Mon
Apr 19 2010 1:10pm
SEED: Field of Dreams

Remember PBS? 3-2-1 Contact, Reading Rainbow, Ghostwriter ... Okay, forget nostalgia. Public television now looks into the future with programs such as FutureStates, a series of short films by eleven award-winning indie filmmakers depicting their particular visions of the near future world.

Now, I often like my science drowned by a good wash of fiction, so that any parallels to real life can be entertaining, as opposed to scary as all hell.

Unfortunately, Hugo Perez’ SEED deals with the ominous (and already existing) scenario of genetically engineered seeds and a future where farmers pay exorbitant annual fees to “license” seeds—instead of buying and owning them—and face lawsuits from corporations should “un-licensed” plants (from one of the “copyrighted” seeds) appear on their farmland.

Hugo explains the agricultural takeover much better than I do, though! Read on for an interview.

I hear that you have come from the near future to warn us about the dangers our society faces today. Is that true?

If I confirmed that to you, I might interfere with the timestream and lead to the very catastrophe I am trying to avert so I cannot answer your question at this time. Let’s move on to the next question.

I was really excited to hear that you were working on your first science fiction film. Can you talk about the circumstances that led to your making the film?

Independent Television Service, aka ITVS, is an organization that funds independent films for broadcast on public television. Mainly, or almost entirely documentaries, the kind you might see on POV or Independent Lens. In the last few years, they wanted to get their feet wet with narrative, and also experiment with online broadcasting, and also reach out to younger audiences. And they came up with the idea of doing a web based series of short films that reflected on issues our world faces today through the lens of the near future. What came out of that is FutureStates.

So FutureStates is the name of the series?

FutureStates is the name of the series that you can find at FutureStates.tv. The first season is made up of 11 short films by award-winning indie directors, each with their own particular vision of our world in the near future. Sadly, most of us see dystopias rather than utopias. As a director, I’m in great company with people like Greg Pak, whom I went to Yale with, Rahmin Bahrani, Tze Chun, and a bunch of other great filmmakers.

What can you tell us about the film?

The film is titled SEED, and I like to think of it as retro near-future rural noir. That’s a mouthful, huh? It’s a story about the conflict between a father and a son set against the backdrop of a world in which a biotech company that I made up, the Mendelian Corporation, controls the worlds entire seed supply, the seeds are all genetically engineered, and heirloom (natural seeds) are outlawed because they are “a danger” to the food supply. The father is a farmer who skirts the law on occasion, and the son is a member of the Sprouts, a corporate youth indoctrination program that’s a cross between the boy scouts and Hitler youth. So there’s a conflict between the way the son and the father see the world that leads to a moment of crisis in the film.

Where did you come up with the idea?

A few years ago I started to read in the newspapers about how just a few companies control most of the world’s seed supply. The stories reported that increasingly those seeds are genetically engineered, and farmers are forced to ‘license’ the seeds rather than buy them. What that means is that farmers can’t re-use their seeds from year to year. They need to re-up their license or sometimes face being sued by the seed company if they violate their licensing agreement. Even worse than that is that it is alleged that the seed companies hire people to ‘inspect’ farms and if they discover that somehow one of your cornstalks or plants is grown from one of their copyrighted seeds, they will sue you.

So this part is real? This isn’t the future? This is really happening today?

Well, based on the newspaper stories that I’ve read, this is happening today. In my opinion, it seems like parts of farm-country in this country and Canada are being run like a giant protection racket in 1920’s Prohibition era Chicago. There are these agents or reps that are loosely associated with the seed companies that inspect fields and if they find copyrighted seed crops then the farmer gets sued for copyright infringement. Farmers can’t afford to fight the big companies so they settle with the companies, sometimes having to agree to destroy their entire crop and sign agreements that they will only use company seed from now on. Think about it. What happens if a bird picks up a seed from a farm that licenses the GMO seeds and then drops it on your farm and it grows into a plant and someone discovers it. Is that all it takes for a company to have grounds for a lawsuit? And from the stories that I read, there are people who also believe that sometimes GMO seeds are planted on farms so that the company can ‘find’ the copyright infringement and sue the farmer. It seems like a real X-Files kind of scenario but that is just my humble opinion.

