Renegade

The Canadian Wheat Board cannot pursue it in court. They are muzzled and threatened with firing. So I guess it was legal then.

Incrceration is not violent? You are kidding right? They have armed guards simply because they did not realize that violence was not to be used. 10 minutes ago you were all for the democratic process. The democratic process was followed, the CPC was elected. Now you want to "hear arguments"? Why don't you just concede to the democratic process you so strongly advocated earlier?

Is an ass because it, under threat of violence, limits the ability of a farmer to trade his goods freely. And wasn't democracy followed by electing a government which will enact such a change to the act? Is any of what the government doing illegal? If so the CWB can persue it in court.

No to 1 yes to 2. I think jail time is extreme, they should be faced with crushing fines. I would reccommend that they try to build support for their position and win the vote though. Seems like a better financial move. When the law is an ass, you need to reconigze it as one, and change it. Disagree. They are different situation. In the JP situation, the JP refuses to perform a key part of his job. With an employee, joining a union is not relevant to his job, and is only mandatory because the union says it is so. Many juristictions agree that the employee needs to be protected from such bullying and have passed "right to work" legislation

I should have phrased my question more articulately. Is it fair to have a law where farmer is thrown in jail if he refuses to sell to the Wheat Board, but instead sells his grain elsewhere? Of course I agree if a person, farmer or otherwise breaks the law, he should suffer the consequences. However IMV the law is completely unfair and therefore should be changed.

If it is possible for a 50% + 1 of wheat producers to dissolve the board without serious amounts of red tape that would make the vote therotecially possible but practically impossible then yet again this government is out of line. The Wheat Board seems a lot like a union to me. I hate unions but if 50% + 1 or more of employees want one then great bring it in...however both the union and wheat board should be sent packing just as easily if 50% + 1 or more want to remove it. So should a farmer be thrown in jail if he refuses to sell to the Wheat Board, but instead sells his grain elsewhere? Should an employee be fired if he refuses to join a union that the 50%+1 of the employees want?

You don't explain why the farmer's input via the ballot box is not sufficient to decide the issue. Your argument can do without the partisan posturing. It lends no credence to your case.

How? A "One Buck, One Vote" system wouldn't do it. How would a nation of 30 million taxpayers cater to the whims of each individual? Bottom line: unless youbelive taxes are wrong and should be done away with completely, there's no possible way each taxpayer can control wher etheir money goes. And even if they could, just imagine the chaos that would ensue! While it may not be possile to give complete control to tax contributors, some measures can be taken to better control where and how tax money is spent. These measure include: 1. Relying primaily on user fees to fund services. Thus the taxes raised are proportonate to the demand and willingness to pay. 2. Where possible allow taxpayers to opt out of a service (eg EI, CPP) 3. Give people input on where the money collected is spent. It wouldn't be hard to implement as part of your income tax return can be used to indicate broadly in percentage terms where you want the money spent. The government should be force to follow that input.

"Above average" in what area? Intelligence, income, tax contribution, what? You seem to assume that I only favour a policy if I think there is something in it for me. That's not how I make my determination. I'm not assuming. I'd be willing to take my chances on getting little to nothing from the system in exchange for reducing my contribution to little to nothing. Maybe, maybe not. The principle still stands. If I contribute little, I should get little influence.

Exactly. And the same logic applies there. They should. And regardless of if they do or not, the SCC has already ruled it legal. The rights are not in conflict, so it is incorrect to state that the rights of the few are above the rights of the majority. The few do not have the right to tell the majority who to sell their wheat to. If the majority are so inclined they can continue to use the wheat board. Similarly the majority do not have the right to tell the few who they can sell their wheat to. Farmers do have the same input the rest of us do. The ballot box at election time. Why should they get additional input on any one issue. No one asked or cared about my input when income trust leglislation was enacted. Welcome the farmers into the age of our parlimentary democracy.

The choice to give to farmers is the choice of who to sell to, not who to vote for. That choice is part and parcel of the legislation of the Canadian Wheat Board act. They can vote to dissolve the Board. Why doesn't Strahl let that vote happen? For the same reason that our rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. IOW, the farmers who want to sell outside the board should have the right to do so, regardless of what the majority want. The Canadian Wheat Board act is nothing but a piece of legislation which is subject to change form the ruling government. It is not a set of rules written by almighty powers in stone.

The choice to give to farmers is the choice of who to sell to, not who to vote for.

If your point is that the system today is flawed because a vote has such an indirect impact on how an individual's money is spent. I agree. Our system of electing representatives, disempowers us individually. I woudl be happy to see a system where we individually controlled where our money is spent. It doesn't. Not in an of itself anyway. It's just less likely to happen. IMV there would need to be additional controls to prevent redistribution of wealth. IMV the biggest objection to a one-person one-vote system (OPOV) is it allows individuals who make little or no financial contribution to control the financial contribution made by others. I'd be perfectly happy with a OPOV system, if strict controls were put on the government such that it couldn't redistribute wealth.

