ClearWest

I'm not from Ontario, but I wouldn't give any of those three parties my vote. All three of them have messed up too badly in the past. Giving a vote to the Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP to me is almost like giving a donation to Enron. They don't need it, and they'll only abuse it. I'd give my vote to a smaller party or an independent. You've just got just one bean to add to any pile that you choose. Those three parties have had their chance in my opinion, they don't need any more power. And if you think the NDP deserves a chance, look up what they did to BC in the 1990's.

What is the root of this problem? And how do we fix it? I'd appreciate your insight.

Gun convention aside, Yeah, it's called acting. I don't think this lends any support for that "fact" (theory). The fact that this show is on air proves that moderate muslims (the writer of the show for instance) obviously aren't afraid to poke fun at their culture.

Some males actually cry too. lol, I didn't want to reveal that much about us. I don't want them to think we're human.

You are waaaaaaaaaaay underestimating the male gender. Males need companionship and platonic social interraction as much (if not more) than they need sex.

It's working on mine - thanks for that. I've edited it into the main post as well. The question period starts at around the 2 minute mark. Let me know what you guys think about it.

Dang these long links... Does anybody know of a better way to do this?

What a circus. The Liberals and Conservatives are both an embarassment to this country, not only in their harmful policies, but in their outrageous behaviour when they're supposed to be professionals. It is absolutely outrageous that these people are squandering our tax dollars (again not only in wasteful programs but also...) in their full pensions and high salaries. To do what?This EDIT: The link now works. To me this session of question period is one example why even environmental policy can barely be left up to government. It's outrageous. My question is this: do you think that there's something wrong with our politicians - and with our parliamentary system if we're electing people like this? (See the video first)

Good question! I definitely think that a person should be allowed to refuse their own treatment due to religious or whatever reasons. But to refuse someone else treatment? Initially, that raised flags in my mind. On the other hand - who decides what's best for a child: the parents, or the state? In these parents' minds the state has 'violated' their children. I think they have every reason to be upset. Interesting scenario.

ATM's provide a service to you. It costs money to provide that service. If banks cannot charge for their service they will have to either pay for it another way (higher interest on loans for example) - or simply stop offering the service where it is not cost-efficient. You are saving the teller work by using the ATM, and that's great - it's one of the reasons why banks offer ATM service. However, there are still running costs, installation, repair, etc. in order to keep the ATM's running. It's not free. Banks are a business - they need to keep their balance sheet out of the red. Thank goodness they do, because it means that we can continue to receive this service. If we implement this policy it will place further restrictions and services will have to be cut down, or costs will be increased in other ways. Also, this may be looking to the negative, but there may also be long-term adverse effects that can result from this. In order to pay for the upkeep of their ATM machines, banks may have to increase interest rates on their loans. It will make borrowing money less desirable, which in the long-run means that less businesses will be started, less jobs being created by these new businesses, ultimately less employment. This is a terrible move. I give it a big 'Absolutely not'. Of course, the NDP would love for more unemployment to exist because they know that people will turn to the government to solve that problem too - and what do you know - the NDP will be there to save the day after causing the mess in the first place.

Would you rub your kids' face in their own feces to stop them from soiling themselves? Of course not. I'm guessing that you're on the other extreme? I don't know if you have children but it would be interesting to hear what your policy is and what the result is.

So how do you expect them to figure out what behaviours will result in a spanking? By seeing the instant negative effect of his/her actions. We train pets the same way, and it's why we can keep them as pets and not have to defend ourselves against them in the wild. Yet I'm sure most kid sthat get spanked get spanked more than once: if it worked, then you wouldn't need to do it more than once, no? Some criminals are repeat-offenders, others learn more quickly.

But that's my very point. Libertarians have different views on that because there is no central coherence to the 'philosophy' of libertarianism. It's simply griping dressed up with a fancy name. I disagree. Conservatives may sound like they're 'griping' when they say society's morals are going to the dogs. Leftists may sound like they're 'griping' when they say the war in afghanistan is going to the dogs. Libertarians suggest that big government is producing a less than positive result - it isn't griping, it's legitimate opinion, and a legitimate want for change in policy. All the other parties have internal differences of opinion on certain issues - I don't think that constitues a weakness. It's a healthy thing if people are thinking differently - you might even say that that's what Libertarianism is all about.

To me that screams that there is a problem with our legal system. People can be prosecuted for dealing strictly with a troubled ten year old, so they don't. That bus driver could probably be sued for sending troublemakers off of his bus, so he didn't. While I agree with Geffrey's concerns, I think we need to change the laws to allow for a bit more leeway in situations like this. Otherwise criminals run our society under the protection of the law.

