[thechat] canada's new democratic party

[Tara Cleveland]

Madhu Menon wrote:
> I don't think it's fair to beat philanthropy into companies. That's what
> this is doing, isn't it? "If you don't care for the homeless, we'll *force*
> you to care for them". I'd like to think that's what I pay direct and
> indirect taxes for - so the government can spend it on providing housing
> for the poor, among other things.

It's not called philanthropy, it's called public policy. You don't call it
philanthropy when you have to pay taxes do you? So when a corporation has to
"pay" something that results in social benefits in order to do business,
it's not philanthropy it's public policy. No one *expects* a corporation to
care about the homeless. They are there to make $$$ and nothing else. The
question is, how do we as a community get companies to build a city whose
defining characteristic isn't how much everything costs. We need companies
to build the structures that are capable of supporting a vibrant community
and that help to create a livable city.

> Here in India, something unrelated happened, which has the reasoning behind
> it as Tara's.
> The state of Maharashtra has passed a LAW stating that all movie theatres
> MUST play the national anthem at the end of the movie. Why? Apparently to
> make people feel more "patriotic". Again, I feel like this is *beating*
> patriotism into people. You just can't do that. I doubt that (m)any people
> would suddenly feel more love for this country because they are forced to
> stand up and stick around till the national anthem plays out. To me, it's
> just a major annoyance, but thankfully I don't live in Maharashtra.

This is a totally different situation. Here, a country is trying to promote
certain beliefs and behaviours in individuals. In my example, a city was
trying to make better communities by requiring that developers build
socially beneficial elements into their developments. The city doesn't
expect that this will change the voluntary "behaviour" of the corporations.
They aren't beating "philanthropy" into companies, it's a form of taxation
really. But since the corporations own the land, and the city wants parks,
community centres etc. integrated into developments around the city, not in
"social parks" or something, and it's probably more cost-effective to have
the developers build these components into developments, then instead of
taxing them in cash, they tax them in building.

> Why does the government feel that people aren't patriotic enough? Who
> knows...?

Yeah. Stuff like that usually just makes me feel resentful. What is
patriotism really anyway?

Regards,
Tara