And you expanded on that idea?

Yes. SEED is completely fiction. I just imagined what would happen if disease or blight wiped out a large portion of our food supply for a year or a few years. I envisioned a situation where a company would step in and say that they have the solution to our food shortages in their GMO seeds, and by the way why don’t we ban hierloom seeds because they are susceptible to disease and a danger to the food supply, and by the way we’ll now control the world’s entire seed supply because our seeds are the safest. What kind of political power would that give a company, and how would they enforce a ban on heirloom seeds? Despite the fears of the tea party movement about a left-wing take-over of our country, it seems to me the greatest danger of totalitarian or centrally controlled power in this country comes from the huge amount of power and influence that corporations have today. It’s not a question of right wing/left wing so much as who has enough money to influence public policies.

As a director how did you achieve the feeling of a near future world?

Let me first say that world-building on a small scale film is challenging. That being said, I felt that the best way to create a world that was convincing was to make it as close to our own world as possible but with some subtle accents or highlights to indicate that we are in a reality like our own, but not our own. And then I couldn’t help adding in certain retro elements like the uniforms and Phillips’ company car (A black checkercab which we slapped the Mendelian logo on). A few people have commented that some of the aesthetic vibe of the world I’ve created is inspired by the aesthetics of the Cuban revolution and that’s probably true. The Sprouts are a tip of my hat to the young pioneers of Cuba (Los Pioneros). But then again, any centrally controlled ideological political movement of the 20th Century, left wing or right wing, from Hitler to Mao to Franco, has seen the value of indoctrinating the young... as well as the value of stylish uniforms. Did you know that three years ago, the New York Times reported that Hugo Boss made uniforms for the Nazis?

I did not know that. That’s kind of frightening. And not a good seque into my next question... How did you find your cast?

I was really fortunate that my friend, collaborator, and the fantastic actor Adrian Martinez recommended some of his fellow members from the acclaimed Labyrinth Theatre Company, Yul Vazquez and Julian Acosta, who I cast as Phillips and Mateo. Actors of that caliber really bring a lot to the table and become collaborators and partners in shaping the characters. The other great discovery was Sebastian Villada who plays Juan. I saw him in a fantastic indie feature Entre Nos which was his first film. SEED is only the second film he’s done but he’s a natural. By the way in addition to SEED, Yul Vazquez can be seen this summer in The A-Team reboot as a bad guy. If you watch the second A-Team new trailer, you can see him punching out Bradley Cooper.

What are some of your favorite recent SF films?

I thought District 9 was awesome if a little uneven. Moon was great. And Alfonso Cuarón hit it out of the ballpark with Children of Men. I think if there’s a new wave of sci-fi films that reflect on our world in a speculative way in the vein of the great Sci-Fi of the 60s and 70s, these films are at the forefront. And I think they are just the tip of the iceberg of social commentary sci-fi that we’ll be seeing in the next few years.

What are you working on now?

Among other things, I am working on a feature screenplay of SEED. I feel like there’s a lot more in that world that I want to explore, getting into the backstory of Mateo and Phillips and how they chose the paths that brought them to the moment where SEED takes place. I’m also working on a couple of dark comedies: one of them I like to describe as Amelie meets Glengarry Glen Ross and it’s set against the backdrop of the Brooklyn real estate market and the clash of old world and new world in neighborhoods like Williamsburg.

Thanks for taking the time to talk to us.

No, no. Thank you!

*

Stay posted on what Hugo is up to at his website, www.m30afilms.com.

