Second-class Canadian

I'm certainly pro-immigration, and that helps. But that alone does not make the native population literate.

So how do we change that?

Maybe what we need then is a shakeup. Establish a unified market with another country, maybe the US and Greenland. One we become aware that our illiterate population now has to compete head on with them for jobs, suddenly governs will take education more seriously.

So why is this not a Federal election issue? Adult functional literacy in neither official language on reserves sits at 60%, and that is a Federal responsibility. If we want to promote economic deve lip mental on reserves, improving literacy rates is essential.

Then we'll raise tariffs on you.

We'look even raise the minimum wage, but never that half are functionally illiterate.

How do we do that when according to Stats Can 2011 about 50% of Canadians over 16 (and 60% on reserves) are functionally literate in neither official language and such an appalling literacy rate is not even an election issue? Hey guys, come to Canada and hire our illiterate workers.

So what party will raise taxes without screwing companies over by protectionism?What party will spend the money wisely? Right now Canada is half illiterate and most Ontario parties prefer to defend the separate school system's overhead costs rather than spend more on literacy education. Federal parties defend official bilingualism at 2.4 billion a year while schools on reserves are underfunded between 2000 and 3000 per student yearly and the adult illiteracy rate there is at 60%. I don't mind paying higher taxes if they'll go to bread and butter issues like literacy. But it never does. Instead it all goes to special interests. So what's the difference?

Of course libertarianism has its problems, but if the NDP, Liberals, Conservatives, and Greens suddenly saw the wise parking their votes with the Libertarian Party, maybe then they'd start to smarten up for the good of the people. Let's consider this: Canada's literacy rate will probably not even be an election issue.

Stats Can 2011 shows about 50% of Canadians over 16 being functionally literate in neither official language. This leaves a politician of any political stripe with one of two options: cater to the electorate's ignorance or challenge it and educate it. Then there's the problem of the prisoner's dilemma. If one candidate decides to exercise his patriotic duty and challenge the electorate's beliefs, and the other candidate strategically caters to them for personal gain, we know who will win. Somehow we'd have to get all candidates to agree to challenge and educate the electorate and agree on wise fundamentals and disagree only on legitimate disagreements for the good of the country. But in today's partisan environment, courting the illiterate vote is the goal.

Immigration helped to shrink the indigenous influence.

Wasn't Canada built on immigration through colonization prior to Confederation?

A good example, there are some things a competent government can do better than the private sector can, but if the government can't convince of of its competence in spending the money wisely and passing wise laws, then maximum deregulation is the next best option, leaving us to give to worthier charities.

Ironically enough, this is one of the things that attracts me to libertarianism. A rational policy is far superior to libertarianism, but libertarianism is superior to an irrational policy. As a result, the libertarian candidate would usually be the best default candidate when none of the others are worth voting for. Sad, really.

Ignore this post. Wrong thread.

Very true. Yet even our "wisest"politicians in Canada seem to have blindly fallen into this trap.

Reading is actually depressing. Mindless politicians all unthinkingly agreeing on "convenational wisdom" because the electorate does, no politician daring to challenge the sacred cow, the only differences remaining between parties being so superficial as to make voting almost insignificant. So, how do we shake this up?

Unless you're planning o introduce Iranian-style anti-conversion laws, how do you plan to prevent a person from choosing any particular religion?

What about a common labour agreement. Would that not be the next step before any confederation with the US were possible? We can't just jump into confederation from one day to the next.

Joining the United States? You mean federation? Maybe eventually, but first thing's first. We don't even have a common labour agreement or common educational standards for various trades and professions yet. Woun't that be the next big step before joining the US?

So if we can't have world federation right now which limits our taxation abilities, then we must inevitably look at cuts for now.

Even on the human rights front, while the Ontario NDP is mum on separate schools, the Swedes grant school vouchers so that the Saami and Finns can establish schools in their own languages.

You're absolutely correct. Sweden raised taxes but did not suffocate business. The NDP is not as interested in raising taxes: it just wants to suffocate business instead. I do agree with a resource tax like a carbon tax for example. It encourages more efficient use of resources. I can agree with increased funding on universal compulsory education and trades and professional training for the unemployed. That might explain NDP successes provincially. I don't agree with legislating the unskilled out of the workforce by raising the minimum wage. That hurts the NDP both provincially and Federally. And when it comes to protectionism, that's suicide for the NDP. European socialists understood give and take. If you raise taxes, then you must also help businesses to function in a high tax environment. Spending on trades and professional education helps with that. While other countries can compete on price, they can compete on technology and quality. Free trade also allows them to specialize and promote economies of scale to offset the higher taxes. A common labour market and educational standards for various trades and professions increases worker mobility, ensuring employers can hire the workers they want and workers can find the work they want. It's like a social contract. We'll tax you more, but we'll also help you to become more efficient. The NDP? We'll tax you more and then block your every opportunity for growth. Again, just some fundamental differences.

Of course, but on other fronts the differences are fundamental.

Let's say I'd pointed out fundamental differences between Canadian and other conservatives. Would you still expect me to point out that they're still conservatives? I think the differences I'd pointed out are fundamental. For example, Canada has some of the longest hospital wait times which a two-tiered system could rectify and which works well in France and other EU countries, yet the NDP ignores the evidence. Whereas the NDP want to legislate the unskilled out of the workforce through minimum-wage legislation, the Swedes and others invest in trades and professional education to help raise the worker's employability and economic worth. Additionlly, German and other co-determination laws to democratize the workforce ensure workers are consulted. For instance, in times of economic hardship, workers could freely negotiate their wages down to prevent layoffs while also ensuring that upper management and CEO bit the bullet too. The NDP would just raise the minimum wage to prevent such flexibility in hard economic times. France and other EU countries promote not only free trade, but also a common labour market so as to make it easier for workers to go where their skills are most in demand. The NDP just wants protectionism and competition with other countries rather than co-operation for everyone's benefit. These are just some differences, and I hardly think they're cosmetic. These are fundamental differences, and there are many of them.