ClearWest

Read the rest here. Is this a tragedy for Canada's national interests? What is to blame for this loss: lack of government interference or too much of it?

And I agree that no one should be compelled to divulge personal information. However, a business would have to weigh the secrecy versus the demand of the consumer to know product details and decide what is best for business. In cases where consumers continue to buy a product without having the details in front of them, they obviously aren't that concerned - why should a gov't dictate what's best for the people? This is a relatively small issue, but still, I'd rather not have big brother watching out for me. They get into that attitude and it's hard to stop them.

Fellas, one word: Vouchers. That way, the money is attached to the child, and they aren't just given a one-size-fits-all-public-school solution. And that way we aren't subsidizing religious schools. We are giving children a ticket to education and letting them decide where they want to use it. If we must fund education at all, it should be in this way.

I think we should be wary of this "There ought to be a law" mentality. Those that are really concerned about where their food comes from can look into it. And if people really cared that much about that information, the companies would be informed about it and the market would respond accordingly. Obviously it isn't that big of a deal if people continue to buy the product. I find it interesting how Margrace doesn't even use said products, yet she feels she can dictate to others what their food should be like.

Hot topic, eh? (Pun intended:)

I haven't agreed to anything. And I'd prefer it if people didn't assume that I'm part of their 'society' just because I was born into it. You can't impose law upon people because you feel like it. They should have to agree to the conditions of agreement, or dispute the conditions and come to a different agreement, or have no agreement. Okay, let's move on to a document which you might find more fitting: Pierre's Charter. Section 15, Equality Rights: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law...". If we are all equal before and under the law, who makes the law? I question the authority of another human being (my equal) to impose a law upon me (an equal) without consent. Unless they claim a higher authority over my life than I have? I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me stupid. I'm trying to discuss an issue with you, and so far I haven't referred to anyone in this conversation as being stupid. I would dispute the claim that you say he 'randomly shouts out legalese'. If anything it appears that he has done his homework and is attempting to decipher much of the legalese that governments use against us. It was my understanding that I was an individual with rights and I am free to speak out against government agencies if I so choose. My choices are not between conforming or leaving - I can also challenge the powers that be and question their imposing influence over my life. I haven't broken any law - however, I am suggesting that the government has broken a fundamental constitutional right by imposing its laws upon me without my consent.

We are all equal before the law... so who has the power to put demands and obligations upon me without my agreeing to it? That would make someone else superior to me before the law. According to the Canadian Bill of Rights, that shouldn't be happening.

But I was born in Canada - does that mean I was born into slavery? Born into an obligation that I had no say about? Shouldn't I have a choice as to whether or not I want to be a part of their agreement? If I don't get a say, that's tyranny.

Thank goodness for global warming then! I'd be buying up real estate now while it's still cold.

Not in government. See below... Here's the big difference. In shopping, you 'vote' for which products you want, and you get those products. In government, you vote for which leader you want to represent you and... well, you get whatever the majority decides. (Or the biggest minority in many cases) What if when you were shopping your only choice of food was between the Conservative Fun Pack or the Liberal Party Mix. And no matter what you chose, you would get whatever the greatest number of people supported. Sure, sometimes we have it both ways by having an opposition government and so on. But regionally if 5,000 people vote for one group, it doesn't matter in the end because 5,100 people voted for the other group. We're all stuck with the Conservative Fun Pack... A lot of people wanted it, but a lot more people are stuck with the choice made by the largest minority. So, what am I saying? I'm saying that there exists a system in which people are rewarded for benefitting others - and then there's politics, the bloodsport which people weirdly seem to enjoy at their own expense by letting tax dollars and freedoms fly out the window in the process.

LOL! Brilliant.

I've heard of single-issue parties before... It may be too soon to judge, but based on the name I'd say we've found a single-issue poster.

If the Liberals are so weak (maybe they are) then why does the CPC feel the need to bash them in a TV ad every few weeks?

