UPDATED: An Immodest (And Deeply Offensive) Proposal

 

Accountability is a strange thing these days. People "take responsibility" when the public finds out they did something wrong, but very rarely do any consequences ensue. Errant public officials keep their positions, CEOs often maintain their jobs,  and celebrities simply say "That's not who I am," when caught in a racist or ill-advised social post that earns widespread condemnation from the online community. True accountability is exceedingly rare.

I suspect that for many of the monied amongst us, the very concept of accountability is an irritant, foisted upon them by their 'lessers'. Oh, how they must chafe under the rules of democracy, where every citizen has a potential voice (should they choose to vote) in the rules that govern them. It doesn't seem fair that the wealthy vote, at least in theory, carries only the same weight as everyone else's. Surely a change is needed so that accountability can be set on their terms.

At least that's the view of people like Shopify's Tobias Lutke. His premise is a simple one: voting rights should be tied to one's productivity,

suggesting that seniors and Canadians living in poverty should be denied the vote.

No liberal democracy has experimented with disenfranchising what in Canada would amount to more than 12 million people, or close to one-third of the total population.

In posts on X, Lütke had these words for Canada’s seniors: “New deal,” he wrote. “When you get your pension deal it’s locked in and guaranteed. But now you are a dependent and that means no voting, just like dependents under age. Enjoy the deal, let people with a stake in the future decide.”

As a senior, I find the idea that we have no stake in the future of our country to be deeply offensive. It essentially stereotypes us as layabouts living off the fat of the land, idlers who have nothing useful to offer or say about the policies and direction of Canada. Institutional memory seems to offend, perhaps even frighten, Lutke.

However, his ideas don't stop with simple disenfranchisement. He also says that the wealthier one is, the more votes one should have. He

endorsed a voting system floated by former banker Eric Thor that would see ballots weighted “proportional to the level of income tax you pay.” The system would be progressive and proportional, capped at five votes for those who pay $500,000 a year or more, while those who pay no income tax would not receive a vote. Lutke called it “good,” noting it would “reward productive people with leverage.”

What’s disturbing isn’t just the idea itself — a voting system that distributes ballots based on income tax paid — but also that publicly praising it adds to the public register an approach to self-government that reduces people to their perceived economic value. The next leap, which is barely a skip, is that the government should get out of the way and let the rich lead us all towards a libertarian utopia free from state regulation or any commitment to caring for those who are unable or unwilling to be “builders,” to use the parlance of tech types.

Democracy is imperfect and always evolving. Some shun their civic responsibility, evidenced by perennially poor turnouts at the ballot box. In a democracy, that is their choice, just as it is their right to vote for parties and ideas that some of us may not like. However, all of that is a far cry from what oligarchs like Lutke are suggesting. 

Such individuals may not like democratic accountability, but if they must have it, they want it set on their terms. One has merely to look at people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to see where that would lead.

UPDATE: If you would like to know more about Shopify and Mr. Lutke, click here.

Democracy Is Fine, Until It Isn't

 

I don't post on a daily basis anymore, partly because I have other things keeping me busy and partly because I do wonder if anything good can come from a frequent barrage of my deep-seated cynicism. I see little to inspire hope in the world, so why simply drive home the point again and again?

There are times, however, when what is being reported calls for denunciation, and my anger today emanates from the hypocrisy with which democracy is presented to us. On the one hand we are told that it is sacred, but on the other hand, when it results in things some don't like, they find their own ways of undermining and denouncing it, but in terms that are not so obvious.

Recent episodes come readily to mind.

In an effort to promote more moderate drinking, Ireland has passed legislation that will mandate cancer warnings be placed on all alcohol products sold in the Emerald Isle. While I have doubts about the efficacy of such labelling, I don't dispute the democratic right of a state to make and enforce health policy.

Not everyone agrees.

The United States and other countries have expressed concerns over Ireland’s plans for labels on alcoholic products that would warn of a link to cancer at a World Trade Organisation meeting on Wednesday, officials say.

The item was on the agenda of the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee of the WTO when it met in Geneva, a forum for the organisation’s 164 members to discuss and mediate potential disputes over regulations.

The US, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic raised concerns that Ireland’s new alcohol labelling requirements signed into law in May could present a barrier to trade at the meeting, according to a Geneva-based trade official.

Additional countries also spoke up in the meeting about the issue, some supporting the complaints made by others, including Japan, Colombia, Canada, Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, Cuba, Australia and Guatemala.

Now, on the surface this looks like a trade irritant. But if any thinking person peeks behinde the curtain, they may come to the conclusion that it is the affected corporations that are really calling the shots, and the state is essentially their 'beard'. In other words, the nation-state, as it often has, is doing the bidding of its corporate masters. This will not be a revelation to many, but that it is a fact should outrage all of us.

The Irish situation is reminiscent of something that occurred several years ago pertaining to the WHO's efforts to reduce global use of tobacco. The tobacco company Philip Morris lobbied intensively and extensively to weaken measures aimed at reducing the consumption of their very lucrative product. You can read all about their sordid tactics in the link, but this excerpt might provide a little flavour of what they were up to:

a goal of Philip Morris is to increase the number of delegates at the treaty conventions who are not from health ministries or involved in public health. That’s happening: A Reuters analysis of delegates to the FCTC’s biennial conference shows a rise since the first convention in 2006 in the number of officials from ministries like trade, finance and agriculture for whom tobacco revenues can be a higher priority than health concerns.

A WHO treaty to discourage smoking was successfully implemented, but, at the time of the report,  while the U.S, signed the treaty, it did not ratify it. So much for the freedom to enact democratic and life-saving policies, eh?

We can look closer to home for further illustrations of whose interests are served in our democracy. The Rogers-Shaw merger, despite the protracted political theatre and government hand-wringing over competition in the wireless industry, was, as I knew it would be, endorsed. Who benefits? I think you know the answer. Who suffers? The citizens, of course.

Then there is the federal government's apparent inability to recover billions of dollars in evaded taxes. Despite the revelations of both the Paradise and Panama Papers, the CRA seems strangely reluctant to go after the titans who hold those accounts, Much easier it is to go after small businesses, as evidenced by the fishing expedition the tax agency is going on for Shopify records.

Even closer to home is the absolute contempt Doug Ford and John Tory evinced in the mayoral race which Olivia Chow just won. Both men had vowed to stay out of the election, but neither did, the most egregious violation by Ford, who pronounced absolute catastrophe for the City of Toronto should a "leftie" like Chow be elected. But what else can one expect from someone whose loins are set atingle whenever a privatization plan is mentioned?

"The people are never wrong," goes the cry about democracy. True, unless they want something the people behind the curtain don't. 

So much for the voice of the people.