How does a socialist determine what is enough and too little government? What matters to me is not the exact line that we draw in the sand. We have lived under socialist governments for a long time, each one increasing their own power and jurisdiction. From observing this, and comparing it to historical events (we have plenty of examples of the negative effects of fascism, socialism, and light versions of the two), I conclude that we are going in the wrong direction. It is time we start thinking about reducing rather than increasing the scope of government. Every year it's another wasteful program, another harmful policy, or another imperialistic military conquest. That's why I'm a libertarian, because I find that these things are producing a negative effect and preventing people from getting the things that they need, pursuing their own goals and dreams, and living peacefully. - What makes sense to you? You've already said Social Conservatism doesn't make sense to you. Does socialism make sense? Lenin's NEP doesn't make sense to most communists. What level of government would please them? I don't think you can count any ideology as drawing the line. Over the years the line changes. Alcohol is sold and regulated by the government (at least in my province), I predict that marijuana will be in the same boat in the near future. Are the leftists 'drawing a line' as to where they will stop? You know, I'm enjoying this discussion, but I think the questions that should be asked should not relate to 'how much and how little, what program and why', because different libertarians have different views on that. It makes me wonder if any political party or ideology would pass your test of making sense or 'meaning something'. Honestly, would any of them?

My answer is no, I don't think those kinds of 'force' are the same as the kind that gov'ts are empowered with. In the last two examples, someone failed to uphold their part of the deal, so the deal was cancelled and the benefits revoked. In the first example, that isn't force because the shop belongs to the shopkeeper and he has the right to stop offering his service if he so chooses. He had no legal obligation to allow that person to enter his shop. As they should be. However, private parties do not have the legal right to take what does not belong to them. Which brings us to your definition... Incidentally, I do not disagree with your definition. However, I chose to make my definition more broad (actually, to adopt a more broad definition - I didn't invent it myself) because gov'ts do more than seize and transfer. The best word that I can think of to describe it in simple terms (as non-specific as it is) is 'force'. They sit in parliament and pen down legislation, forcing people to comply to their terms. Yes, in many cases that involves transferring property from one person to another - it can also involve sending people overseas to fight a war (conscription), disregarding the liberty of the person sent and the lives of both the soldier and all others involved in conflict. Anyways, I hope we can find a better definition. 'Til then...

What makes sense: How do Conservatives determine what is an appropriate role of government? They cut funding and taxes, yet they increase restrictions on people if it means greater safety or morality. How do Liberals and New Democrats determine what is an appropriate role of government? They reduce restrictions on people at a personal level, but increase imposition upon their bank accounts and what they can do with their property. Do either of these make sense? Both ideologies reward the well-connected in their own way. Libertarianism would reward every individual by allowing them their life, liberty, and property - something which governments have impeded upon for many many years. Government is limited to the point where it cannot interfere with liberty, but merely protect it. (I know your rebuttle to this is already below, so see my answer to post #29) Classic Liberalism did advocate liberty the way Libertarianism does today. However, if Liberalism now involves waving a red flag and voting for Paul Martin, then Liberalism has changed. I think the same answer above works for this one. Those are the crimes that directly involve victims, and as such, are the ones that should be prosecuted. Since a government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, then if gov't is to exist then its only legitimate role is to oversee the use of force in a given geographical area and enforce laws. It should do this rarely and sparingly if at all - only if voluntary means of settling disputes fail. In principle, basically everything that government does now - it can be done by voluntary means. In practice, voluntary means will fail. Some think that in those situations, government should step in. Again, gov't has the monopoly on the legal use of force - that's a powerful tool. But any tool can become a weapon when used incorrectly. It's a weapon today, and it's hurting many people. It has been for centuries. Can it be useful though? Can it work as a tool to do good? I say yes, if the power is used sparingly. Others would disagree with me, and I would hear them out, but so far I still have hope in minimal usage of gov't force. Still, my main point is that its usage must be decreased! We're flinging a sword around - and more people are going to get hurt. Protecting common interests from devastation. Are you referring to propping up businesses that are going under? Or something to that effect? Please clarify if that's what you mean or if you had something else in mind. If one person takes another person's property they have violated the right to property. In an effort to protect that right, the gov't can interfere and restore the property back to the rightful owner. I can't think of anything to add here, but I stand by my prior answer in that I am more interested in the actual reduction of gov't. We can cut costs depending upon what is most wasteful/unnecessary.

I personally love the concept. Hope it lives up to the hype.

I believe it is wrong to label or treat a corporation as a person. It allows devious people to get away with crimes and hide behind their limited liability. Instead, I believe that individuals should be held accountable for their actions. Corporations don't have morals, nor do they make choices. People do. As far as a legal standpoint, if there is a crime, I think that the individuals responsible should do the crime, not the 'corporation'. All you can do is take the shareholder's money- and they're generally not the guilty ones.

