turningrite

I'm not a conservative. I'm a rationalist and am critical of support for economic globalization on both the left and right. At least the right is more philosophically consistent in not denying that the main objective of economic globalization is above all else to promote and serve the the interests of capital. The left, on the other hand - at least as exemplified by self-styled "progressives" like Trudeau - seems utterly oblivious to the dire consequences of combining the strategies of wage arbitrage and large-scale migration. That this agenda is presented as being progressive in any demonstrably credible context is risible. Trudeau says governments just haven't done a good enough job in rounding out the rough edges of globalization, while I think it's accomplishing precisely what those who most benefit from it wanted it to do in the first place. Most likely, Trudeau is a useful idiot in the service of the globalist cause as he's clearly not its intellectual champion. And yes, I do intend to imply that there's a distinction between progressive and "progressive." In the former case it serves to enhance the broad economic and social interests of ordinary citizens, while in the latter it promotes and bolsters a set of often moralistic causes that end up dividing society according to identity-focused interests and too often ignores, undermines and even demonizes the interests of ordinary citizens.

Of course it's too early. That's what he pact's opponents are pointing out. Just wait and see what happens when this turkey of a pact, which among other little perks promotes propaganda and censorship (What's not to like there, eh?) as means of accomplishing its goals, combines with "progressive" Lib ideology. It's a match made in "progressive" heaven that could well turn out to be a nightmare for the rest of us.

I think more voters than you might imagine are willing to consider supporting politicians and parties that actually stand up for something and tackle unpleasant realities. We've seen what Trudeau stands for and hopefully a lot of voters will want to give his sunshine, unicorns and subsidies approach a pass by the time next year's election rolls around. And we could be in a recession again, which will make it more difficult for him to burnish his sunny brand. Those who won't support Trudeau and who also see the NDP as hopeless will have to decide whom to back. I think the hope for many is that Scheer will take more forthright stands on issues, like immigration, that a lot of Canadians would like to see debated. If he decides that he just wants to appear friendly and agreeable, will that attract much support? If people want fluff, there's always Justin. Nobody can outfluff JT. Bernier, on the other hand, seems willing to tackle difficult and contentious issues. There's more to politics than just being liked.

I'm not a Scheer fan either. I think he was a compromise candidate who won by wooing special interests but otherwise appearing to be innocuous. Personally, I think the CPC backed the wrong horse in the contest between Scheer and Bernier. Bernier's certainly not afraid to challenge sacred cows, if you'll excuse the pun.

That's a question you should be raising with "progressive" globalists, like those who seem to dominate in Lib party ranks these days, who don't seem to understand the inherent conflict between the economic globalization, which is heavily premised on a policy of wage arbitrage, and combating climate change.

And what, exactly, do you know about any of this? Why have several countries, including quite a few democracies, refused to sign the pact on grounds of its potential impact on their laws and sovereignty? I suspect they employ well-educated lawyers who've warned them of the pacts implications. I think that apologists for this pact, who defend it on grounds that it's non-binding, don't actually understand the practical meaning of the term. As I noted in response to another post, all international law, with the possible exception of the Geneva Conventions, is theoretically non-binding. Under the Westphalian sovereignty model that's governed the relationships between countries since the 17th century, international law is non-binding except to the extent that the sovereign states voluntarily agree to comply with the stipulations of the pacts, treaties and agreements into which they enter. In other words, sovereign states cannot be bound or compelled to enter into or comply with international pacts, which are thus voluntary and non-binding, but by entering into such pacts signatory states essentially agree to in good faith comply with their provisions.

1.) And you know this how? 2.) What, exactly, is your point? 3.) My point is that such pacts become part of the body of international law, which is defined as "a body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another." Under the Westphalian sovereignty model, which has governed the relations between states since the 17th century, all international law, except perhaps the Geneva Conventions, is theoretically non-binding except to the extent that sovereign nations voluntarily agree to in act in accordance with the multilateral agreements into which they enter. In other words, sovereign states cannot be bound to comply with international pacts, which are thus non-binding, but by entering into such pacts essentially agree to in good faith comply with their provisions.