21 comments
zaldar
1. zaldar
Of course we are neglecting to mention the fact that the seeds they are using are better so some things have improved and should not the people who make the seeds, market them, and do the science to make them get paid? Not in a crazy communist society like Mr. Chavez would want I suppose. The normal seeds would still exist and could still be used if so desired the idea that the genetically modified seeds would "take over" is overblown. In fact it wouldn't make business sense to allow that to happen, then you couldn't make money off of it because if you didn't buy the seeds but you ended up producing them when yours got fertilized no one could fault you. So the seeds usually are made sterile, a very easy scientific procedure. As a scientist and especially a biochemist I find this kind of anti-science, anti-capitalist "science fiction" horrendous.
zaldar
2. Mr Dirt
This scenario is already happening today. Farmer's can purchase genetically engineered seeds. And these same farmers are then not allowed to let genetically engineered seeds produce plants that are allowed to go to seed for the next seasons planting so that a farmer can recoup his investment and increase his profit. Instead, he can be and is sued if he doesn't purchase seeds the following year and/or if any seeds happen to fall or get accidently spread to adjacent land plots by birds, wind, or the unforeseen act of nature. There are seed squads on patrol, working for the corporations, constantly looking for violators and working to put anyone out of business who stands in their way. What was seemingly a service to the local farmer has become an insidious money printing machine for corporate greed trapping farmers in a cycle they can't break out of, and perhaps bastardizing our food supply both by wresting control of it from free market forces and the nutritional content of the food we eat. Watch the amazing documentary, FOOD Inc., for further illumination. It wouldn't surprise me by the tone of Zaldar's comments, that he is somehow connected to the amazing message management and misinformation machine operated by these corporations that are also paralyzing fair minded legislation that is intended to protect individuals and their basic freedoms around the very ideas that Hugo Perez explores in his film. Seed is not science fiction. It is science fact. I suspect zaldar wants to protect his paycheck at the expense of humanity.
Tikitu de Jager
3. tikitu
If you like this sort of freak-out scenario, several stories in Paolo Bacigalupi's Pump Six are set in a similar dystopia (as I believe is The Windup Girl). It takes the paranoia one step further: in his vision the multinationals supplying engineered crops also released diseases that only their crops were resistant to.
zaldar
4. trench
wow Zaldar, your suprised to find science-fiction on this site?

I found this interview intresting and Ill definelty check this out.
René Walling
5. cybernetic_nomad
@zaldar: I find your ignorance of the political and ethical issues involved in your profession quite worrying. Thinking about these issues and the consequences of the actions of a group motivated solely by profit is not anti-science, nor does it make you a communist to want some sort of control over the food supply.

Your comment is proof people need to be more aware of what goes on in the production of the food we eat. SEED may provide the basis for reflection on these matters, much of Pablo Bacilagupi's fiction certainly does.
Mike Conley
6. NomadUK
zaldar@1: Yes, because the only alternative to unfettered, 'free market' capitalism and corporate control of the world's resources for the benefit of a miniscule fraction of the population is, clearly, the Gulag Archipelago.
zaldar
8. EasyEight
The answer is simple -- DON'T BUY THEM! Just ignore the fact that genetically modified seeds produce more food and crops per acre than basic seeds. Genetically modified crops can be designed to be hardier and more pest resistant, to consume less fertilizer and water, and in some cases be more nutritious than basic seeds. Why are people so Luddite about beneficial technologies like this? Should we go back to the days of poking sticks in the ground to plant your seeds, use "sustainable" feces for fertilizer and hope the bugs don't eat your food before it matures enough for you to do so?

There are sources of non-genetically modified seeds out there. Buy them if you want to. Stop buying the SEEDs if you hate them so much. And then don't complain when your yields are down and you have to carve out part of your crop as seed for the next planting cycle.
René Walling
9. cybernetic_nomad
You confuse disliking shortsighted corporate policy with disliking the technology they developed. And it IS possible to develop technology without some of the less ethical policies large corporations are so fond of.

The development of a technology is not the rules under which that technology will be applied.

Those are two separate things, related, yes, the same, no.

