ClearWest

Would it be interesting democratic exercise, if as part of completing your tax return, you were able to assign what categories your tax dollars are allocated to. Perhaps a certain portion is mandatiorially allocated to fixed costs, but the rest can be left to the taxpayer to decide. Then it can form the basis of the following years budget which the governmetn would be obligated to follow. We totally need more choice as to where our money goes! This would be an excellent alternative to the current system. And the politicians would have to adjust their budgets to meet what the people have given them to work with. In fact, I would take it a step further so that you could decide how much tax you are willing to contribute to the government (if any at all), as well as to which categories. Let's say someone was a pacifist and they did not wish to support the military--They could choose to not support the military! What good is democracy when we really don't have a choice in important decisions like that. We really don't have a say. We only have a choice in who we want to control us--they're the one's who make the decisions for us. Let us have a say in where we want our money to go!

Perhaps I should have left out the judge bit--I was attempting to be sympathetic to your proposed scenario. Notice that after I said a judge might try to do that I said that I would disagree with it--based on the principle of non-force. I guess I didn't make that clear. A lot of people on welfare like welfare. A lot of wolves like to eat sheep. That doesn't mean it's right to take from one to feed the other. I hope people will begin to realize that, so that one day it will be possible to make a major structural change. People will one day realize that they are individuals who have merely been enslaved by a forced collectivity. If people choose to live collectively, so be it. Just give them the choice. A wise man once said, in dispute of marxism, "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained". (This is also currently my signature, but in case it has changed, I decided to post it here). No one but me should decide where my money goes--even if it's no skin off my back to chip in a couple of dollars. If I want you to use my money, I'll give it to you.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, guys. Under usual circumstances, people living on the same street with the same problem would be willing to cooperate and contribute without hesitation--but I do agree that cases like that would come up. They could always take it to court, and then it's the judge's decision. Some may feel that because he benefitted from the work, he should pay part of the pricetag. But I'm sticking to the principle of non-force--because most groups or governments take it much further than a sinkhole needing fixing. Then they'll go on to things like the art gallery needs funding, everyone pitch in. Well, what if someone doesn't want to help out the art gallery? And that's a good point, Hicksey--it would take a while to get going. The process would be a very slow one indeed, especially seeing as how the Libertarian Party probably won't have even one seat until many years in the future. It would be a gradual process of privatization and tax cutting.

The thing is that people have different ideas of what the 'responsibility to society' ought to be. Some feel that you should fight to protect your country, so they introduce the draft. Some people feel that you should contribute to the public school system, so they introduce taxes. Faschism and Socialism right there. Then within those there are subcategories--Like what we are seeing within our own socialist system. Some people feel that we should all collectively contribute to keep a museum running that can't afford to survive on a commercial basis. Others don't. Whose idea of responsibility to society are we following? The most fair way is to let people individually decide their responsibility to society. That's why I don't believe in democracy--"Majority rules", everyone else has to conform. I was born here--I didn't have a choice over that. And looking at the map right now it doesn't look like there is an appropriately privatized society for me to move to. That's why I'm supporting libertarianism within Canada--Hoping that it might some day become the type of country where people have the no-strings-attatched right to life, liberty, and property--and with a non-intrusive government which fights to sustain those rights. Until then I will continue to abide by the law, and yes, pay taxes. I'm not a rebel, but I am an individual, and I hope to be treated that way. I don't want the group to be responsible for me, and I don't want to have to be responsible for the group. That's fine that you believe in socialism--I believe in helping people too--but I don't want my life/liberty/property taken from me in order to provide for the group. I want my contributions to be voluntary. If I want to die for my country (or some other entity), I will. If I want to sacrifice some of my paycheck to help someone in need, I will. "But I will not be constrained..."

I agree--You make a good point. And it's very unfortunate. But that doesn't mean that government should manage people's money for them. About the retirement thing, people will go through private companies for their retirement plans. If they don't, well, that's a poor economic decision on their part and they will see the consequences of that. Governments shouldn't try to remove consequences from poor decisions. As for the donations--People already donate to charities as it is right now even with high taxation. With more money to spend, hopefully, they will donate more. But, as you said, and I agree--It doesn't always work that way. However, the government will do all we can to encourage people to donate voluntarily, just as government today encourages people to quit smoking. That's the only fair way to do it without force. Drug companies in this case are out to make a profit, which is understandable. There will be other groups which will seek help for fighting diseases such as malaria, without incentive for profit. I'm not saying I expect every transnational corporation to be generous and giving--However, we see that most do help. I would rather have a hospital funded partially in donations from Pepsi than a hospital funded by taking citizen's money without their consent. That's very true in my area as well. What I meant by 'one-size-fits-all' is that the curriculum is generally the same for every student province-wide. Everyone is required to learn whatever the government thinks they should learn. In a way it's like a command economy, only the commodity that is being directed is human labour. And again, the main problem here is the funded-by-taxation bit. Under my system, people would observe the demands of the market, and at their own assessment of their personal aptitude, and then decide what they need to learn, and what they want to become. With no influence from any entity, no matter how democratic it may be. Then they would choose a school and pay for their own education. (Those who cannot afford to pay can go to a private group for a loan or for a donation). Leo Tolstoy once said: "Who has the right to educate?" His answer was: "Nobody." He felt that whoever had the right to educate had the power to mould and shape the minds of future generations. It should be up to the individual to decide his or her own education. And for the very young, it should be the parent's responsibility.

