Mad_Michael

With this post, you have managed to leave me with a negative impression of you personally. Up until this point, I respect reasoned debate. But I loath ridicule.

As one who has studied the comparative effect of different electoral systems, I categorically oppose any 'proportional representation' model. While the 'first past the post' system may have some flaws (it does) it is less likely to produce electoral & public policy gridlock as is so common in any nation that uses the 'proportional-representation' model. Giving disproportionately large and influential political power to the smallest and most extreme political interests is not my idea of an improvement upon the present system. The existing 'first-past-the-post' model is the one most likely to produce the large 'big-tent' style political parties that facilitate a reduction in regional and/or sectoral interests. Proportional-rep systems tend to exerbate and magnify regional and/or sectoral interests.

Which is why your proposed policy prescription is unlikely to have any effect at all. It is human nature to breed. Having a family is not necessarily a rational economic choice. Ergo, you presume to fight human nature with rational economic tools. That is doomed to failure. Okie dokie. If you discard your libertarian principles and make authoritarian policy proposals, don't be surprise if other's laugh at your 'libertarian' pretentions. Obviously, your 'principles' aren't worth much to you. And if half-measures are causing 'unintended' problems, then going for 'full-measures' isn't likely to reduce the problem. As for your contention that present government policy puts 'barriers' against rich people having kids, please give us an example of this phenomena. This should be easy for you since you are so certain that 'removing' these will improve the situation.

No. Such 'fixed' dates are an abomination under the Westminster model of parliamentary government.

Subsidies are just meddling in the marketplace. Wannabe Soviet Central Planners in western nations use 'subsidies'. The primary purpose of such a subsidy is so that the politicians may take public credit for doing something. The primary function of such subsidies is to give taxpayer money away with no material benefit to the taxpayer. The primary character of subsidies is that they prevent/hinder/impede against market innovation and that they are always permanent and always increase over time. Perhaps we might start by removing all the tax subsidies that are given to the polluting automotive corporations themselves.

Harper has a chance at a majority, but I think it has little to do with any Federal Budget or anything Jack Layton says or does. There is one reason and one reason only that Harper has a chance to get a majority - his name is Dion. With such an unattractive leader, the Liberals are hamstrung. The Conservatives should understand this concept very well - remember Joe Clark, Preston Manning and Stockwell Day? All were electorally poor choices for leader. If the public doesn't like your leader, no one cares what your policies are, you just lose elections. The chances of an NDP minority in Ottawa ranks right up there with the proverbial snowball in hell.

How is this any different than government funding of woman's groups or funding multicultralism or funding native groups? I agree that by making funding choices, the government is showing preferential bais for certain religions, but to prevent that and be consistant, you have to prevent the government from showing ANY bias toward any identifiable group, not just religious. No. Religious group funding is a specific and identifiable class. It is not arbitrary, nor is it comparable to funding of various other non-religious public policies. For example, funding for a 'women's shelter' is a general public service available to women. Public education or the fire department are public services available equally to all. Funding of a religious school board is a service benefiting one single religious group at the expense of others. Also, there is a small matter of historical pragmatism. Church + State = Bloodshed. We've learned this lesson the hard way and do not wish to repeat the bloodshed. We do not have a historical record of wars and bloodshed breaking out over the funding of other non-religious programs. Then you are contradicting your previous assertion that you should get a law 'on th books". My assertion was such a law was probably not possible, which you now seem to agree with. No, I am not. I believe we ought to put a law on the books mandating full separation of Church and State. I also believe that this is almost impossible without getting rid of the monarchy and re-writing the BNA Act.

Like every other mass media outfit, CNN will publish whatever they feel is most likely to attract the largest audience - in order to rent those eyeballs to their advertisers. That is their business model. CNN, like every other mass media outfit, has no responsibilty to 'truth', 'good taste', or anything else save to respect the law and serve their shareholders/owners. That being said, I have to agree - hiphop is poison, but that is mostly irrelevant.

Agreed. President Eisenhower's remarkable warning went unheeded - almost ignored.

Just curious. How do you reconcile this statement with your earlier (opening post) statement that you consider yourself a libertarian? Where is the defense of liberty here? I see only an attempt to limit it.