I'm not sure. Could you outline a scenario where this might be a problem? It'll be easier for me to explain my views on an issue when I have a better understanding of what the issue is. It means that no other person has a higher claim to your life than you do. You are free to exist, and no one should be allowed to take that from you. The freedom of the individual to have life, liberty and property. Freedom of the individual from infringement upon those rights. Yes, but there's not way to operationalize a sentiment, or analyze its content. Government does numerous things, so where do you start pruning and how do you choose? Would you want to eliminate road maintenance? Why or why not? How about government archives? Why or why not? Search and rescue? Forest fire suppression? Legal tender? Anti-money-laundering efforts? Public parks? Good question! Well, I wouldn't want to eliminate road maintenance - but I would like for the service to be done by a non-governmental entity, and I would like for it to be paid for in a manner which is not contributing to our large tax bill. (So basically I want it eliminated from gov't jurisdiction). I think most things can be privatized, and that's where most of the 'pruning' occurs. The CBC would be one of the first to be privatized on my list, I think. There is no logical reason for it being subsidized by the taxpayers. And there are many other services which can, and perhaps should, be out of the gov't's hands, and in the hands of individuals. I think that our first steps should be small ones. I have been exploring ideas for moderate reforms. Take this for example: services can be provided privately, but paid for publicly in the form of vouchers - at first. (School districts that use this system have been very successful in cutting back on all the waste, and when schools compete for enrollment, the quality of the education goes up. Check out "Stupid in America" on Youtube). Of course, in principle, it would be ideal if vouchers were funded in a way that did not involve 'force' (there's that word again). But I think this would be a welcome start. There are many areas where we can cut costs, increase productivity, and increase the quality and quantity of the services which we need. Those of you who support free markets know full well the benefits of letting individuals make voluntary trades with little to no gov't interference. There is more of everything and everyone can get what they need and want when the laws of supply and demand are allowed to work freely. Libertarians would reduce that gov't interference. To what? I don't know. People have differing opinions on what it should be reduced to. But I think we should start reducing it in practice and not worry quite as much about the philosophy/ideology. Nothing gets done, and the arguments only rage on.

I think a certain gov't activity, if the gov't is reduced to doing only that, is a good step. And I think that if there should be a limited list of activities that the gov't can do, then it should be to protect (or prosecute those who infringe upon) the basic human rights to life, liberty, and property. Why these rights? Because they are the rights that every individual needs in order to be truly free. It's based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life, you own what you do with your life (liberty), and you own the product of your life and liberty (property). Theoretically these rights can be protected by private means, and they should be - but if government must exist, it seems like the most moral and basic thing that they can do with their power is to protect the freedom of the individual. In clarification of my view of 'Libertarianism' and government in general: I believe that government has gotten too large and continues to threaten individual freedom by growing larger, and that this process should be democratically reversed. I think that the role of government should be greatly reduced - I don't believe that there is necessarily a set point where we draw the line and say, 'this much government is okay', I just want it to start decreasing in size. The decreases proposed by the libertarian party - whether they 'make sense' or not compared to something as 'principled' as anarchy, that doesn't matter to me - what matters is that the steps are being taken, and they're being taken in a way that is peaceful. The success of the party, incidently, doesn't matter greatly to me either. But the work they're doing in being a voice for smaller government is a good thing in my view.

Actually, that sounds quite similar to the Libertarian party. You might want to check it out.

Like many political movements, I see Libertarianism as more of a direction rather than a destination. Just like conservatives want to push for more traditional values, new democrats want to push for more social programs, greens want to push for more environmental regulation; Libertarians want to push for more personal freedoms and responsibilities - thus less government. Right now there is a very blatant trend going on in government, it is getting bigger and more all-encompassing. Sure, every once in a while a new reigning party will cut back on spending here, or cut back on regulation there. But if you look at the big picture, we have more government monopolies and government place in people's lives than ever before in this part of the world. Libertarians want to reverse that trend, and they seem to be the only party that really wants to do that. The reason why most libertarians set out 'protection from force or fraud' as the only legitimate role of government: As "an agency which has a monopoly on the legal use of force" we need to determine what is the right thing for that power to be used for. Some argue that that power shouldn't even exist - but it does, so I think the best thing we can do is contain it, limit it, and take it in the right direction through the democratic process, and the process of educational discussion.

Good question! Here's one answer, given by a former chairman of the Libertarian party of Ontario - Marilee Haylock:

The problem is that if someone in public office is being wasteful and irresponsible with funds and legislation, all we can do is vote for someone else next time. Let's say that same program was operated by someone in the private sector - if they were wasteful and irresponsible with funds and policy, they would be fired on the spot, and someone more suitable would take the job. I think in many instances we would be far better off without the slow, clumsy government trying to guide our affairs - offering services much more slowly and inefficiently than we really need.