Actually, I think I'd spoil my ballot if this were a real election.

I totally disagree. People complain today because they are forced to pay more taxes than the Jones family down the street, and receive the same services. Keep in mind that the main service we're trying to fund here is Military. If people believe in defending their country, they won't care how much the neighbours are paying--They're going to contribute. Perhaps the only flaw in this argument is that I'm putting too much faith in patriotism, or in people's willingness to help. But I believe that it can be done. If people don't care, then why do we have government in the first place? Good point, and I'm glad that things like this are done locally. Now let's fund them voluntarily and/or privately. I also think that health and education can work just as well locally, and by donation for the people who cannot afford it. Rather than through taxation in a one-size-fits-all school program that is designed to mould our kids someone else's liking. We will have more of a say because we will be closer to the people who are in charge in a less-centralized system. You are most likely referring to times such as the monarchies/oligarchies/aristocracies throughout Europe's history. But times have changed, at least in modern North American society--as well as in many places throughout the world. We have changed mostly in the fact that we have a very prominent and competitive system of capitalism today, in which most industries rely on lower to middle class consumers in order to survive. McDonalds, for instance, does not cater to the rich. And yet it is rich itself. Companies like this wouldn't think of 'keeping the poor away', and there are many more like it. A smart economist would want to keep money flowing--to all people, rich and poor alike. That's the only way his products are going to keep moving. Many private companies have alread contributed greatly to their communities. This is done partly for their own benefit of course, for good publicity. But the fact remains that it benefits all people. Not just the rich. Another thing is that today we do not exclude anyone from the economic pie--If you want to get rich, you can. Whether you're black or white or from beverly hills or from the slums. Everyone has an equal chance of putting on a happy face, getting a job, making and saving money, and then going to school, and then getting an even better job and making even more money. There are too many rags to riches stories for me to doubt that true capitalism works, and that there's plenty of money out there for those who are willing to seek it. In the competitive world we live in today, you pretty much have to be a saint. It's all about the customer courtesy. I disagree-- It's true that in order for communism to work there has to be some cooperation, but that didn't happen because they had a government that tried to force their cooperation. In my idealogy people are expected to cooperate, not out of force, but out of a need to survive as individuals. If people choose not to cooperate, it will be their own natural demise. Communism worked to serve the group, and as a group they failed. Libertarianism works to serve the individual--whether that individual will succeed or fail--that's up to them. But, like I say, they won't be without voluntary help.

Do blood donors care how much blood others are giving in contrast to them? No, they give because they care. If people really care about government, they will support it. Yes, but they haven't considered doing things through the private sector. Everything is so centralized--they need to change their idealogy before real change in efficiency is going to happen. They need to realize that they can't control everything. True, and I think that major companies and charities will see this, and they will step forward to provide free education for those that need it. Even the rich don't want others to be poor--because they need people who can afford to buy their products and pay for their services. Money has to keep circulating--and people understand that more than they used to--Except for the fact that they don't teach economics in public school! Again, they're causing their own problems!

It didn't work because the government didn't let it work. If we go back and examine the Great Depression of the 1930's, we see that we failed economically not because we didn't have a social safety net, but because the government cut off our money supply. In the US, the Federal Reserve cut the money supply by one-third from 1929 to 1932. This made it so there was not enough money to go around--and businesses were not able to take out loans to keep their businesses working. And no one was able to invest. Thus, there was a collapse. Of course, there were other problems initially such as the drop in the price of wheat, causing layoffs. But ultimately, businesses would have been able to keep going if the Federal Reserve hadn’t cut off our supply of money! Now, Canada of course isn’t run by the Federal Reserve. And we didn’t have a “Bank of Canada” back then, but when the US businesses began rapidly selling their stocks, I’m sure many Canadian businesses began to panic, and they followed suit. Conclusion: Government causes more problems than it solves. And we don’t need their help to have a stable, healthy economy. First of all, I think we’ll still be able to collect revenue even though it is voluntary. Churches are run on a voluntary tithe. Private charities are run on voluntary donations. And we’ll be able to collect even more than they do because we’ll send out slips to each house, not demanding, but requesting a tax pledge. Plus we won’t need nearly as much revenue because we’re going to make so many cuts—and we’re really going to concentrate our services for better efficiency and lower cost. As for education, no I don’t think that there should be any kind of government standard forced upon everyone. There can be a market standard, which will develop naturally depending on what jobs are in demand. Let me know what you guys think of that. I like my political views to be challenged. Looking forward to your responses.

