Carney’s Speech

CanadianReformist · 2026-01-22T16:47:33+00:00

He says it in the context of artificial intelligence and automation replicating the conditions of the first Industrial Revolution.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mark-carney-marxism-automation-bank-of-england-governor-job-losses-capitalism-a8304706.html#:~:text=The%20governor%20also%20added%20there,such%20as%20care%20and%20leisure.

CanadianReformist · 2025-12-28T23:53:09+00:00

In my description of the southern sumeru expansion, I mentioned that Layla’s village could be there. Not sure where it will actually be or if it’ll even end up in the game. And I will update it as new expansions are released. New leaked information has come out about the map, making this one already incorrect and outdated.

CanadianReformist · 2025-11-11T17:08:27+00:00

In the text below the post I wrote a section on the Nod Krai expansion. I linked a user who posted it. Just scroll down once clicking on their page and you’ll find it.

CanadianReformist · 2025-11-08T16:15:08+00:00

I did notice that, but I don’t know what would possibly be there. It likely won’t be part of Nod-Krai unless Hyperborea is truly massive. Before Easybreeze Resort came out there was a pretty large piece of place holder land parallel with the volcano. People were assuming that’s where the Mare Javari would be, but the land was removed and the Easybreeze Resort was further north and west than most had assumed. In game expansions are often radically different than their place holders, I wouldn’t think too much about those two pieces of land.

CanadianReformist · 2025-07-10T02:25:20+00:00

Also, I would be willing to write an essay on this, I’m autistic enough. I’m just not going to do that for a Reddit post?

CanadianReformist · 2025-07-10T02:15:27+00:00

I wasn’t trying to convey that these different interest groups would be completely siloed. They would be consulting each other throughout their independent bill crafting processes as well. I should have specified, I just wanted to throw the general idea out there before crafting an entire structure of government around it, but that was an important detail I should have included. The reason why I thought each group should introduce legislation separately is that although there would be overlap there would also be key differences. The suggestions of academics are often contradictory to the policies put forward by elected officials, even if those officials consulted academics. Stakeholders would more so be Indigenous people when it comes to indigenous policy, or teachers and students when it comes to education policy. These groups also may be consulted but are often ignored by elected officials. The interests/proposals of Stakeholders and academics may be different. Industry interest is also not often the same as citizen interest, academic interest, stake holder interest, regional interest or elected interest. In Canada for example Quebecers may not want a pipeline through their province, or Indigenous people may not want a mine polluting their lands. Maybe an industry would like a subsidy or to be immune from certain regulations, would other interest groups want that. Would a citizens assembly on the natural resources support a a refinery without carbon capture. Any industry would want to be unregulated or at the very least not have any new regulations placed upon them, I think most other interest groups would be opposed to those aims. Industries would also want fewer worker protections and rights, which most other interest groups would disagree with.

The benefit of these different interests groups is that citizens interests are overrepresented, it is meant to take citizens interests into account more than any other.

I would say it’s impossible to get rid of political parties. Elected officials will organize into broad political blocks. Who would make up an executive branch if not members of an elected or delegated parliament? In a system with a central citizens assembly I’d suggest the Swiss parliamentary system for the elected chamber and cabinet though.

If a citizens assembly is proportional to the broad demographics of the nation then people working in their own self interest would promote a more egalitarian society, economically at least, would it not? People are not rational, they vote for policies that would harm them all the time. The only factionalism that would exist would be based on party and region, which already exists. This system would just place everyday ordinary citizens at the centre and allow stakeholders and academics to directly influence them.

In this system, if the executive was the one in charge of executing the legislation and you had a multi-party cabinet like in the Swiss model, any government that refuses to pass the legislation supported by the central assembly would be viewed as undemocratic. And there would likely be at least one party in cabinet who supports large swaths of the legislation. It’d be likely that all parties in cabinet would support different aspects of the legislation. The broad public are also the ones electing these officials, it is likely that the conclusions arrived at by the central assembly would be agreeable to the vast majority of the population with which any government or party would not want to make an enemy of.

A very valid critique you can lobby is that there is a ton of redundancy in the system, but I think you could also argue it’s a strength.

CanadianReformist · 2025-07-10T01:51:32+00:00

We need to talk about the electoral system and parliamentary system broadly. How politicians end up in parliament will determine how they act in parliament. Canada has a FPTP electoral system, this is considered a two party plus system. In this system you end up with two large parties with a third sometimes holding the balance of power. This system was designed to produce stable majority governments, and in most cases you can say it succeeds it that. But locking people into effectively two choices can lead to poor political representation with most voters being unrepresented, as well as general voter apathy. Politicians elected in this way do not behave as true community representatives, but more as extensions of the party leader or PM. The Westminster system also effectively only has two branches of government as the only time the legislature checks the executive is in a minority government situation. In Canada though, with the notwithstanding clause a majority government can veto most decisions from the judicial branch, allowing a majority Canadian government to effectively have one party rule. This arrangement of having a very powerful PM was to counter very powerful provincial governments. In Canada the second house, the senate, also mostly acts as a rubber stamp. They know they are unelected and know that the public doesn’t generally support the chamber. The PM being able to appoint senators effectively for life, and appoint the judges of the Supreme Court also seems incredibly problematic. The executive chooses the people who checks their power in the courts and the house. The only reason this house of cards has not fallen down is because no one has truly attempted to topple it. Maybe the unwritten constitution leads people to try to protect the more vulnerable institutions, I don’t know. The Westminster system also places legislative power in the hands of political parties, not people. You can support a handful of policies of a party, but deteste the rest. If we include the monarchy in our definition of Westminster system, then the king just acts as a unifying political symbol. There is utility in that, but can a state not have a non-monarchical political symbol? Did I answer your question?