I find it interesting that those who think wanting some control over the ethics involved in the application of new technologies means you are a Luddite, a communist or crazy. It doesn't.

IMHO, often the ones who develop a new technology are the worse people to decide on the rules surrounding it. This is true of all technologies.
zaldar
10. EasyEight
"I find it interesting that those who think wanting some control over the ethics involved in the application of new technologies means you are a Luddite, a communist or crazy."

It doesn't help your position that the movie poster for SEED is deliberately based upon Communist artwork celebrating Che Guevara. Why liken your "hero" and your cause after a Communist revolutionary if you don't lean that way??

"I find it interesting that those who think wanting some control over the ethics involved in the application of new technologies means you are a Luddite, a communist or crazy. It doesn't. "

And who gets to decide what ethical controls will be applied? Most "ethics professionals" I've ever come across argue from a leftist political viewpoint, so that brings me little comfort as they want to promote "sustainable" and "appropriate" technology according to their political needs, not based on what the individuals want and need. And individuals, making billions of decisions each day make up "the economy" btw.

Wanting to control innovation smacks too much of Statism. Do we need reasonable regulations to prevent corporate excesses and anti-competitive practices? Absolutely. But don't kill innovation by seeking to control it from the top down.

So to repeat -- if ya don't like the seeds you get from Monsanto, DON'T BUY THEM!! Seek alternate suppliers who will be more than willing to sell to you and thereby cost Monsanto market share and revenues, leading to a change in behavior. Nobody is literally forcing them to sole-source buy their seeds. Do they have to be protected from their own decision to buy Monsanto seeds???
René Walling
11. cybernetic_nomad
"It doesn't help your position that the movie poster for SEED is deliberately based upon Communist artwork celebrating Che Guevara. Why liken your "hero" and your cause after a Communist revolutionary if you don't lean that way??"

Alberto Korda makes sure he gets royalties on the uses of his image, so it can't be communist artwork since capitalism is at work here. The image is perfectly appropriate to the theme of the movie since Che was against monopoly capitalist (that's not the same as plain capitalism) and neocolonialism (which manifests itself among other ways as big corporation getting their way in third world regardless of the effects their population and the environment.)

How the poster labels me a Luddite or crazy, I'm not sure...

"And who gets to decide what ethical controls will be applied?"

How about more than just corporations who don't tell you what they do?


"So to repeat -- if ya don't like the seeds you get from Monsanto, DON'T BUY THEM!!"

I'm not a farmer, therefore don't buy seeds. I buy groceries.

Have you ever tried to find out what food stuff you buy has been genetically modified? Monsanto and friends try hard to prevent you from finding out, a good reason to do so in my book.

My big problem with Monsanto is their total lack of transparency when it comes to things that can affect my health and well being.

You talk about billions of people making choices, is it a choice when you can't tell "A" and "B" apart because no one will tell you the difference?
Mike Conley
12. NomadUK
The answer is simple -- DON'T BUY THEM!

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.

- H L Mencken, 'The Divine Afflatus,' _A Mencken Chrestomathy_, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949).
zaldar
13. EasyEight
"The image is perfectly appropriate to the theme of the movie since Che was against monopoly capitalist (that's not the same as plain capitalism)"

LOL! Che was an ardent communist and was against Capitalism in ANY form.

"The answer is simple -- DON'T BUY THEM!

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."

Then illuminate me. What is your counterpoint other than saying, "nuh-uh, is not!"
René Walling
14. cybernetic_nomad
LOL! Che was an ardent communist and was against Capitalism in ANY form.


He tried communism as a solution to problems he saw around him. One of his motivations was fighting the poverty he witnesses a bit everywhere in South America, a major cause of which was, according to him, rampant monopoly capitalism and neocolonialism. I think it's pretty much been settled that communism as tried in the USSR doesn't really work, but that doesn't mean out of control capitalism is the only other solution.

I suggest you read up a bit on Che, you might learn a few things.

Then illuminate me.