Awesome responses, guys. I'm glad this thread took off. My platform is based on the philosophy of Libertarianism. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative when it comes to government. Look at it this way: -Government has no right to dictate what you can and can't put in your body, or how you live your life. -Government has no right to tell you how to spend your money--Nor to spend it for you. Thus, there will be no prohibition, no censorship, no conscription, and no taxation. Individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property. And no one has the right to take those from you using force or fraud--Not even the government. To take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. Governments have done all of this throughout the history of the earth--and Canada does it today through things like taxation, conscription, censorship, and prohibition. What about our social programs? Well, we believe that they can be funded in voluntary ways, not through money that is taken forcefully from people. Military Military spending can be greatly reduced and concentrated so that it only serves to defend Canada in times of crisis. We will not equip our armies for occupational wars. And, as I mentioned earlier--I will ban the conscription and make military service purely voluntary. Health Care Universal health care is a nice idea--but not if it has to be funded through taxation. I'm thinking privatization. If a city or other private group wants to provide free health care to all residence, by all means go right ahead. Just fund it through voluntary pledges rather than theft. One-tier healthcare isn't enough-- Two-tier healthcare isn't enough. With 32 million people in Canada, we need 32 million-tier healthcare. Let each person individually decide what healthcare is best for them. Open the industry up for competition, and let the people individually decide what services they want. That doesn't mean you'll have to bring your credit card to the hospital--It just means that you'll buy your insurance from someone other than the provincial government. Education[/u] See above. And also, it will not be mandatory that someone attend school. There are alternative methods--Like being raised by your family. And no, there will not be any "state-approved" curriculum. People can decide what education they need for themselves without big brother telling them. Taxation I've already said that there will be no manadatory taxes (no income tax, no sales tax, nothing), however, we still have to pay for our military, police, and roads. We will send out pledge forms to every household/community (whichever we can afford), and people will send in their pledges if they wish to support their peacekeepers they are encouraged to do so. If they don't they can just ignore it. Taxes will be solicited just as donations for private charities are--And whoever refuses to pay taxes can have their household removed from the list, and they will hear no more from us. Government Handouts Cut. No more Corporate Welfare, no more special interest groups subsidization, no more social assistance. These things will be left up to private donation and commercial means of raising money. About Corporate Welfare--if a corporation can't survive without government help then it is inefficient and will be punished in the marketplace. Will jobs be lost in the move to more efficient practices? Yes, probably. And that's okay. We are moving into an age where we don't need as much physical labour as we used to. Such can be done with machines. The future is in the entertainment industry, customer service, commercial advertising, recreation, tourism, etc. Do you think we would be where we are today if we had tried to stop electronic washing machines from replacing handwashing? Of course not. We need to move on. So there you go. Feel free to respond and critique my platform. I also look forward to reading more of your platforms, and more of your thoughts!

Lol, what makes you think that the Green Party would have "No tax"? That's not them at all. They have always said that they would raise taxes on the environmentally harmful products, and for the businesses that produce more waste. And I don't think they've every proposed cutting taxes at all--at least not in any recent elections. Other than that--I would select no taxes.

Let's say you were running for a Canadian Federal Election right now. What are your personal priorities in government? What policies would you support? You're standing before your public right now, they want to know what you will do should you get in--What is your answer? For example, you may wish to include: -Your tax policy -Your environmental policy -Your foreign policy -Your policy on social issues (ie. Marriage, Drugs, etc) -Changes you would make in the direction of public spending (ie. More/less military spending, etc) I'm looking forward to seeing your platform! ((Feel free to include provincial issues if you can't think of enough federal ones)) (I'll post mine a wee bit later.) Have fun outlining your platform

Let the people pray for heaven's sake. What kind of sick country do we live in where people aren't allowed to pray? I agree with the empty classroom solution--I'm sure they can arrange something where a regular meeting place can be allowed. It can be done in a manner that it doesn't interfere with studies, it should be allowed.

That's kind of different--Cold cuts are a little better for you than heroin is.

So now the government will be taxing you for having a soul. Talk about Godless communism. I don't think that gov't should financially help churches--but they certainly should not do the opposite.