Exactly what I was thinking, I think the problem is that they are rewarded for this behaviour. We need to reform the system so that the only way to "win" is to benefit the largest number of citizens. How we would do that....I don't know. I'm digging this up - I thought I'd suggest a thought. We need a system where people are rewarded for benefiting the largest number of citizens, right? Free Market Capitalism is the answer. When you provide a good or service, people will trade with you. They benefit, and you are rewarded for it. John Stossel mentions this in his speech seen here. When you go to a grocery store and buy a jug of milk, you have this weird 'thank you thank you' moment. You say thank you because you want the milk more than you want your dollar, and the clerk says thank you because they want your dollar more than they want their milk. Free Market in action. Is that not a system in which people can only benefit if they reward the greatest number of people? Could it be that this is the answer? This is the answer that has been screaming out to me ever since began forming my current political opinions. I'm wondering if any of you see it this way.

I say it's a circus. The Party is a powerful thing, and it exists to gain more power. It's bothersome to me to see the lengths that they will go to to gain power. Especially since once they have it - they can use it against us to their own benefit. All we have to defend ourselves is a single 1 out of 20 million vote. Well, that and our rights to free speech, arms, and protesting that they have not yet managed to take away from us yet (but you know they're working on it).

A town in Manitoba recently joined in the fun. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...70402/20070402/ How would you feel if your town decided that stores couldn't use plastic bags anymore? Would you switch to cloth or paper? Would some of the smaller shops, to avoid cost, continue to provide the now illegal plastic bags? I'm generally opposed to most 'bannings' as it creates unnecessary friction for voluntary traders in the free market, and sometimes a black market. Wanna buy a plastic bag? Where could they take this from here. Maybe banning ziplock from people's homes? People probably go through those as much as grocery bags.

Elliminating teriffs effectively takes power away from elected governments and puts it into the hands of corporations, thats why free trade deals are wanted so bad by the corporations and being signed by our "go along to get along" governments. The government shouldn't have power to limit trade like that. In the 1930's, after the enormous boom of the roaring 20's, we were left with a lot of overstock here in North America. In a normal free market scenario, companies would be able to sell their surplus overseas to countries where these things were not so common. However, during this time the US had the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and before that the Fordney-McCumber. In response to these tariffs, countries all around the world increased their own tariffs. Of course, you're less likely to try and sell your product out of country if it costs you an arm and a leg to do it - and there was hardly a market for it in your own country after the initial boom of the '20's. So businesses began to close. People were put out of work, and the economy spiralled down and out. Autarky is never a good thing. We need to be able to trade all the world round so people can get the things they need. I'd rather have that disparity (which isn't a glass wall by any means, there are too many rags to riches stories and vice versa which make it apparent that in a free market you are free to be as rich or as poor as you're willing to make yourself) - I'd rather have that disparity than the extreme poverty which was caused by closed market economics in the 1930's. Real poverty, not the kind of 'poverty' that we have in the United States and Canada where even the poorest people can afford food and water and decent clothing and shelter. I too have a lack of faith in politicians. However, I don't think giving them more power will make things any better.

Dang - good point! One thing that this whole NAU issue has brought up is a need for greater trade flexibility. I am opposed to any union which would inhibit civil liberties and increase government beurocracy. However, instead I think the countries should agree to eliminate tarrifs and trade barriers. High tariffs kicked the economy when it was down during the Great Depression, and prevented us from getting out of it sooner than we did.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories A step forward for environmentalism? Or will it just cause more trees to be cut down, since the biodegradable alternative is currently very expensive and untested? I am generally skeptical of any kind of ban. Obviously people were perfectly fine with using plastic bags, why else would they need to ban it? In a free society nobody would tell you what product you can and cannot use. Those decisions would be made according to supply and demand. That's true democracy - rule by the people, not by majority.