We have tried, there is none so blind as the one who refuses to see. The solution is to have everyone, not just corporations have a say on the application of new technologies, including GMOs.
zaldar
15. EasyEight
"I think it's pretty much been settled that communism as tried in the USSR doesn't really work, but that doesn't mean out of control capitalism is the only other solution."

Actually, I think its been pretty well established that communism doesn't work -- period. Not only is it counter to human nature and the human spirit, but in every instance it results in an oppressive tyranny ruled over by a new power elite which reduce the rest of the people into peasants. It results in every instance in great human suffering and misery. And who said anything about "out of control capitalism" being the solution? Capitalism works best when bound by reasonable rules and regulations that promote information transparency (so buyers and sellers know as fully as possible the terms of any transaction and product/services) and reign in abuse, fraud, and anti-competitiveness -- while keeping government at just a light touch. If overly involved the system devolves into crony capitalism and corporatism, as we see with the Obama Admins current policies.

"I suggest you read up a bit on Che, you might learn a few things."

Not much positive to learn from guy who enjoyed putting a pistol up to a person's head and then blowing their brains out. Say, when you read your Che -- here's a quote of his to recall. Tell me, do you agree with this core sentiment of his??

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!"

"The solution is to have everyone, not just corporations have a say on the application of new technologies, including GMOs."

Design by committee never results in innovation. What it seems you're proposing is the "sustainable technology" path in which technological innovation is controlled and constrained by GMOs (largely all Leftist) down approved paths -- which means stasis and an end to innovation. You kill any incentive to innovate, constrain creativity.No more new iPhone type products. No more next Web 2.0 revolution. I'd rather see reasonable regulations that promote testing and safety standards, combined with enforcing laws preventing monopolistic behavior.
René Walling
16. cybernetic_nomad
You again miss my points (all of them, amazingly enough)

1) I merely said the poster was appropriate for the movie and why. It's called good design. You seem to insist on having me be a communist or a blind follower of Che, when I am not. Che did good things and bad things in his life. Maybe if capitalism had not been out of control in South America, creating misery for the vast majority, he would not have felt the need to do some of what he did? Maybe if the US government had actually, you know, tried to help Castro before he turned to the USSR (talk about a missed opportunity right there...), things would have gone very different for that part of the world (and for the US)?

Design by committee never results in innovation. What it seems you're proposing is the "sustainable technology" path in which technological innovation is controlled and constrained by GMOs (largely all Leftist) down approved paths


I never ever said anything remotely like that, I said everyone should have a say in how they are used once they are developed it is an important difference.

And what's so bad about sustainable technology? Good design takes all sorts of things into account and environmental and social impacts are two important aspects of that (as is profitability).

You seem to see the Left as "evil" for some reason. I don't. Ever thought that the reason "ethics professionals" tend to the left is because a political viewpoint that, to a certain extent, puts benefits to the society ahead of individuals drive to acquire more for their own selfish needs is seen as better in ethical terms? (SF's great logicians has a great saying for this: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few")

FYI, a few of the things well applied socialism means:

1) It means a better standards of living for everyone, not just a lucky few.

2) It means a longer life expectancy because of universal health care.

3) It means everyone pays for things that benefit everyone, including things they may not think they need, or that don't benefit them directly, but make the world around them better. Things like subsidized daycares, state sponsored maternity leaves that last a long time, higher education paid for in whole or in part by the state, a decent amount of paid vacation, sick leave, and much much more.

4) It means everyone can have a say in major decisions that affect everyone's life (like, for example the ability to choose between GMOs and non-GMOS when buying your food, through regulations on the labeling of GMO-containing products and corporate transparency
zaldar
17. EasyEight
“You seem to see the Left as "evil" for some reason. I don't. Ever thought that the reason "ethics professionals" tend to the left is because a political viewpoint that, to a certain extent, puts benefits to the society ahead of individuals drive to acquire more for their own selfish needs is seen as better in ethical terms?”