The problem, of course, lies in generalizing risks as being applicable to entire populations, however delineated. We know, for instance, that most rapists are men but that doesn't render all men rapists. I think that many people get upset when Muslims don't appear to vociferously repudiate religiously-motivated terrorism. But would we expect any other group to assume this kind of collective responsibility? We should consider how upset people got when political adherents to the SJW perspective put this kind of collective group-blaming philosophy into practice with M-103 in the aftermath of the Quebec City mosque murders. It's neither fair nor productive, whatever the foot on which the shoe ostensibly fits.

You'll note that Merkel inserted the term "valid" when responding to a direct question about whether the pact is binding. Although I don't speak German, in English such a response would be interpreted as upholding the assertion or premise of the questioner. And the questioner also noted that the conference chair in Morocco stated the pact was binding on signatory countries, which Merkel didn't apparently refute. The countries that have opted out of the pact, including the U.S., Australia and Italy (hardly despotic states) have done so on grounds of its impact on their sovereignty and ability to independently craft and administer their own policies and programs. It's interesting that you cite the "International cooperation" provision, which holds that "no state can address migration on its own" and thus asserts the collective "authority" of the pact. And I'm also amused that you assert the primacy of "national sovereignty" by quoting verbiage which stipulates that signatory nations retain their sovereignty to the extent that they remain "in accordance with international law." Hmmm... You do understand the implications of this limitation, right?

I suspect JT understands that his carbon tax (er, "tax on pollution") is a crock. It allows him to genuflect in the direction of progressive orthodoxy as a cover for creating yet another redistributive program funded by carbon revenues. It's hypocrisy, of course, but what else would we expect? Many Canadians are likely unaware that the Trudeau family fortune originated in selling gasoline. I guess it's not good enough for other Canadians to make a living in the industry or rely on services funded by the taxes generated by it. Oh well, he's going to prop up the energy industry in the West while touting the moral virtues of his "pollution" tax. It's not hard to figure that the next federal election is less than a year away, right? It's quite the high-wire act for sure.

The problem with this equation going forward is that despite continuing to pay high taxes the services Canadian citizens obtain from their governments are deteriorating, This is especially the case with health care. The social benefits model only works when there is a balance between contributions (i.e. taxes) and entitlements. This balance principle is otherwise sometimes described as the "social contract" model. But the model has largely broken down, mainly due to the influx of millions of immigrants over the past generation, too many of whom have become and have remained too dependent on government support. Successive governments have explained the "need" for this influx in misleading terms, such as addressing "labour shortages" and the "demographic deficit" when in fact the principal rationale is wage and income suppression. The CPP/QPP is based on a contributory entitlement model, which might in fact become a solution going forward, whereby other social benefits might be allocated on a contributory basis. Otherwise, I fear the whole social benefits structure is doomed to fail as more taxpaying Canadians realize they've been duped into paying for programs they will never be able themselves to adequately access, at which point they will rebel against having to pay taxes to support the system.

The Conservatives needed a new leader because Harper had served in the PM role long enough and had accumulated significant baggage. It's unfortunate he didn't step down a few months prior to the 2015 election, in which case a new leader might have had a decent chance to beat the Libs or at least hold them to a minority. As for Singh, the NDP has flailed under his leadership. I'm not sure whether this is due to poor leadership or, as I think more likely, that the NDP is a party without any kind of coherent cause at present. It largely mimics Lib/progressive nonsense and seems to have utterly abandoned the interests of ordinary working Canadians in favor of promoting trendier progressive causes. The Libs seem to want the NDP to retain Singh as leader in order to scoop up traditional NDP supporters in the 2019 election. Personally, I think a weak NDP is more important to enhancing Lib fortunes than Bernier is any kind of boon to their chances. Bernier might at least force the immigration issue into the election debate, which could well serve to undermine both Lib and NDP support.

