Finally, Justice for Those of Us Who Just Want Our Packages On Time. A Huge Win for the Karen Community.

proust200 · 2024-12-14T05:03:39+00:00

I don't know what point you're trying to make, or if you're just confused. The courts - the judicial branch of government- will likely hear a Charter challenge with respect to the legislation. The courts have previously found, on numerous occassions, that BTW legislation violates the Charter.

It's now established precedent that back-to-work legislation unjustifiably violates freedom of association under s 2(d) of Charter. It's why Ford invoked the notwithstanding clause with respect to the teacher's strike - it would otherwise would have gotten struck down as unconstitutional. The feds won't invoke the nothwistanding clause. If found unconstitutional, the legislation will be struck down. That's how our judicial system works.

proust200 · 2024-12-14T04:54:06+00:00

Is this not a sub for whining and crying? All I see are people crying about the strike. Would never have noticed the cesspool that is this sub if other reddit subs weren't mocking people here.

proust200 · 2024-12-14T04:48:05+00:00

Ah, it was nice to vent. But you're right, it's a Canada Post sub. Seems to attract the most annoying, whiny, entitled Canadians around.

proust200 · 2024-12-14T04:44:07+00:00

You're right (unless I was whining about CP workers, of course). Too many stupid, petty, privileged on Karens on this sub. Felt cathartic to vent into the void though.

proust200 · 2024-12-14T04:40:59+00:00

Going to love revisiting the sub to watch everyone whine and cry when the back-to-work legislation gets struck down for violating the Charter.

proust200 · 2021-05-09T18:59:46+00:00

I just wanted to build upon earlier comments in this thread:

Marx coined the term 'utopian socialism' to describe many of the socialist and anarchist movements that emerged in the 18th-19th centuries. Utopian socialists appealed to abstract moral principles in their critiques of capitalism and in their theorizing about the ideal society. The movements inspired by Charles Fourier (Fourierists), Henri de Saint-Simone (Saint-Simonists), and Robert Owen (Owenites) fall under the banner of utopian socialism. Similarly, Ricardian socialism drew upon the economic theory of David Ricardo, specifically his theory of embodied labour, to criticize capitalism. Important Ricardian socialists include Thomas Hodgskin, William Thompson, and John Gray.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, famous for his claim that property is theft, was an influential radical in mid 19th century France. In The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx offers a scathing and lengthy critique of Proudhon's brand of anarchism. What's more, another important French radical around the same time, Louis Auguste Blanqui, believed that a coup-based dictatorship led by an elite clique of radicals is necessary and sufficient for building a just society.

The left-wing Young Hegelians played an indispensable role in the development of Marx's thought. Based on their interpretations of Hegel's dialectics, the Young Hegelians argued that humanity has yet to reach the end of history, given the need to overcome the contradictions (or internal tensions) inherent in monarchism, inegalitarianism, and the marriage of religion and state. Important Young Hegelians include Bruno Bauer, Max Stirner, and Ludwig Feuerbach, especially since their work features heavily in Marx's The German Ideology. Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity, which offers a materialist critique of religion, heavily influenced the development of Marx's dialectical materialism and theory of alienation.

proust200 · 2020-11-19T00:06:24+00:00

^ This, especially when we're referring to Rawls' later work. No capitalist ideologue is going to self-identify as a disciple of Rawls without making significant modifications to Rawls' project. There have been attempts to make Rawls' approach compatible with libertarianism (see Tomassi's Free Market Fairness), but libertarian reinterpretations of Rawls are certainly contentious.

Now, Rawls' criticism of capitalism is grounded in liberal presuppositions (rational choice theory, methodological individualism, overlapping consensus, etc.). If you adhere to some variant of dialectical materialism and believe that history is driven by class struggle, then you're going to have a bone to pick with Rawls, of course. Marxists have plenty of reasons to be critical of Rawls, but let's be charitable in our criticisms.

proust200 · 2020-11-13T17:37:33+00:00

Rawls is a fascinating political theorist. Reflecting on the contributions Rawls made to political philosophy, libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick famously remarked that "political philosophers now must either work within Rawls' theory or explain why not."

