t and won’t die peacefully. Yes, it is still kicking, it is still getting up to feed on the brain of whatever is still alive. The dialog is zombified. Continue reading →
The title of this post is not a mistake. Even though it is ‘the’ autopsy of some dialogs, I would not share it with you if they were not such perfect examples of what is going on in ‘THE’ dialog between the left and the right. The dialog at this point is pretty much dead, and there are many ways to dissect it. Mine is just one attempt.
Doing it feels very much like the situation in the picture above – as if I was dissecting something from another world.
I was observing yet another strange discussion conducted seriously on serious subjects by serious people.
Serious philosophical arguments based on painfully obvious fallacies:
About two months ago I received a forward from a friend with the subject: “Science needs your voice.”
Of course it was baloney. They didn’t need my voice, they were asking for my money. The implied assumption is that their voice is my voice, and what science needs is their political advocacy. Both assumptions are questionable.
I don’t think they would give a lab-rat’s ass for my voice, but I will make it heard anyway.
I met a truly caring person at a dinner party, someone with the best of intentions and a militant attitude about her moral sensibilities. At times, I had the feeling that she was on a constant lookout for things I may say that she can get indignant about.
I had no doubt about her sincerity, I had no doubt that her heart was in the right place.
On whatever subject we discussed, I had no doubt that she took the position she did because she considered it to be the most moral position available. It was clear from her attitude that she would consider any alternative position not just wrong, but outright immoral.
I found myself, as at many other times talking to left-wingers, in front of a dilemma: which aspect should I address: reason or morality? Logic or emotions? How can I step back to talk about the underlying problem, the fact that compassion, feelings and good intentions are NOT moral if the actions they lead to do more harm than good?
The morality of our actions should only be judged by their results, not by the intentions motivating them. All too often, the left uses its good intentions as an excuse to explain away the harm they do.