And who gets to determine what “society” demands of the individual? Will you determine what is fair and unfair on behalf of “society? In Islamic societies that hold to Sharia Law, the “good” of “society” determines that gays be executed, women who are rape victims are stoned to death, etc. Is that Just? That’s what Society dictates. Oh, btw, Che Guevara hated gays, considered them deviants. Not very enlightened, that guy.

But back on topic. How do you determine what the definition of “selfish” is? If I work hard and wish to buy something, say a new laptop so we can continue our fine conversation, is that “selfish?” Is it “selfish” for me to want good food, good clothing and a good home for my family? If I bust my ass and am lucky enough to afford a sports car, for example, is that selfish? At what point do YOU decide what is and is not selfish? We’re all self-interested animals at nature, tempered by societal mores and laws, and nobody will work harder than they have to if they know that their “selfish need” will be punished by the State.

Your worldview reduces the individual to the status of a cog in the machine of the state, which is the oldest form of human society. It denies the glory of what it is to be human, it confines and restricts you and kills your dreams, kills progress, kills advancement. I prefer to uphold the individual over the requirements of “society” and the state, and empower the individual as much as possible – not tear them down to conform to your view of what a society should look like. That’s as old as Plato’s Republic in which an enlightened class of Philospher Kings ruled, a Warrior class enforced the rules and a Worker class that toiled away on communal farms.

And that’s where most people end up under communism, or any totalitarian state. I don’t care what the antiquated philosophy says, this 150 year old deadly experiment in creating Plato’s Republic does not work, as proven by historical record. The Communist experiments of the 20th Century resulted in over 100 million deaths and the worst atrocities ever experienced by mankind. I cannot fathom why any rational human can glibly dismiss the historical evidence of Communism’s horrific failures.

And if you think you can have a gentle socialism that cradles you in the cup of Society’s benevolent hand – dream on. At some point the bill comes due in many ways and there’s nothing left but a hard stop. Europe is beginning to figure that out.

"FYI, a few of the things well applied socialism means:"

Oxymoron. All of your examples are wishful thinking rather than fact and are completely unsustainable. Case in point, Greece. Greece implemented the very same social welfare state policies you described and is now utterly bankrupt. The very policies designed to make life more “fair” and less “selfish” for all constrained innovation and eliminated dynamism from their economy. It resulted in less social mobility, less opportunity, and a lower economic base from which to pay for all those great *material* things you want – like free daycare and free healthcare, etc. Though how those are “free” when you pay out a 70% tax rate is beyond me! As Thatcher once said, “The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” And as someone who lives in California, the State is galloping towards collapse. It’s already bankrupted itself on social welfare programs and union labor costs and pension promises.

So despite the promise of material goodies, why fall for the antiquated siren song of Socialism??

As for your “needs of the one” quote, that would be in a very specific circumstance where Spock sacrificed himself to save the lives of his friends and crewmates, a situation that has historical precedent and is fully in line with human nature and the human experience. Of course Elves and Vulcans let us explore facets of human nature and play with “what ifs” and “if onlys,” but we remain as we are. Tragically flawed human beings who at the end of the day WILL look out for their own interests, most benign and understandable. But there are a few percent of human beings who are ruthless and nasty and will always seek power over others. And historically every experiment in centralizing and organizing a society results in those SOBs eventually taking over under various guises and means and running entire societies into the grave.

So instead of trying to pretend that human nature is other than it is, or that human nature can be perfected by enlightened socialist policy, why not work WITH human nature and try to constrain the worst excesses via liberal democracy (revolutionary, yet resulting in the most freedoms and benefits for the most people) and a reasonably regulated free market (which is natural and in line with human nature.)?? Be a real radical and stand up for individualism over statism!
René Walling
18. cybernetic_nomad
"It's a fine line between clever and stupid"

You have not understood a single thing I have said.

Have a nice life.
zaldar
19. EasyEight
""It's a fine line between clever and stupid"

You have not understood a single thing I have said.