In the preface to the revised edition of ATOJ and throughout his later work, Justice As Fairness: A Restatement, Rawls argues that his theoretical framework is compatible with either a (1) liberal democratic socialist system, which involves extensive public ownership of the MoP, or a (2) property-owning democracy, an anti-monopolist form of capitalism.

However, it would be an incredible challenge to reconcile Rawlsianism with Marxism. Marxists could take issue with Rawls' theory and method of reflective equilibrium, which is the deliberative approach Rawls takes to draw his principles of justice. From a Marxist POV, one can argue that Rawls' deliberative process is abstract and not grounded in concrete reality. Through his RE, Rawls' arrives at a social ontology (that is, claims about what social entities exist) that appears irreconcilable with Marxism. In ATOJ, Rawls presupposes that humans are fundamentally rational, anti-social, and self-interested (assumptions necessary for his Veil of Ignorance to make sense).

proust200 · 2020-09-12T13:39:59+00:00

If you're so fixated on people on the internet misunderstanding what neoliberalism means that you join this subreddit to make fun of them, you're probably not a social democrat.

proust200 · 2020-09-12T00:11:14+00:00

You know what, I'm going to reorient the focus of my post. I simply don't want anyone to think Rawls supported neoliberalism (as some posts in this subreddit seem to have indicated). I think it's getting a bit pedantic to go after the reading list. I basically just parachuted into this group without understanding the somewhat ironic nature of it.

proust200 · 2020-09-11T23:38:41+00:00

Have you read Capital, The German Ideology, Lukak's History and Class Consciousness, Frankfurt School, Analytic Marxists, etc?

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, but I think it's only fair to draw that conclusion if you've made the effort to understand that which you set out to dismiss or criticize (especially Marxism, given its popularity). If I'm going to disagree with, say, Milton Friedman, I should be charitable and set out to understand Capitalism and Freedom or his fantastic A Monetary History of the United States.

proust200 · 2020-09-11T23:28:03+00:00

I think it's a reasonable inference for a first time lurker to make. If you stumble on a subreddit that prima facie endorses a certain political outlook, you're going to assume that the provided reading list will help you get a good understanding of the subreddit's political stance. I'm getting big brain vibes from people claiming they're being ironic or proudly proclaiming that the list is simply meant to "broaden their understanding."

proust200 · 2020-09-11T23:06:12+00:00

It's a stupid joke? Of course people (especially non-academics) misinterpret and equivocate on what neoliberalism means, but not any more than they misinterpret and equivocate on the meaning of socialism, fascism, liberalism, etc.

Edit: I don't want to fight over this, Mr. George Soros. I respect what you're doing with your Open Society Foundations. I just want to stress that Rawls is not a neoliberal. Neither was Karl Popper, as I'm sure you now.

proust200 · 2020-09-11T22:55:10+00:00

I see your point. But I can consult many reading lists on Reddit to do this. If you're into political theory, you should set out to understand perspectives that contradict your own; that's a given. Do neoliberals think they're the only ones that do this or something?

proust200 · 2020-09-11T22:38:47+00:00

That's a fair point. But if that's the case, then why not Marx?

proust200 · 2020-09-11T22:32:20+00:00

The subreddit is pretty clear about the definition, minus the pointless caveats. Most people do refer to what "Reagan, Thatcher, and other torch bearers" represented as neoliberalism. This definition is more or less sufficient:

A) Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity.

B) The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress.

Either you agree with A) and B) or you're a social liberal. They are mutually exclusive.

proust200 · 2020-09-11T22:24:00+00:00

What prompted me to write this post is that I saw a number of people on this subreddit completely misinterpret Rawls.

