Mad_Michael

Indeed, if people were truly concerned about democracy, I'd like to see a law that says every federal riding in the country is the same population. We already use this game to weight rural votes more weight than urban ones, and Atlantic Canada's votes are worth more than Ontario's (for example). This is anti-democratic. One citizen = one vote. Very simple. We ought to try it.

We could only be so lucky. And when was the last time bureaucrats and political elites came up with an idea that was rejected by the voters - and that ended the process? If the bureaucrats and political elites want something, we will NEVER hear the end of it, even with 99% votes against, the process will not be killed. They will try again - or try to introduce it quietly, or under a different name, or though back-channels. That's how our political elites do things, voters be damned.

No it doesn't give you greater choice as a voter. It gives greater security of office to party elites who can retain their seats through 'party votes' when the constituents boot their asses out of office. This system can be used to frustrate the will of the voters. There is a big reason that politicans themselves love this system. And anything that deviates from the principle of one citizen equals one vote is anti-democratic. You prefer a system where the smallest party with 5% support of the vote is able to determine all public policy? Indeed, rule by 40% of the voters and calling it a majority is a bit specious. But letting Parliament be ruled by a party with 5% is a far greater travesty. Such is the character of coalition governments - a process the becomes permanent and institutionalised (with backroom deals no less) under proportional rep systems.

Yeah. The ONLY thing uglier and worse than the present system we use in Ontario is the bastard-system proposed to replace it. Proportional representation will give us institutionalised coalition governments that don't actually govern, and a complete inability to cut any program - ever. Indeed, we can have non-functional governments just like the Dutch, the Belgians, the Germans and the Italians. That is not my idea of an improvement. Safer jobs for political party elits is not my idea of an improvement. If you think you like this 'multimember' crap, just take a close look at Italian and Israeli (or Dutch or German) politics and then tell me that you think that works well.

You have a short memory (or are just a young'un). The major systematic drawdown of the Canadian military began during the 1960s and early 70s, though one can argue that it began in the 1950s under Deifenbaker. So, if you include Joe Clark's government and Brian Mulroney's two terms (let alone Deifenbaker's) then your attack on the left is spurious and reeks of selective partisanship. I have. And if I were going to become an activist on an issue, buying guns for the Canadian military is very, very low on my priority system. I've voted in favour of the policy and watched a dozen governments reneg. Not a big issue to me until someone comes along and tries to use it as a partisan weapon to attack the left. That's when I get annoyed since that is just rabid partisan bullshit.

Numbers on this are posted in this thread. Roughly 46% of Americans, 26% of Canadians completely reject evolutionary theory. That's a lotta rattlesnakes in Churches!

Not entirely so. One can rationally hold doubt of god, but that is technically beside the point here. The point here is: Since there is no proof for the existence of God, then there can only be belief (i.e. there is no logical rationale for holding doubt or otherwise). Yes, one can rationally assert that belief in God is irrational based upon a formulation of Ockham's Razor. The introduction of a supernatural agent (without any evidence to support such an interpretation) into the process adds needless complexity - and thus is rejected as irrational supposition. And as I always find it necessary to add, this in no way shape or form says anything about God's existence. And there is nothing wrong with doing something irrationally. Humans are irrational beings. Amongst humans, rational behaviour is the exception, not the rule.

I hate it when people invoke Occam's razor and then mis-spell it. It just looks so...I don't know...illiterate.You're not really serious, are you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ockham His name is William of Ockham... yikes. I believe ScottSA was trying to be serious - for what that's worth. Anyway, as near as I can tell, the odd spelling of "Occam" is apparently an American thing - seemingly fully accepted as the 'proper' spelling of the term in the USA. Without a doubt, the proper spelling would be "Ockham" given that was originated by William of Ockham and that I've never encountered the spelling of "Occam" in any reputable non-American source. Every text I have cites the "Ockham" spelling.

Nothing. It is a lot less than the 40% (according to the same poll) who reject any role of any God in the process.

I hate it when people invoke Occam's razor and then mis-spell it. It just looks so...I don't know...illiterate. You do provide entertainment certainly!

I have unequivically stated contemporary Roman Catholic doctrine. The Bible is held to be allegorical, not literal. It is only in some (not all) sects of Protestantism that the Bible is held to be the literal word of God. They are a minority of Christians on the planet. The majority of Christians hold to the Roman Catholic faith and there the Bible is not held to be literal. And thus, there is no inherent conflict here. Roman Catholic doctrine holds that big bang theory and evolution is not logically incompatible with belief in God as the creator of the universe (according to the 'watchmaker analogy'). Ergo, you have to direct your question to a Bible literalist, not to Christians generally.