Really? How do you know? How do you know it includes opposite sex couples? That's precisely what I'm trying to tell you. That SEXUAL ORIENTIATION is IRRELEVANT when it comes to marriage as a human right. IOW, everyone gets to marry regardless of sexual orientation Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that excludes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT. IOW, let me make it simple for you. Leglslation includes everyone unless it explicitly excludes some group. If you can show me where it explicitly excludes homosexuals, I'll concede you are right. I'll even settle for if you can show that it explictly shows that it applies specificly to hetrosexuals.

When you advocate a system which is much like the one you have now, you in fact are advocating for a redistribution of welath. Maybe you can elaborate on how you think a government would enact laws that woudl "prevent the market from allowing less people to rise up the ladder." Keep in mind that the bulk of the taxes are not paid by the rich, but are in fact paid by the middle class. So are you infact saying that a government appointed by mostly the middleclass would prevent themselves from rising up the ladder? A system such as the one we have today, allows people who don't contribute, a say in how other's contribution is distributed in the form of services or wealth transfers. This inevitably leads to transfers of wealth as part of a government mandate.

There seems to be a prevaling view from the left, that the rich and corporations pay very little or no taxes due to their use of loopholes and shelters. You would think if this were true they would jump at the chance to disempower the rich by gearing votes to tax contribution.

Ah, we finally get to the heart of the matter. .. geoffery, you've said before that you oppose a mandate of government to redistribute wealth, yet that is exactly what you are advocating in the position above.

Yes I agree that contibution to society cannot be measured based upon taxes alone, but I support the princple that your influence should be based upon your contribution. I'm open to suggestions on how we measure the overall contribution. Tax contributions are measurable. BTW, I did not advocate that people have NO say in society. I simply advocated that financial contributors should have a proportionaly larger say in financial decisions. I would love to see a system where you got to opt out of services provided. The ultimate system which does this is a user-pay system. The ideal system woudl be a minimalist government system and one in which services provided were billed to the user. If the user didn't want to pay for the service they are free not to do so. The objection seems to be strictly based upon the practicality of measuring contribution. Let's for a minute suppose that you could quantify contribution. Would you support the principle of influence for contribution?

If the board's survival depends upon forcing all farmers to sell to them, then the board deserves bankrupcy. If you remove the boards monopsony, then any farmer who supports the board can still sell to them. By your own admission, they would not survive under those conditions. It makes no sense that farmers would go to jail for selling to a buyer other than through the board.

So would you agree with the statement that your influnece in choosing the government should be reflective of your overall contribution to society? What about those who contribute nothing? Do they still get to vote? Sure. Happens now anyway. The currency offered to pay for your vote is campaign promises.

Now you're on to something. Why didn't I think of that.

The worth of money is always relative. When the government raises taxe rates, in general those who are in higher tax brackets pay more in dollar amounts. When the government lowers taxes, those in higher tax brackets benefit more in dollar amounts. It is irrevelant if the money is more or less valuable to them then someone earning far less. The system you deride as "moronic" is one used all the time in corporations. Those who contribute more are accorded more shares and thus have more votes in appointing the directors of a company. There are a lot of stakeholders who depend upon the decisions of the company (eg customers, suppliers, etc). Should they too get a say in who runs the company? Government can be run on a similar principle. We buy our shares with our taxes.

So I gather now your objection is based upon the difficulting in implementation not upon the principle. Yep counting would be a pain, no doubt. We would need to be a lot more precise in accounting what we contribute. I'd like to say all taxes are included, but it may be easier just to count income tax. Brilliant counterargument BD!! I'm sure you're right because you say so. But it is the one in the comfy tax bracket who is paying to support the welfare brother. He should thus have greater say in how that money is spent.

It is not a question of how much a vote is worth, because a vote is notional concept without value. Its a question of how many votes does each stakeholder get. In my view, they should get one vote per dollar of tax contribution. Exactly! So your original position that all people should have votes because they are all stakeholders is meaningless since in essence everyone on the planet is a "stakeholder". You draw the line at citizenship. I draw it at taxpayer. Why is one right and one wrong? Yes I know. But I am. Not all stakeholders have the same amount at stake that a one person-one vote system does not reflect.

Foreign investors can-and do-vote with their dollars. But since their stake is limited soley to the financial realms, so too should their level of influence. Unfortunately taxpayers are captive and don't have the same ability to vote with their dollars that a foreign investor does. What I'm proposing that taxpayers do get the level of influence that their contribution warrants. Since you are willing to partition off certain stakeholders and give them different levels of influence depending upon the stake they hold, why the objection to partition off taxpayers and give them influence over the stake they hold?