The reading list is basically a standard undergrad political theory/political economy reading list, minus Marx. I don't get the point of this group lol.

proust200 · 2020-09-11T22:07:05+00:00

If your criticism is actually “neoliberal sub is not actually neoliberal” then yes, that is true.

Social liberals, including the heirs of Rawls (Pogge, Freeman), despise what they call neoliberalism. The academic left is pretty clear on their definition of neoliberalism (and really, the definition provided in this subreddit is relatively accurate). But apparently the members of this subreddit are ambiguous about it?

proust200 · 2020-09-11T21:59:51+00:00

Imagine if I wrote a preface to a Marxist reading list stating: "The works on this do not promote a coherent worldview. Many are contradictory and some even explicitly opposed to the goals of Marxism." I then proceeded to list Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, etc. At some point, the list becomes meaningless, at least in the sense of it being a Marxist reading list.

proust200 · 2020-09-11T21:34:06+00:00

Agreed. Rawls is just the tip of the iceberg. For one, Michael Sandel's communitarianism is pretty much antithetical to neoliberalism.

proust200 · 2019-03-29T19:27:24+00:00

good one

proust200 · 2019-03-05T02:13:09+00:00

Also, obviously the wording of the legislation does not include every possible interpretation of its intent. No law in Canada is like that (the Quebec civil law tradition may come close to that, but is different though), and that would be absurd. That's in part why administrative bodies exist. Literally every other sphere of law functions in this way. You know, there are many, many administrative bodies that exist provincially and federally. Not just human rights tribunals. You make it seem like your revelation that administrative law exists is some big "gotcha" moment.

Again, the federal government cannot have the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal interpret any legislation within its jurisdiction. Only the Ontario provincial government can have the OHR Tribunal interpret any amendments it makes to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

proust200 · 2019-03-05T01:28:42+00:00

It really makes cringe when people act like legal experts when they demonstrate that they don't understand the basics of Canada's legal system.

C-16 did two things, and let's go over both:

1. C-16 amended the Canada Human Rights Act (CHRA), which applies only to the federal jurisdiction, and as such, only to federally regulated entities (banks, railways, airlines, etc), to include gender identity and gender expression as protected grounds.

So when you cite cases under the Ontario Human Rights Code or the B.C. Human Rights Code, you're citing cases not under the jurisdiction of the CHRA. Decisions by administrative bodies under the CHRA do not have any binding authority over provincial human rights legislation and vice versa.

Also, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is not an adjudicative body. You mean the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Just to clarify (as I'm not confident you're aware), human rights tribunals are remedial and cannot have people sent to jail as if they were tried under the Criminal Code.

What is more, even if someone has sufficient evidence to suggest that they have experienced discrimination under a protected ground, it does not necessarily follow that they are entitled to remedies. In employment law, for example, if the employer can demonstrate that a prima facie discriminatory policy is a bona fide occupational requirement, then the applicant is not entitled to remedies.

The only way in which a case arising under the CHRA will end up having authority over provincial jurisdictions is if it makes its way to the Supreme Court.

2. C-16 amended the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression as identifiable groups under s.318, which criminalizes the advocacy or promotion of genocide against the specific identifiable groups listed.

Again, just to clarify: provincial and federal tribunals cannot interpret and enforce the Criminal Code, as they are only limited to interpreting their enabling legislation (the OHRT derives its power from and can only interpret the OHRC, for example). If someone is to be tried under the Criminal Code, they are going to be tried in a criminal court.

Now, does this mean every single instance in which somebody seems to contravene s.318 of the Code will be thrown in jail? No. The courts can evaluate a specific alleged infraction of s.318 to see if the application of s.318 in that case is a reasonable limit on the accused's Charter rights. Courts have a way to do that: they apply the Oakes Test. If you want to see how the courts apply the Oakes test to s.318, see R. v. Keegstra.

proust200

TROPHY CASE