Well, perhaps you might consider what Merkel actually said when answering questions on the pact in the Bundestag. When confronted on whether the pact is binding, she refused to say it isn't and in fact countered that when approved by enough EU member states its provisions are binding on all EU members whether or not their national parliaments agree. Seems pretty credible and definitive to me. The fact that Canada's MSM outlets appear to have avoided covering Merkel's comments doesn't render factual reportage on other sites 'opposite in fact', as you hold to be the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZZ-FK4YESM

Reportedly, Merkel admitted last weekend that the pact's provisions will be binding on nations that sign it. We have to ask why democratic countries like the U.S. and Australia, which, like Canada, receive lots of immigrants, didn't sign it? Their concern, above all else, surely relates to maintaining sovereign control over immigration and border policy. It's naive to believe this isn't a major concern for Canadians as well, even if many in our political elite and the MSM adamantly deny it.

I think you need to look at the issue from a broader perspective. We and other globalist regimes are pursuing a policy, economic globalization, that directly conflicts with the globalist agenda for curbing C02 emissions. Unless we change course on the former, pursuing the latter is mainly a pipe dream. Obviously, Canada has a long way to go to be taken seriously on environmental protection, as is the case for almost all major industrial economies both in the developed and, particularly, the developing world. But should we bend first? Well, to some extent we and some other Western countries have done so, even if only tentatively. Ontario, with Canada's largest population, eliminated coal-generated electricity and Canada is set to become one of the first advanced economies to eliminate coal-generated electricity. But the consequences of so doing will entail enormous repercussions for jurisdictions that are brave enough to take the leap, as illustrated by the dramatic and arguably uncompetitive electricity price increases Ontario has faced. And at this point it appears that every little bit of progress is being offset by increasing emissions elsewhere. There is no possibility, then, that individual countries, and particularly less important ones like Canada, can act alone in this endeavor to achieve meaningful change. Wishful thinking and isolated gestures won't reduce C02 emissions. I think the only solution is to put a hefty price on carbon inputs, which would entail a massive rethink of globalization ideology.

Well, to be fair, at least Ford's government consulted Ontarians on the issue. The problem with ideologues is that they too often interpret their own preferences as being consistent with the public mood and, bolstered by the influence of special interests, are resistant to changing course when this turns out not to be the case. We'll see what Ford's government does here. Will it allow special interests, and particularly religionists and social conservatives, to dictate public policy or will it accede to the broader public preference for an updated and modern sex-ed curriculum? If the latter case wins out, we'll have to give Ford's crew some credit. We saw when Harper was in power that narrow interests and perceptions too often won out, as illustrated by the decision to cancel the long-form census because a few people had apparently indicated their disapproval of it to influential people within Harper's circle. And we see that Trudeau still spouts platitudes about supposedly widespread public support for his government's immigration policies when polling indicates this isn't actually the case. Who needs facts when blind certainty will do?

There have been a few big changes since the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. One of these is technological progress. I think many climate change alarmists underestimate the role technology can and will play to ameliorate potential climate disruption. The political and organizational framework governing human interaction has also changed enormously, with the creation and protection of firm national boundaries becoming the norm over the past 200 years. This development occurred in conjunction with the emergence of industrialization and modern democracy and the desire of populations to create viable sociopolitical institutions to permit their citizens to lead dignified and orderly lives. These institutions will not simply disappear because globalists wish them away and if recent history is any indication people in the areas most threatened by migration will fight to maintain them.

Wow, you've got to make up your mind here. First, you had northern climes being invaded by climate change refugees from the south and now you're saying that Canadian territory will also be uninhabitable? None of us will be here to figure out how this situation actually turns out. Some scientific climate change models suggest the Rocky Mountains (where the big prairie rivers originate) and prairie regions will receive substantially more autumn, winter and spring precipitation but face drier summers. Overall, however, precipitation is likely to increase. I've read of one study that indicates the western and northern prairies will benefit while the eastern prairies could suffer. Canada as a whole is projected to be one of the places that could actually benefit from global warming so I'm not sure why you are so intensely pessimistic?