We've all gotta live within our means. All three of those things are luxuries, two of which I personally live without and get by just fine. You may have to adjust your habits to meet your needs. You seem to be suggesting that rather than cutting taxes we should subsidize luxuries. I hope no one honestly believes this. If you play your cards right, manage your property wisely, you should be able to afford a bit of luxury here and there in the not-so-distant future - without the government's help. (Perhaps in spite of it). Heck, if we want to go into it, cutting taxes may be the best way to get you the things you need and want. With less money being taken away from potential investors, more investments will be made into the economy (more efficiently than gov't can do so), and easier ways of producing these things will be discovered. More competition will mean lower cost and greater availability of luxury products. Not to mention the fact that you'll have more money in your own pocket to spend as you choose (rather than have it be squandered carelessly by government). Cutting taxes would be a great help.

In order to bring more profits to its shareholders, the corporation has to please the consumer and make sure they are happy with the service they are getting. Their job isn't to screw you over, it's to profit from trading with you for goods and services. The dishonest ones don't last long in the free market because word spreads and they go out of business. (See the video - they spend some time on this subject) I'm not sure if I can put any trust into an entity which is designed to keep powerful people in office who have the ability to take your stuff - rather than a corporation which can only offer to trade you for your stuff. There are millions of private businesses - however, only a handful of governmental parties, only 3 or 4 of which have any influence. Which offers the best choice/freedom for the individual? Our democratic system as it stands offers very little power or choice to the individual. Whereas in the free market, each individual is boss.

John Stossel gives a speech at the Fraser Institute: http://www.rightlinx.com/?p=693 I wanted to raise this issue again, and I hope you're all up to discussing it. Let me know what you agree with and what you disagree with. This is still an enormous issue all over the world - we keep adding more regulations! This is the wrong way to go. I think we need to do something about this and reverse the process! I want to hear your thoughts - especially if you disagree with me. (Check out the video if you have the time, it would be a preferable prerequisite to replying).

I hate to break this to you but governments always spend your money on other people. It's the nature of government. I'm certainly not unaware of that. Have I not been a consistent critic of government spending throughout my entire posting history? I have nothing against the French language, nor the province of Quebec. I too object to the amounts being spent, but I also object to what the money is to be spent on - and from what I know of Quebec, they are one of the more socialist provinces. If they need this money because they're running at a loss, then I think they should rethink their policies and not get everyone else to bail them out like this (using yet another socialist policy, no less).

It's one thing for Quebec to squander its own money on wasteful socialist programs, but to squander Canada's money - that's another punch to the gut. I don't like any of this intergovernmental wealth distribution. Come to think of it, I don't like wealth distribution - can I have a refund? I'd rather not have my tax money (times however many million) being taken and thrown away like that.

The theory is that if a person has everything brought to him, he will be less likely to step out of that bubble and work for his own stuff because then his supply of free stuff will be cut off. If you have a choice between being given 3 apples, or going out to work for 5 apples - some people would want to pursue those two extra apples, but many would be content with the 3 because it requires 0 effort. With less people being productive, less goes into the economy, and less comes out - meaning that there will be less apples to go around anyway and we'll all be poorer. It's a basic economic principle. When people have no reason to pursue the apples - the apple trade will slow greatly. An example of this in history is War Communism in the USSR. The gov't took all wheat and distributed it to those in need - which sounds good, but it resulted in far lesser productivity - why would a farmer bother to work harder if his wheat was just going to be taken away? That's why Lenin had to introduce the New Economic Policy which allowed peasants to sell their extra wheat, thus providing the incentive for better productivity. It's a similar situation today, only it's - why would Joe bother to work at all if he could get a similar result by doing nothing and relying on the government. You're right that as a society we take measures to try to control our economy. However, I would argue that we should not, as it often has negative economic and social results. There are many ways for people to get a leg up in our society without the government getting involved. Figleaf, your post was very funny. However, I'm not suggesting that we keep anybody down or force anybody to work. It is government which keeps people down by driving them to dependency. And I firmly oppose any legislation which forces labour.