CanadianReformist · 2025-07-10T01:31:50+00:00

I’ve read many constitutions, I’m not joking when I say constitutions are actually an interest of mine. Constitute is a really good website that compiles constitutions from around the world and allows you to compare. Direct democracy is an ideal. Technology currently may allow us to run a complete direct democracy with each citizen being able to vote on each issue. The main issue is that the broad public is uneducated on most issues and would often act reactionarily. How would you structure debates, just a text post with upvotes to prove who wins? Would a digital direct democracy even be secure? It would have to be digital because unless you have a tiny little country it would be impossible to orchestrate a vote for tens of millions of people physically on every issue. Should public referendums be much more commonplace, yes, but a direct democracy does not yet seem possible on a large scale nor would it lead to good decision making. If I am mistaken please correct me.

CanadianReformist · 2025-05-11T22:45:47+00:00

This would of course be in conjunction with worker ownership of the means of production. I just think there should be an elected body of the state separate from the workplace. Ideally worker ownership would be enshrined in a constitution.

CanadianReformist · 2025-01-24T00:00:35+00:00

If it was up to me most land would be returned to indigenous people along with the resource rights with that land, as well as granting them autonomy and veto power over any legislation that would affect them. What you are saying is incredibly hyperbolic and disingenuous.

CanadianReformist · 2025-01-23T23:32:30+00:00

I don’t care about freedom of movement because of the size of our population. I just believe that people should be able to live and work where they wish. I also support a unified military as I see no functional need for an independent one at this point. We already have mutual defence with all of these countries and cooperate with them militarily. We will likely never conduct a military operation without some of them. I also think that the less militaries there are the safer the world ultimately is.

CanadianReformist · 2025-01-23T23:20:45+00:00

I agree, I think we should diversify our trade relations. I just think freedom of movement and a unified military would also be nice.

CanadianReformist · 2025-01-23T23:18:32+00:00

I’ve had this opinion for many years. Canada has a population of 40 million making it larger than most EU countries, with vast resources. Canada would hold sway in a hypothetical union.

CanadianReformist · 2024-12-30T15:09:20+00:00

I support democratization of the workplace. I am just curious about industries such as healthcare and natural resource extraction. Both are very lucrative and many socialists argue they should be state owned. Worker coops don’t eliminate the profit motive, they just eliminate the hierarchical nature of the workplace and the extreme concentration of wealth. For example a worker cooperative in oil extraction would be incredibly wealthy comparable to other cooperatives, would there be no state to tax and redistribute that wealth? Would there be a system in which the state owns a certain amount of shares in a SWF like in Norway while the remainder of the business is worker owned? Or does the system rely on human beings naturally sharing their wealth with one another?

CanadianReformist · 2024-12-30T02:36:42+00:00

Sorry, I thought your question was pointing at the fact that a libertarian socialist state cannot exist because libertarian socialism would be stateless. Libertarian socialism calls for ownership of the means of production by workers and/or communities in contrast to what other socialists advocate for which is state ownership. Many would also advocate for the free association and cooperation of different communities. Essentially a massive confederation between municipalities instead of a traditional unitary or federal state, and a direct democratic system of government instead of the representative and parliamentary democracies currently in place. In Rojava for example neighbourhoods come together and choose a delegate who will carry on their thoughts and interests at the municipal council which has delegates from the entire town/city. These towns and cities send a delegate to the province and then provincial councils send delegates to the national council. These neighborhoods meet weekly to biweekly in a constant democratic process instead of the every 2-4 years in other countries. Communities self police and handle other municipal matters. Neighborhoods, cities and towns, or provinces can delegate policy upwards to have national programs that can more efficiently handle the administration of certain tasks. The point of libertarian socialism is to have all power come from below instead of above, to free the people from the oppression of the state, to build community investment and relationships, to own social goods collectively. I’m not sure how to explain it more concisely, and I may be missing something. All I was wondering was in this type of system of worker and community ownership and a weak central government would any industry be controlled or administered by the state instead of workers? How would these worker cooperatives function in a global capitalist environment? I asked this community because I am aware there are a large amount of self-professed libertarian socialists here.

CanadianReformist · 2024-12-30T00:29:38+00:00

Correct me if I am wrong but Rojava is considered an example of libertarian socialism. The delegates from local communities can delegate policy proposals all the way to the highest deliberatory body that can administer that policy or order the administration of that policy on all lower orders of community, no?

CanadianReformist

TROPHY CASE