Hong Kong and Singapore are poor examples to cite as both are entrepot economies that are highly dependent on location for economic advantage. Both are densely populated urban centres and neither has any natural resources. And their people are heavily protected from the vicissitudes of economic instability, with 50 percent of Hong Kong's residents relying on government housing assistance of some kind and 90 percent of Singaporeans living in government-owned housing. They function as deeply integrated and specialized economic enterprises rather than as complex and diverse economies. Their uniqueness renders them examples of exceptions that prove a rule as the unique conditions under which they prosper can't be replicated in many other places. Finally, Singapore isn't a unilaterally open trading nation as it has trade agreements in place with several nations and economic blocs and the extent of Hong Kong's actual independence is suspect.

Too many of our preening globalists seem utterly unwilling to admit the role economic globalization is playing in exacerbating climate change. I think we need to move toward carbon input taxation, whereby tariffs would be applied on the basis of the amount of carbon emitted in manufacturing and transporting various products. Countries could also be assigned a rating on the basis of the percentage of input energy they obtain from carbon-based sources and those with cleaner and more efficient systems more reliant on renewables would be treated preferentially. The current globalization system is based on wage arbitrage, with lower wage jurisdictions winning out. Imagine if it were to be based on carbon arbitrage, with carbon efficient jurisdictions winning? Places like Brazil and Quebec, with vast renewable resources, would become the new economic superpowers. Coal dependent economies would become dinosaurs unless willing to adapt.

As an indigenous friend of mine, only partially tongue in cheek, says, 'Just keep sending out those cheques'. Being both smart and of sardonic temperament, he understands that a lot of this is a game and acknowledges the role played by reflexive "white guilt" in this equation. It's not that he believes that the colonial system was any kind of boon or benefit to Canada's indigenous populations. He's skeptical, though, about the ability of an ideology grounded in victimization to achieve much progress.

Dystopian fantasy. Americans continue to move south, as do a lot of Canadians if they can manage to do so. There's no sign any of this will change soon.

Global free trade will never work unless all countries are willing to in good faith comply. Good luck with that. Unilaterally adopting a policy of open international trade without the cooperation of other governments would lead to the collapse of the Canadian economy, or the economy of any other country that might want to try it. We need to work toward fair trade, hopefully in the broadest context possible. The current WTO regime has faltered because of its failure to include a process to review and adjust the special treatment accorded "developing" countries. In other words, it stipulates that developed economies must subject their markets and workers to free trade while developing countries are free to practice protectionism and mercantilism. The resulting disequilibrium is responsible for the nationalist and protectionist backlashes we now see in much of the West. Unilateral global free trade is simply an impossible notion as it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Free trade only works well on the basis of reciprocity and as we've learned from bitter experience even our relationship with our closest and biggest trading partner isn't grounded in true reciprocity.

I think Trudeau exemplifies a form of elitist narcissism that holds itself as being inherently and rightfully privileged and therefore obligated to bestow benefits on those it deems worthy of consideration. It rejects community with and among other, lesser, Canadians (too common and uninteresting) and feels it must apologize on their behalf for disadvantages and past misdeeds faced by others even where the majority had little or nothing to do with any of this. But elitists like Trudeau express assumed guilt because, well, it's the 'right thing to do' while absolving themselves and others in their class from any specific liability for the exploitation of others. It's a convenient calculus, of course, that allows these elitists to glibly take credit for giving away other people's livelihoods and money while burnishing their own self-styled reputation for fairness and generosity.

Yes, the article does go lightly on Trudeau by attributing Canada's impotence to big-power brutalism rather than to anything in particular the Trudeau government has or has not done. But, nevertheless, Trudeau never stops his preening. A more consequential leader would point out the obvious and admit the (very) limited degree to which Canada can influence global affairs. A more consequential leader would point out that it's the role of Canadian governments to stand up for the interests of Canadians rather than become absorbed in vanity projects. A more consequential leader, in other words, would acknowledge the exigencies of the real world. Canada does not have such a consequential leader.