MapleLeafAlliance
-
Posts
92 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MapleLeafAlliance
-
-
The logic is sound, and yet no nation has done this.
Yet.
The government doesn't build those things, they contract private agencies to do it. Bureaucracy isn't a function of government, it's a necessity for large/complex tasks.
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.
Also, my slave owner can own me... after he buys me that is.
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.
-
meanwhile if my neighbour is a rich sob he can devalue my property, bankrupt me with legal costs and so there will be no recourse through the courts...my only protection is government regulation of property use...good luck finding another landowner who agrees with your weird concepts...
libertarianism as you define it equals anarchy...
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 government is going to build roads, power plants, hospitals, a multi billion dollar military and all the other infrastructure that goes with a modern country on immigration fees and low % consumption tax(even though you claimed we are to pay no tax at all)
you really haven't thought this through have you...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.
-
if it means my neighbour can open a toxic waste dump or scrap yard on his private poerty next door to my home, ya absolutely...
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.
-
Everything within reason. Moderation is a really nice thing. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here man.
I advocate for a free Canada...not its present iteration.
-
Like I say, your country will start with millionaires and refugees.
My country is Canada, and yes we have plenty of both.
-
Who would move to such an island ? People who have capital, a head start... and maybe the most desperate of refugees (assuming Mr. ML's country would have them).
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!
-
Seems to me Mr. MapleLeaf and his band of merry men should sail off to an island where society can't interfere with them.
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 think there is a limit to freedom that should be exercised. The notion is non encumbrence on others in non harmful activities.
An individuals right to themself in invioble - however the premise of "gaurdianship" and governance muddies the boundries of duty of care. We really should espouse the furthest extent of the notion of freedom as possible by insuring that all custiodial situations are either on a basis of contractual consent that is revocable or on the basis of incapacity that is determined by a very safe process - current medical standards such as the mental health act do not meet the standards to insure non violation of individual rights since it places power on an individual to overide individual rights. To insure freedom we must end arbitrary inprisonment - and insure any context of inprisonment be legislated reasonably rarther than arbitrarily determined, and that laws such as the mental health act in Ontario insure a standard test that the individual can enter into such as verbally refusing their rights to be infringed. Refusal of self care should be allowed as it is against medical ethics to practice without consent - the ability to just remove the "ability to consent" on basis of not agreeing with the views of the patient is backward. Freedom really is important. This is why the social party supports PUBLIC SAFETY offences and treasury bill offences - to insure freedom is upheld except in grave situations of victimization such as where public safety is clearly jeopordized ina serious manner (self defence for preservation of soceity) or where individuals are jeopordizing the economic security through acts such as counterfiting, and fraud (tresury bill offences would see removal from Canada or restitution before allowed back into society to repare the harm) - more a context of destroying the public trust.
I agree.
I think more that we are at war without peace and peace is not a natural state in a world with divisions and individuals. The martial state exists at default - it is only through positioning for security that peace can be established through preparedness to defend oneself. Peace is a novel notion that can never be humanly realized. It is something for the afterlife.
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.
See above: You need to look at this reasonably though, you will never be safe in a world with scientific magic and the unkown there will always be an open door you can't close, so it is about what is reasonable to defend oneself considering the likelyhood of being able to defend oneself against a given danger. It is all a game though. Faith is the only aegis. And god will provide what is required to preserve the faith.
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.
I smile at that, I support allodial purchases but there is the eminent domain issue if an individual is needed for summons for reasons of public interest. Otherwise sure if you arn't wanted by the court no reason to bother you on whatever grounds. There really is no state private ownership divide other than mitigated by law. The state owns everythign at default - ownership is a socially mitigated arrangement. The right of ownership is based more or less on common laws that established ownnership based on contexts of possession - it is a pretty straight foward situation. There is however the ability to collect on debts. Laws can also be made to charge fees for things such as property taxes due to "deed" most people don't own their land, the title is held by Natives or the Queen in almost all cases in Canada (not all but most) Within that deed you are granted specific rights to land use not the title itself. The notion is though that you may be able to enjoy and not be deprived of that land as long as you follow the guidelines for use established in property laws such as duties of ownership. etc.. Otherwise the deed can be forfited due to failing to oblidge the duties set out in the deed and lawful operands. The same is true of all types of property within lawful use. Property can be siezed if it violates applicable use. Although I think that insuring that lawful use of property is upheld, and that property laws are crafted to insure property rights are grown rather than subverted is vital for peaceful coexistence. The only way we really have freedom is to control our own jurisidiction. So ownership even mutual ownership is a fundamental requiremnt of freedom. The enslaved are not free. The free are bound to no will but their own.
And that shouldn't require criminality or madness to acheive. We need not be outlaws or nutters to be free.
