MapleLeafAlliance

I'm not psychic. How about...as soon as possible? Again with the disingenuous argument. Obviously private companies look out for themselves, and they're after profit. Of course in an economy that is heavily regulated and subsidized companies can get away with gouging. In a free market however, with no government involvement in the economy, it would be sink or swim, you either keep customers or you go out of business. No company will risk going out of business by overcharging, or providing substandard work. The government doesn't work without a safety net, and thus cannot make the same claims. In a free market we won't need private companies to be altruistic or helpful, we will expect them to offer good work at a fair price, and if they don't we take our business elsewhere...and in a sink or swim economy no business will want to risk that. It's that kind of blanket statement that keeps politicians in office robbing us blind while they waste money left and right to get anything done. A private company working in a free market economy could complete projects with far fewer workers, far less money spent, and at a much greater speed than could the government in our current economic condition. That too is obvious. Sure, a private company operating within a free market economy may require hundreds of people to complete a given project, but since they'd be bent on turning a profit and delivering value you can bet the number of workers would be a reflection of the minimum required, same can be said for the costs involved. Compare that with the current system, and a project the private sector could do for millions of dollars and hundreds of workers would require billions of dollars, and thousands of people involved to see the thing through. Remove the profit incentive, and there's no limit as to how high costs could go, nor a time limit on completion.

Yet. You make a disingenuous argument here...the government is the one footing the bill, therefore it is a government project even if technically the bureaucrats aren't the ones out there doing the paving and masonry work. And you have it backwards, bureaucracy is not necessary for the completion of large/complex tasks, rather tasks are made "large/complex" by bureaucrats. Every project requires a certain amount of people to see it through to completion. In the private sector, and especially in a free market economy, companies who take it upon themselves to complete large projects will do so with the profit incentive prevalent in their minds meaning the amount of people/bureaucracy involved in completing tasks will be kept to a minimum, and likewise costs. A private company has an incentive to construct quickly so as not to bleed money. In government, where the well seems constantly full there is no incentive to reduce costs, and minimize the amount of people involved in any given project...thus a project like building a hospital takes a decade (see: Montreal's hospital boondoggle) and involves thousands of cooks spoiling the broth. Where's your paycheque from government? No one's paying us to be a ward of the state, just the opposite.

The TTC should be a private entity. Right now everyone's paying for a system not everyone uses, and it's a system being run very inefficiently. Great, now it's an essential service...that means the exorbitant wages get to be paid around the clock without end. It's great that they're cutting useless routes, but really a government body doesn't need to be paid to figure this out...privatize transit and the market will determine what routes are necessary and which are not.

Government regulation is coercive, and presupposes that someone other than you knows best on how to spend the money you've earned, which is ridiculous. In a free market legal representation would be inexpensive - as would real estate. As for finding other landowner who agrees with my view...there are many libertarians in this country - they just don't get as much coverage in our isolationist, and highly protective media culture here in Canada.

The people who give knee-jerk reactions to libertarian views are the ones who haven't thought things through...the logic is sound, should you care to look beneath the surface or past your own pre conceived short-sightedness. Stop clinging to the status quo as though it was based on reason, when the opposite is true. No, the government shouldn't be building roads, power plants, or hospitals...the private sector can handle those tasks in a timelier, more efficient, and cost effective manner than can any bureaucracy. And the market place can determine when any of the above ought or ought not to be built through simple supply and demand. The "multi billion dollar military" is a creation of the military-industrial complex that has more to do with making war than keeping us safe. If we cut defense spending down to just being a defensive force that sits in wait at home, and does not go on international excursions for the sake of empire the term multi-billion becomes an absurd concept...unless of course the worse happened and we were attacked here on our home soil...then by all means, fire up the war machine. An entry fee for non-Canadians would also apply to tourists, not just new immigrants, by the by. And a consumption tax is a voluntary tax...essentials would be exempt, and so yes, outside of materialist spending you would be living tax free. You are your own person, capable of making your own decisions...stop trying to be the government's pet. Only you own you.

A common misconception about libertarianism... It is not anarchism...libertarians still believe in having a government, and likewise a system of laws, and courts. If your neighbour was doing something on his/her own private property that infringed on your person/property and enjoyment of same, you would have recourse through the courts.

I advocate for a free Canada...not its present iteration.

My country is Canada, and yes we have plenty of both.

Anyone who believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility would leave a place where true freedom doesn't exist. By the way, I advocate wide open immigration...you want to come here, come on in!

Right, because I'm sure you'd rather live in a country where the government can dictate to you, what you can and cannot do on/with your own private property?

I agree. I agree with the idea of a well-trained, ready, and capable defense corps - but I draw the line at "positioning for security" as that phrase can be twisted into the kind of knots that have us in Afghanistan or NATO in general. There are those who believe in empire, and acting with a preemptive mindset to "keep the peace"...and that is a slippery - not to mention costly - slope. In the interest of fiscal prudence, and discretion where lives are at stake I think we ought to avoid conflict at all costs unless or until we are engaged somehow on our own soil. The afterlife? That's another topic entirely. Scientific magic? God? What is this the 1500s? Obviously you can never make yourself immune to any threat, but that doesn't mean we need to live in a paranoid state, constantly on edge. Can we vigilant? Yes...but life is short, and we should enjoy it instead of constantly wondering what colour it is on the threat-metre. What you advocate here is not freedom. No one's property in Canada should be considered on lease from the Queen. If you own a piece of property it is yours to do with as you wish so long as what you do on that property does not infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. If what you do on that property happens to infringe on another person or another person's property or enjoyment of same, the offended party(ies) should have recourse through the courts. Then you should support unfettered property rights. I am for a level playing field, and that is accomplished by getting government out of the economy. The only state-owned land I advocate is land used directly by the few government departments we ought to have, namely, defense, law enforcement, fire protection services, courts, and government houses (Parliament etc). Outside of that, all land in Canada should be privately owned.

When in Rome...

Keeping 100% of what you earn means no income tax. There are other ways governments can pay for police, fire, and national defense...namely an entrance fee for non-Canadians, tariffs, and a low-percentage consumption tax (food excluded).

As per the 3 you mention, I suggest the following: Eliminate minimum wage. Privatize health care. Government provides police and fire.

Freedom. The freer you are, the better able you will be to take care of yourself, your family, or anyone else of your choosing. All Canadians should have the right to do as they please, so long as they do not infringe on a fellow Canadian’s right to do the same. Peace. War is always a last resort, and should only be engaged in when our national sovereignty is at stake. Peace is something all humans should strive for, and Canada must lead by example. Healthy diplomatic discourse, friendship, and trade between nations, combined with a “live and let live” philosophy should be our foreign policy. Safety. It is the government’s responsibility to stand up against any and all threats to our sovereignty as a nation. The government’s role in keeping Canadians safe lies in ensuring that all who live within our borders are protected from any physical or fraudulent harm whether the threat originates at home or abroad. Privacy. Canadians should be guaranteed many rights, including the right to be left alone. All law-abiding Canadians who respect the freedoms of their fellow citizens deserve absolute privacy. Government must respect and treat everyone as a sovereign individual. Government must respect the sanctity of private ownership. Prosperity. The freer the markets, the freer the people. The Canadian people can best determine demand for consumer goods, and can reason on their own how much they are willing to spend on any given product. All Canadians should keep 100% of the money they earn, and can decide for themselves how it is to be spent.

The aspect of control is what causes the problems. A free market, a sink-or-swim economy has control baked in...it's called the profit incentive. A free market doesn't just favour the wealthy, it favours everyone. And the rising tide that floats all boats? That's called wealth creation...it comes from unfettered private enterprise. You get so close, but you can't quite make the connection. "Controlled capitalism" is what allows the wealthy to manipulate the poor. "Controlled capitalism" may begin with the best of intentions but devolves into unintended consequences. You think project housing in the ghetto began with malicious intent? No, just the opposite. Same thing with welfare, and EI, and the minimum wage, etc...all programs started with the best of intentions...all features of "controlled capitalism" and all examples of the unintended consequences spawned by programs aimed at doing good. This is what you and others who advocate government control don't get...economic freedom is not given...wealth is not "provided"...freedom is taken...wealth is earned. Anything else results in waste, neglect, and suffering. Freedom is the only way...no one group should be allowed to pre-suppose how any other person or group is to live their life. Anything purporting to be "control" for the "greater good" is anti-freedom and against self-determination. "some outside intervention" the problem with that idea is a line has to be drawn somewhere, meaning one or many are allowed to decide how much intervention is ok, how much is not ok... That is not freedom. Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide? Why? The most ethical position is that of there being no line decided on by anyone else...the only line to limit you is that while you live as you please, you not infringe on another's ability to do as they please. Do you, or do you not advocate government's involvement in the economy? What I advocate is freedom across the board for everyone. And call it theoretical all you like...for now, in our society, it may be...but not for long. You've said this before, but have yet to explain why. Try me. Interested or not, freedom across the board is coming. Funny thing is, once you live in a free market economy for a while, you will shake your head and wonder what you were so afraid of before. That's the thing that kills me, all of these people who argue tooth and nail against having a free market economy and yet you fight so vigorously against a system in which you'd be sooo much better off. Truth of the matter is...nearly everyone is a libertarian, including you...you just don't know it yet. Who's "us", you or the State?

Keep telling yourself that.

The Labour Movement? What a joke. Those same sheep who claim to be part of the "Labour Movement" shoot themselves in the foot with every Statist word they utter. If those who advocate for better treatment of workers or whatever it is they advocate had a clue they'd be in favour of a free market. The free market would create the best possible conditions for workers of all stripes. In a free market there'd be no need for a "Labour Movement"...the very idea would be obsolete.

Do you even understand half of what you post? Corporate Fascism? Look up the definition of fascism...go ahead...do it. Fascism involves the collusion of government and corporate powers. It's something we see a lot of in today's society. Fascists abhor individualism, whereas I am all for it. I don't think you could find a more anti-fascist poster on this message board. I advocate freedom...complete, absolute, unfettered freedom...not freedom dressed up as something else...freedom...nothing but.

Who's "no one", you? No argument here. And you don't have to "buy" it...it's coming...like it or not...and you'll be doing a lot better when it happens...in spite of yourself.

And yours? Wrong. The redistribution of wealth upwards into the hands of the few is the current corporatist system. And you're right, the current system is not freedom. Freedom is the ability to do what you want, when you want, so long as you don't impede another's ability to do the same. A free market economy does not result in redistribution of wealth to a few elite, it takes the power held by a few elite and puts it into the hands of consumers...i.e. the market place. In a free market everyone has a chance to create wealth, to live well. Will business owners make more than their employees? Yes, and why shouldn't they? It's their business...they assumed all the initial risks, and put up all the startup capital. In a free market anyone would be able to start their own businesses...free of red tape, and enjoy the fruits of their labour. You're not interested in being free? You feel better as the government's pet? It's good to be proud...but don't let pride get in the way of your better judgement. We'll all make more money if we get government out of the economy, and greatly shrink its size.

No silly...just the public sector unions...i.e. the ones I've been talking about all this time. I don't care what happens with private sector unions as long as it doesn't effect my wallet.

My "extremist" position is the only logical position to have. And eventually it will be the only philosophy left standing. As our current troubles highlight...the present way of doing things doesn't work.

Well unfortunately for you and other Statists...your fun is coming to an end...finally. The debt crises will reach their logical conclusion, and even if its dragged kicking and screaming, society will embrace free market principles because soon enough there will be no other option.

Harper is in favour of continuing the nanny-State, no doubt. The government has no business regulating loans/mortgages...they have business in price-fixing. And quit saying we live in a free market society...we don't, nowhere near it. You and others who are against living in a free market cannot seem to get out of your own way...do you not realize how much better off you'd be living in a free market? I suppose I already know the answer to this.