Larry Hill Democracy

[Raven]

Larry Hill states:

"we believe that Prairie farmers should have the right to control and direct their marketing organization through their democratically elected CWB board of directors."

"We believe it is important to respect democracy and the will of farmers as expressed through a democratic process. ... as farmers, we have the right to run our own organization."

Support for the pursuits of Larry Hill and his ilk can be found in excerpts of a scholarly and intellectual book:

“To render possible a conscious planned development of the economy and social life generally [or single-desk marketing], it is necessary to carry out a socialist revolution, abolish capitalism [free market selling] and build a socialist society [prairie wheat farmers].” [DONE]

“The free market with its anarchy and competition is replaced by scientific, planned control. [by the clever CWB bureaucrats].” [DONE]

“The economic foundation of socialism is public ownership [single-desk], which unites and consolidates people, excluding from the life of society [farmers] anarchy and cut-throat competition, the unbridled rule of the market.” [DONE]

“control is to prevent any component [farmer] of significance to the system [single-desk] from dropping out of it” [DONE]

“The paramount role of control over people … refers not to the abolition of control in general, but to the withering away of political state control … it is performed by the citizens [farmers] themselves through their elected representatives … Control under socialism is genuinely democratic” [UN-DONE BY THE COURTS]

The book is: The SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT OF SOCIETY by V.G. Afanasyev published in the USSR in 1971.

[parsley]

Larry Hill seems the exact kind of guy who would read, endorse, and work to implement the social engineering of a 1971 communist.

You left Russia? Pars

[tipsy]

If Mr Hill and the other militant directors who strongly expound in democracy, believed its important to respect democracy and the will of farmers, then prairie producers would have market choice for malting barley and probable the minor classes of wheat by now. I once heard the statement that you judge a person by what they do not by what they say. Their actions prove that they only believe in a true socialist western wheat board regardless of what prairie produces want.

[Fransisco]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba

[bucket]

The word "we" in people's statements is quite interesting.

The problem is, there is no "we" at the end of the statements. Could the "we" please stand up and be counted.



Where are the "WE" people?

[TOM4CWB]

Bucket et el;

I believe the problem is this simple:

What moral ethical standards do we stand by?

Chairman Hill... just like Chairman Ritter before him... have lost the fundamental ethical standards that built Canada:

1a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you,
b) Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you;
2a) Do not infringe upon the Rights, Freedoms or Property of others, and
b) Keep all contracts willingly, knowingly and intentionally.
3a) That for every wrong there is a remedy,
b) The end does not justify the means,
c) Fundamental principals cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent apparent hardship in a particular case,
d) Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law,
e) Two wrongs do not make a right, and
f) One can enlarge the rights of the people; however they cannot be taken away without their informed consent.


Without these universal standards that were the fabric of western civilization... what do we have?

The populist and citizen is required to stand and fight for these principals;

BUT government/institutions and politicians (those elected to make decisions) are above being responsible to treat the citizen in the same manner they expect to be the standard they will be respected and treated by!

Is there any wonder this civilisation is headed over a cliff? The CWB is a symptom of a very huge disaster just waiting to happen!

When will the citizen be expected to treat politicians like they treat us?

[Raven]

Bucket, I think it is more understandable if you replace "WE" with "WE SOCIALISTS"

[Raven]

TOM4CWB,

Isn't the CWB a social microcosm of the old (and failed) collectivist system in an otherwise free market world?

From Wikipedia:

"Social Microcosms are miniature spheres of distinctly separate human interaction and behavior within a city, country, or planet."

[stubblejumper]

It is hard to believe that so called christians try to play the religion card just because they are in a minority. The CWB will cease to exist at some time in the future, that is a given. It should and can not happen in a democratic country untill the majority of the producers affected decide it is time.

[Fransisco]

Stubble, the CWB is not a democratic country. And Canada is a parliamentary democracy not a bureaucratic one like they have in Cuba.

Furthermore the courts have ruled, once again, that it is the Feds who are in charge. You seem to think that you can ignore the rule of law in a parliamentary democracy.

[agstar77]

I guess if it's okay for Steve, when he prorogued parliament, should be good enough for the rest of us.

[gregpet]

Hey Agstar it was good enough for Chretien:

Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament four times during his time as Prime Minister: February 5, 1996; September 18, 1999; September 16, 2002; and November 12, 2003.

* On each occasion, the Liberals killed their own legislation. Several bills ended up dying over and over again due to Liberals proroguing Parliament or calling early elections.

* September 16, 2002 – After a summer of Liberal in-fighting and Jean Chretien being forced to announce his planned retirement date in August, Chretien prorogued Parliament, killing legislation so that he could unveil his legacy agenda.

* According [to] Eddie Goldenberg, Chretien decided to have a Throne Speech just to test the will of the Martinite forces who were trying to push him out early: Chretien was happy. “I like that. It is exactly what we just discussed. Prepare me a statement. But just one more thing,” said the old fox. “I want a Throne Speech in the fall. The government will stand or fall on it. If they want to vote against me on it, then it is the one case in which I will run again.” (Eddie Goldenberg, The Way it Works, p. 380)

* November 12, 2003 – Jean Chretien announced that Parliament was prorogued on the eve of the Liberal leadership convention (so Chretien and Martin didn’t have to sit together in the House of Commons and face a dispute over who was Prime Minister). Martin did not become Prime Minister until December 12, 2003 and Parliament did not resume until February 2, 2004 – almost four months later

* The current session has lasted as long as many comparable sessions under the Liberals, and longer than several of the sessions under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.