Have a nice life. "

LOL! You're defending communism and statism, and the primacy of the state over the individual. Your defense of "sustainable technology" is a component of "sustainable development" which puts human progress in the hands of a few GMOs and statist interests. I find that incomprehensible, so yes, I cannot understand what you're saying.
zaldar
20. EasyEight
Point is, you're being intellectually lazy and promoting an unexamined viewpoint, not to mention being a bit of a sophist.

1. You've come out in favor of Che's political views and writings without knowing who he really was or what he really believed. You've got a pop culture academic view of him.

2. You've come out in favor of socialism and statism without understanding what that means in terms of the human impact. You want free daycare, you'll end up with something you didn't expect -- but is predictable based on historical record.

3. You support "sustainability" without realizing what that means to the cycle of innovation and what power that gives those who would try and create a society based on that.

4. You seem motivated mostly by emotion, what's "fair" and "moral" without realizing that if you enforce a collectivist fairness vision from the top down it's neither fair nor moral.

The unexamined life and all that -- applies to the unexamined viewpoint as well.
René Walling
21. cybernetic_nomad
1) I never came out in support of Che's political views. I merely said that the image at the top of this thread was appropriate for the movie and why.

2) I had state subsidized daycare for my daughter when I needed it, as well as liging where there is decent public healthcare, subsidized higher education and more. Newsflash: I live in a socialist state! it's called Canada (our flag is white and RED, OMG! Start panicking now!), we also have a longer life expectancy than Americans... So I think I know what I might get living in a socialist state. It's not perfect, but we're working on it, and from everything I see, it's better that what you propose. I never said anything about Statism (in fact this is the first time I use that work in this conversation...)

3) How does having technological innovations that reduce our impact on the environment reduce innovation? "Innovations will prevent innovations" Your statement makes no sense

4) Because a privileged minority imposing their will for their benefit is that much fairer?

I've examined my life quite a bit thank you. I suggest you start examining the statements I actually made instead of what you want to pretend I said. If sophistry is insisting the person you talk with understand exactly what you said, then I plead guilty.

The ideal socialist society will take your point of view into account when making decisions, it will also take mine and those of everyone else, rich or poor, man or woman, etc... Is that such a bad thing?

As I said: Have a nice life
zaldar
22. EasyEight
"The ideal socialist society will take your point of view into account when making decisions, it will also take mine and those of everyone else, rich or poor, man or woman, etc... Is that such a bad thing?"

Unachievable. I prefer to work in reality. Reality is that people have been trying to create the ideal socialist society for 150 years at great human cost, toll, and misery. Reality is that the balancing act between a free and open society that gets you all the good stuff without ultimately empowering a new tyranny is a tricky one -- and the statists have the upper hand since they can always convince those who want more free goodies to empower them to hack away at some other group's standard of living to get it. So we'll soak the rich and soak this group and that group in the name of fairness until there's nobody left to soak, regulate this industry and take control of that "vital" industry until nothing is left uncontrolled and hyper-regulated and you either have a soft tyranny or a hard tyranny.

And as for Canada, you are not bearing all your social cost burdens and have a much different set of expenditures than does the US (aside from Obama's spending spree which is going to crush us). Your national debt may be less than the US, but it's still pretty significant, about $22K per capita compared to ~$27K/capita in the US. And you've got your own demographic time bomb. Canada's birthrate is only 1.5 -- replacement is 2.1!! So as your Boomer population ages your population equation is flipping. Who is going to pay for all the simply marvelous things you mentioned (though you are paying for it now out of your taxes!!) -- "free" daycare, healthcare, etc. Who is going to pay for all those retirees and geriatric cases?? How many retired old people will one young worker have to pay for? Better look to the future with a weather eye, it's coming faster than you think.

However, a functioning non-Socialist system that delivers on what most of what you say you want is totally achievable through liberal democracy. You still pay, but your costs are known. And you work for yourself, not for the State.

See, you may not say you're a Statist, but everything you want out of life as you've described it -- all the goodies from the State makes you one.

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment