Ontario Provincial Confederation of Regions Party

[bcholmes]

So I spent a bit of time poking around the Confederation of Regions party site. I'm against this party.

Do I Agree With Them?	CoR Platform
No	Direct Democracy -- CoR is against representational democracy, instead favouring referendums to decide matters of public policy. I am attracted to this attitude to a certain extent, but feel that there are a whole slew of complications that need to be thought through. Especially with regards to human rights and minorities. Additionally, CoR is against voting along party lines, and I support voting along party lines.
No.	Responsible fiscal management by government -- I am of the opinion that this is code for "we want to pay fewer taxes". I believe that the government should be financial responsible. But I don't think anyone wants otherwise, so I don't see why any party feels that this is a distinguisher. What I think CoR means is that they don't want money spent on things that they don't like. I support a lot of the things that they don't like. I also believe in taxes.
Yes and No	Health Care -- CoR believes in socialized health care (which I also believe in), in some form of user fees (which I don't believe in), and they are against two-tiered health care (which I am also against).
No	Single Publically-Funded School System -- CoR is basically saying that they oppose the Catholic School system. I do think that the Catholic School system is a historical oddity that doesn't really mean a whole lot in modern Canada. I also think that it's crazy to have a provincially-funded Catholic School system while at the same time refusing to fund other alternative religious school systems. But more importantly, I believe that CoR would be against other types of alternative schools
No	English Language as the official language of Ontario
No	We do not favour officially funded multiculturalism -- I think this platform item speaks volumes about CoR's attitudes
Yes	Protection of agricultural land -- I'm fairly wishy-washy about genetically modified food. I probably just don't know enough about the topic.
No	Finance -- I don't understand this section. They say that they're opposed to "takeovers by large international conglomerates, with out obligation to observe our laws". I'm just simply opposed to large international conglomerates, period. Then they say, "We are opposed to militant socialism in the form of undisciplined unions driving companies to upstakes and leave the country", which, y'know... speaks volumes. (Who are these "undisciplined unions"?)

Comments

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

The original articles that I'd read that pointed out the problems also mentioned that genetic modification might be the salvation in this case. I think that all of this depends on how widely you define, "genetically modified." We've been selectively breeding for centuries, and it does produce many of the same kinds of problems. Many people tread the recent techniques as some kind of evil without realizing that you can get the same negative results the old-fashioned way.

I tend to assume that everybody (including myself) is a biased source of information, and that there are always more sides to the story than I'm seeing.

I think that there certainly are good things to be said for genetic modification, as well as for breeding and other things which can be used to promote diversity, promote hardiness, etc. The big problems come when you get a serious reduction in diversity, and that seems to be a major issue with allowing commerce in an increasingly heterogenous market most of the say in these issues. The free market will generally encourage the mass production of the most successful variants, and you can't exactly tell a company that a certain percentage of their crop has to be comprised of less popular strains.