Hi, sorry I didn't respond earlier. Anyways, in response to your comments: Yes, I do have faith in the general public. I believe that when people are faced with important choices that they will more-times-than-not choose what they think is best. On the other hand I kind of agree with you that those aren't victemless crimes, persay. But the thing is that they are non-enforcable. I may personally be opposed to all of those things (which I am), but does that give me a right to tell others how to live? As long as they aren't hurting anybody else, or not using force or fraud to get someone else addicted (for example), then it should be none of my business. And none of government's business. Another thing is this: Aren't we creating criminals by making certain things illegal? I mean, gangsterism boomed in the 1920's during the US prohibition of alcohol. And it's doing the same today during the prohibition of drugs. Now, of course, I would cringe at the thought of a society on drugs. But I don't think that's going to happen. I'm optimistic that if you leave people alone, everything will work out okay.

Seems to be that is a rather niave thing to do. I am pretty sure the biggest 'doners' to the police services would be organized crime. Taxes are the price of civilization and, in moderation, are a good thing. That's another thing about libertarianism. Organized Crime would be practically at a 0 because we would legalize all 'victimless' crimes. Like drugs, alcohol, and prostitution. The gov't wouldn't try to stop these things, so they wouldn't be such 'underground' industries, and thus would not be linked to organized crime.

Just because people don't have to go to school, doesn't mean they won't. In fact, I think it will be the preferred option for many people. Because those who go to school will really have a competetive edge in the free market. It means more competition, but I think that's a healthy thing. And if worst comes to worst, they can always go to a church or a charity for financial assistance. Iraq and Afghanistan are in ruins because their countries are at war, not because of their own gov't's policy. They are being occupied by foreign invaders and they don't like it. Libertarians will still have a government. It will be much smaller and much more focused than the current one. We will still have a national military and a public police force, but they will not be funded through a mandatory public tax. No income taxes, no sales taxes. However, people will voluntarily give pledges to help fund these services. (This is an issue that is in debate among libertarians. Some suggested demanding a flat rate of income tax--But I don't like this idea. The less we can tax people, the better. And I'm hopeful that we can still run services on voluntary donations. Afterall, that's how many non-profit groups work, like the Red Cross.) I believe in freedom of the individual, so long as he/she doesn't interfere with another individual's freedom. And that's simply how it works. Taxes interfere with other individuals. It is not a voluntary exchange of goods and services. It is a government taking from people. Giving in return, yes, but without the citizen's individual consent.

I should be clear with you. I'm a Libertarian. I don't believe in publicly funded anything--Whether it serves the "Public Good" or not. There are too many different people with different interests within the country for there to be any single "Public Expectation." Who is deciding what the 'public expectations' are, anyways? Is it collectively decided? Or is it decided by a majority? Yes, it is decided by a majority--That's democracy for you. Majority rules. And the minorities just have to go along with it. I don't believe in democracy if it means "Majority Rules", because there's always going to be someone who voted against the majority, but they are forced to go along with them anyways. So, no. No one should have to do anything. No one should have to go to school. No one should have to go to war. No one should have to fund school or war with their taxes. No one should have to pay taxes, period. A bunch of people want to get together and make a school at no cost to the student? By all means, go ahead. Just don't FORCE me to pay for it. And don't FORCE me to attend. You can tell that this isn't just about portfolios anymore--It's about a much larger picture. Go to libertarian.ca if you want to learn more about this philosophy. I don't mean to antagonize you Geoffrey, or to sound bold. I'm just trying to explain my views in a peaceful manner. Thanks for your input in response to my comments.

I guess the problem originally arose with Welfare--when the gov't decided it should take care of people who don't work. I agree with you! We shouldn't have to pay for someone to sit around all day. However, making school attendance mandatory doesn't solve the problem--ESPECIALLY when they don't want to be there. Because as you said, they'll get their diploma, and then sit around all day "sucking off welfare". I agree that the portfolio was designed to encourage people to take charge of their own futures. That's wonderful. I hope everyone takes charge and does it and really cares about it. But let's face it--most people don't want to. And forcing them to isn't going to make their attitudes any better.

You talk about not being lazy, and then you expect other people to pay for you to go to school. You know what makes people lazy--It's when they never have to do anything for themselves--Like pay to go to school. Half the people in my public school didn't want to be there. Who's paying for them to be there and be baby-sat? The taxpayers. Maybe if they knew that they were responsible for their own futures, then they would try harder in school, and actually want to be there.

This is why we need Libertarianism. These Grad Portfolios are just another example of the gov't thinking they know what's best for us, and then enforcing it upon us. The intention is good: The gov't is trying to get kids to apply what they've learned and to encourage them to be competitive in the economy with these super resumes known as portfolios. But the result is not so good: "Mandatory Volunteer Hours" is one of the biggest oxymorons I've ever heard of. I don't believe in a centralized one-size-fits-all public school system anyways. We gave Big Brother the responsibility to educate us, and that's what he's doing. Let's stop asking the government to take care of everything for us!