(basically for a test of property rights you must place the property as a seperate state and in contexts the basis of treaty that exists in the form of contracts and established stipulations of the arragement - if the land is allodial and free of encumbrences and there is no reason (casus) to interact with the domain it remains seperate - but if cause exists to such as breach of the peace involving the property in association with other individuals or the state then the property can be brought into holdings by possession of right through 'quelling' the land. This is very complex though. and is fundamental to rightful owernship in recognizing "control" and "authority" over something.
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.
I think consumerism is secondary I am more concerned with growing the food for my mouth than the food for your mouth.
Then you should support unfettered property rights.
I 100% support the removal of federal personal income taxes - it isn't about money though it is about worth and valuation and generation of wealth and the amount of wealth you have the ability to produce. Like how many oxs and ploughs you have not just how many bushels. But no I think that we need to take down the system from being overlayed onto the man from their lord we need to make a level playing field that says how as a res publica we can set a playing field that treats all people unto one another rather than unto the lord and their lord and so on.
I am for a level playing field, and that is accomplished by getting government out of the economy.
This does not mean the state would not serve the function of mitigating and arbitating the rules but the subject that once was ought naught be product rather than the producer. And that a producer ought to control the destiny of their produce. This needn't abrogate soceity but rather make a free society, a society of the persons.
But the state can own land services and otherwise, you have the right to use or buy into that but in terms of taxes I say nay there is no need for taxes from the people of their own produce - only a system to control the produce to insure it is not used against the law abiding public. And also a means to insure the public is levied to provide for the sustainance of the state for whatever values it creates for charity and form of state.
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.
-
Right. That is as I suspected. You should post that in your manifesto, or whatever the OP was. It's much more clear what you stand for when you say it that way.
When in Rome...
-
But, but, but, you wrote:
Now you want me to pay tax for police and fire!
Say it ain't so!
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).
-
Your statements are so general and innocuous sounding, but it's just air.
High level platitudes that sound great, but what are the details ?
- Elimination of minimum wage
- Defunding public healthcare
- Pay per use emergency services
How do you feel about these things ?
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.
-
Controlled Capitalism...The kind that raises the fortunes of all ships...Not just those with the financial wherewithall to take advantage of the theoretical scenario you're proposing...
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 in the economy is not a bad thing at all..."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.
That's not statism at all!!Statism is the Soviet Union...Statism is Fascist Italy....I'm not advocating for anything like that...Do you, or do you not advocate government's involvement in the economy?
What your advocating for is a theoretical economic free for all...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.
No thanks..That will end up in a horrendous mess...And as oppressive as any statist nightmare scenario you can imagine...You've said this before, but have yet to explain why. Try me.
The rest of that is Libertarian wet dream/fantasy/unproven theory...Not interested...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.
And don't worry about this Easterm Bastard's pride....I don't take anything from the oil pumping foothills too seriously...Just pump the oil and make us some money....Who's "us", you or the State?
-
I suggest you take the needle outta your arm, cause it sure as hell ain't coming to the land of Timmy's and Crappy Tire.
Keep telling yourself that.
-
Right...
Because RTW people have never gone after the Labour Movement as a whole,right???
Private sector unions are,by design,an impediment to yourt glorious "free market",ya' know???
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.
-
Please describe my "statism"???
And I hope it never gets bad enough to reach a horrific scenario you propose...
Yours is essentially Corporate Fascism dressed up as freedom...
No thanks...
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.
-
No one's buying your Capitalist Utopian theory...er...Nightmare scenario...
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.
-
I dismiss it because your version of economic freedom is only in your mind...
And yours?
Yours is a plan to redistribute wealth upwards into the hands of the few...That's not freedom...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.
No thanks...Not interested...You're not interested in being free? You feel better as the government's pet?
And I could'nt care any less what some Albertan libertarian thinks of this proud Eastern Bastard...
It's good to be proud...but don't let pride get in the way of your better judgement.
Just pump the oil and make us some money....We'll all make more money if we get government out of the economy, and greatly shrink its size.
-
All unions???
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.
-
I completely understand..
That's why I reject Free Market theory as a pure Capitalists wet dream...
Barriers are there for a reason....
Your position is an extremists position that is simply untennable and not based in reality...
The same as Marxism was never based in reality....
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.
-
And,thankfully...
Nothing you have posted is anything more than Friedmanite/Von Hayek theory/fantasy...
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.
-
Nope... FREE market society...
Individual FREEDOM at it's very core...Well at least before Harper made his "nanny state" regulations on the banks telling them how to structure loans and mortgages so some people can't get loans or buy houses any more...
Didn't affect me or anyone with some cash and no debt, but a young family starting out, well, "screw them", the Harper Gov. said...
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.
A New Way Forward for Canada
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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.