It is a generally accepted rule that birthrate has a negative corelation with wealth. The wealthier you are, the less likely it is that you will have children - and if you do have children, you will have very few of them. This has virtually nothing to do with government policy or tax laws and everything to do with human psychology and/or sociology and/or evolutionary instinct and/or divine principle. As for 'putting up barriers' for the purpose of annoying/impinging upon poor people, that is absurd. They have things tough enough already, all on their own. They don't need your or our government's help to make it worse - besides which, that would have the affect of making existing child poverty worse, and that cannot be considered 'good policy'. Libertarian? With all due respect, if you condone barriers/laws to prevent poor people from raising families, you can't reasonably or rationally call yourself a libertarian (I suppose you could, but no ought to believe you) - even under the guise of a suggestion to improve the 'existing' system. Your proposal is not even remotely liberal or libertarian - it is the absolute opposite.

I can certainly think of a dozen good reasons or situations where it might be financially prudent for a government or government body to purchase private sector-provided insurance products. I'd get a bit annoyed if the Federal government were using derivatives-like products to protect themselves against currency or interest rate fluctuations, but short of that, I don't see anything wrong with a government buying private sector insurance products for legitimate purposes in the interest of the citizenry.

Harper is a professional politician. Ergo, calling him a "sell-out" is redundant and pretty much meaningless.

What kind of law are you expecting? The charter already gurantees freedom of religion. Separation of Church and State is a principle but how do you enforce it in law? Enforce it? Lets get a law on the books first. Though, there are already many violations already standing. I fear the BNA Act (1867) gives justification for mixing Church and State. Ontario has public finance of a Catholic separate school board. This monstrosity (a 'parting gift' from Bill Davis' conservative government some thirty years ago) has already been cited as the justification for the demand in Ontario for taxpayer funded Jewish schools, Muslim schools, etc. Quebec also has a very long history of mixing Church and State in education and the provision of social services. If that is not enough difficulties, Canada's Head of State is also the titular head of the Anglican Church. On this basis, I'd say that it is a fundamental impossibility to enact a law mandating the separation of Church and State in Canada. And thus, we are going to have to fight every religious attempt to expand on this, issue by issue, and defeat it at the ballot box. Indeed, Ontario government bureaucrats actually accepted 'Sharia Law' in Ontario and set up a test project to evaluate the usage of it (until the public caught wind of the plan and that killed that - for now).

Do you think one's appearance, clothing style, looks or bearing/stature affects how other people perceive you? The accent one speaks with is no different.

Good gosh. History cannot 'prove a negative'. That is absurd. Christians have predicted the eventual '2nd coming of Christ'. It hasn't happened yet, therefore the Christians have been proven totally wrong. (this is an example of your reasoning here). Like I said, this discussion is going no where.

Can you give us an example of a specific government entity buying a such of insurance?

Especially since Canada doesn't have much in the way of laws in favour of separation of Church and State. It is high time we had a charter-proof law on this subject on the books! And it is a 'little' problem by definition. Canadian-Muslim issues pale in comparison with the European situation.

Spin this all you like, but the video clips I've seen of the issue show Senator Inhofe making a fool of himself. When Senator Boxer chided him about losing his gavel was particularly amusing. Inhofe was impotent.

The US Libertarian Party (aka Liberty for Capital party). I'm a libertarian by disposition, but I believe in liberty for individuals, not necessarily for liberty for capital. Liberty for capital is fine, but only insofar as that contributes to liberty for individuals. Libery for capital as a goal in itself is tyranny.

Tell that to that Geoffrey fellow who posts here often enough with his UberAlberta schtick. I've heard plenty of noises about separatism from Albertans. Same koolaid as they drink in Quebec. Same game.

History isn't over yet. Ergo, history hasn't proven this. I don't see any grounds to continue this discussion. We obviously disagree.

I find it equally disturbing and accurate. The USA has become addicted to war.

Good question. One role they are expected to serve is that of a representative for (all) their constitutents with respect to the Government bureaucracy and whatnot. That is to say, they provide help/advice/assistence to constituents dealing with the Government bureaucracy. This is a 'local' function that they are well suited to perform. And as individual human beings, they have the right to stand up if the oppose the party's decision (by resigning from the party).

Alberta and Quebec are made for each other. They both try to play the same game and whine about the other doing it. No sympathy for separatist rhetoric. Alberta drinks from the same koolaid as they serve in Quebec. It is all about what's in it for themselves and screw anybody else who doesn't like it. Actually kind of fun and entertaining when they do it to each other. P.S. I always find it amusing that Albertans and Quebecers constantly talk about how they get shafted by 'the rest of Canada' and how Ottawa is always out to screw them. And of course, that Ottawa government is 'jammed' down their throats. But of course, no one ever mentions that all of the Prime Ministers going back to the 1960's have been from either Alberta or Quebec (exception was Kim Campbell for a day or two). Funny how that works.