There is no illusion. It is death. By all experience, all there is, is death. That which we believe is often illusion. Even in the post of a discussion forum... Touche!

The power of belief is strong. You cut off the last bit... "it can only be changed in form". Just being pedantic here. Technically speaking, it could be lots of different things. Perhaps an idea of ours?

Not entirely so. One can rationally hold doubt of god, but that is technically beside the point here. Consider this perhaps as a rejoiner for your 'preamble' statement. True. However, there is a slippery slope to a famous false dichotomy that is often favoured by theists. Suffice it to say that the lack of proof of God does not require us (as humans) to give up our seeking after knowledge or proof of same. Indeed, the seeking is half the fun of it. I believe you are correct here. And vice versa as well. As a general rule, Freud theorized lots of crazy things. And in Freud's theory cited above, the super-ego can be conventionally interpreted as our society. No need to invoke the supernatural for an explicable phenomena. That is not rational according to application of Ockham's Razor. Indeed an excellent point and a predictable flaw in the common practice of scientific reasoning. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. *Note: The above is a flaw in the common application of scientific reasoning - it is not necessarily a flaw in the inherent process of scientific reasoning. Damn good question. The only point I'd like to raise here is that of the 'personal vs private'. Who or what you believe upon that question is your own 'private' business. The only real issue that rightfully ought to concern anyone, or perhaps the only issue that is worthy of discussion, would be the impact upon public policy. It is only when private beliefs impact public policy and civil society that another group may have a reasonable right to object or concern themselves with the topic. If we all just minded our own religious (or non-religious) business and stayed home, there'd be no issue here. Obviously, some people just like to argue about the topic so where we are!

Are you familiar with recent studies suggesting that 'relative' poverty has a far greater 'psychic' effect than absolute poverty? If this is true, you can NEVER eliminate poverty, since compared with the top 2%, everyone is relatively poor. And these people are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more politically powerful than the actual 'absolute' poor. And one of the reasons 'absolute' poor people are poor is that they lack the wealth to prevent poverty-penalties from being passed into law. Most other groups in society are very efficient and effective in preventing penalty-laws being applied to them.

No. All of these 'spendings' can only occur upon "approved government" permission granted. All your 'after market' products must conform to government regulation. If that product isn't government regulation approved, you can't spend money on it (legally, anyways). In other words, the reason we have (or do not have) a free market in healthcare has NOTHING to do with your own theoretical sovereignity as a consumer. As a consumer, you are NOT sovereign. Claiming such non-existent sovereignty for healthcare, when one is non-sovereign in most other aspects is not a pursuasive argument. There are indeed many good arguments for permitting private market healthcare options in Canada. The one given here is not one of them. Consumers are not sovereign. Almost all services and products are regulated by governments. Healthcare is no exception.

Hmm... I missed this earlier. So you want to take over for ScottSA eh? Duly noted.

No, I'm critiquing the argument used to launch the thread.

Many studies in Canada have identified the number one waste of healthcare resources comes from people coming to Emergency wards and demanding routine procedures. This is particularly prevailent amongst lower income Canadians as well as new-comer immigrants.

This applies to much more than just NAFTA. Indeed, when did Mulroney ever work for any interest other than Quebec (or his own)?

Just for fun... You actually cannot spend your own money on your own car according to your own whims. That is illegal. You may only purchase cars that meet government regulations for safety, environment and whatnot. You actually cannot spend your own money on your own kid's education unless the education you propose to purchase meets government regulations for educational criteria and whatnot. You cannot spend your won money on your own houses unless the improvements you propose meet with government regulations for home renovations safety, environment, fire code, etc. So, how or why should healthcare be any different?

Chomsky would have a hard time not showing his contempt. However, I believe it would be Marshall MaLuhan that would have the most interesting commentary upon this topic.

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church accepts that humans evolved over millions of years. This is NOT incompatible with their doctrine of God creating the universe and God creating mankind. I believe the 'watchmaker' analogy is considered applicable here. Odd that so many people seem to love to argue about religion without actually knowing too much about it.

The Roman Catholic Church has a consistent interpretation. The Bible is allegorical. Similarly, Roman Catholic Church has no problem with Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution. All are compatible and consistent with Catholic theology.

Excuse me? I believe you are mixing up Catholic and Protestant theology here. What you say is NOT accepted Catholic doctrine. However, it is commonly accepted by some/most protestant sects as such. It is official Catholic doctrine that the Bible is to be understood allegorically.