ClearWest

If I'm the government and I want to sock it to churches, I go for their wallets, I don't make them marry gays. With employers, first they went for their wallets (taxes), then they forced them to adjust their hiring habits (Affirmative action / Preferential hiring / Positive discrimination, whatever you want to call it). The gov't saw that discrimination was happening, so they enforced regulation. I don't find it hard to imagine a future socialist government doing this same thing to churches. The left-wing of the spectrum have already proven that they don't mind upsetting Christians (they changed the definition of marriage afterall). They won't do it if it gets too many people up in arms - but think about it - a hundred years ago it would have been unthinkable that gays would be allowed to lawfully wed, now it's apparently accepted. Today, people would be up in arms if the gov't forced churches to marry gays. Tomorrow, it likely won't be such a big deal.

True, that's definitely a good point. Churches have remained free from such gov't interference thus far - but I don't expect it will always be like this. Government likes to get its hands into everything, and eventually I expect they will dip into churches. As far as I can recall, it has only happened in extreme cases throughout history, where dictators were in power and didn't want churches competing with them. Of course, there were also cases where churches were allowed to co-exist with the powers to be (Mussolini's Italy for instance, see the Lateran Accord). But again, there's nothing really stopping a future government from implementing the same anti-discrimination laws that they've imposed upon employers - except for the religious voters, but I expect they are definitely not as numerous as they once were. I don't anticipate something like this happening soon, but there's nothing to stop it from happening and government always wants to grow - so the logical conclusion is that it will happen. I guess it depends on how much you can trust our leaders.

Your analogy is akin to comparing apples and oranges within a garden salad. In our society, coersionists have attributed rights to those who fall under the classification of marriage. Thus, the definition of marriage becomes important. I don't think there should be any one definition of marriage. Marriage should be defined by the individuals and the organizations which institute marriage - namely, Churches, but not necessarily exclusively. My personal definition of marriage is a union, under God, between one man and one woman. The government shouldn't have power to set a definition for marriage. Their 'legal' definition doesn't change my views on the matter - however, it remains a concern because they have basically said in a ceremonial kind of way, that homosexuality is now a social norm. I'm mainly concerned about religious freedoms. Eventually, Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will probably be tried for discrimination. That likely won't happen for several years, but the beginning stages are in motion. When Paul Martin oversaw the change of the definition of marriage, he said it wouldn't affect Churches, and he promised to protect freedom of religion - but there really isn't anything stopping the government from saying: by refusing to perform gay marriages you are infringing upon equality rights. Freedom of Religion is still a charter right, but something tells me they won't let religions 'infringe' upon their equality rights for very much longer.

Who created the original materials that initiated the evolution process?

You don't have to change the traditional definition of marriage to avoid discriminating against people. If someone lives a different lifestyle it's none of my business, but they don't have to go to government and say: our sexual devience is now a legal norm. A person can choose to eat rubber tires, but they shouldn't have the right to change the legal definition of food in order to incorporate their own eccentricity into every day society. Likewise with marriage.

That's gotta be the case. A lot of these candidates knew that they wouldn't be able to win by the time this weekend came around, based on polls and such. The only reason they'd stay on, I expect, is to be among the influential. Everyone who has a following has power to offer. These conventions end up becoming a game of consolidating power. Whoever can consolidate the most power wins. But... is it really honest? Is it really fair and free of corruption? Cronyism is a word that pops into mind, it's not an accusation, just a suspicion. It's a funny thing. It's awfully entertaining, and I'll admit that I'm really enjoying following the politcal sports. It's a very funny thing...

Kennedy reportedly delivered 91% of his delegates to Dion. That is a devoted following--it's saying a lot for Kennedy. Even though he didn't hang in for this one, it looks like he may have a future in leadership in the Liberal party - Especially if Dion wins, (which I'm betting he will), because his support will likely be rewarded with high profile cabinet positions when/if the time comes for the Liberals to form government again.

It was just announced - Rae is out!

If I had to pick one to run the country, it would be Gerard Kennedy. If I had to pick one to totally drive the Liberal party into the ground, it would be Ignatieff or Rae.

National Security is still a - well - national jurisdiction. Why have twelve different flavours of ice cream when one will do? Because people want choices. We don't want to all be the same across the board. There should be more than only 13. There should be an unlimited number of health-care administrations - not simply one government-supplied health-care. A Free Market would allow people with different needs to receive the treatment they require. Education has been, is being, and can be provided by the private sector - often with greater results than the public system. Government doesn't have to cost us so much. Also, astoundingly, many private schools provide education not only of a greater quality--but at a lesser cost per student than is spent in the public system.

I totally agree. This happens so often in government. If I may take this line a thought a bit further... Universal Health Care promises equality -- but it involves claiming further stewardship over people's money and taking away their choices. Universal Day Care likewise, as well as public education, public garbage disposal, and every other scheme which claims to create equality.

Oh you mean like $1200 a year for every child under 6 isn't buying votes? Or a cut in the GST, that only helps those who have money to spend, ie. the wealthy, isn't buying votes? You make an excellent point. If I understand this amendment correctly --- provinces would have been able to opt out of the $1200 childcare program under this constitutional amendment.

Since when has Canada been considered a third-world country?

I can't believe the right wing is in support of opening the constitution again to costly and emotionally draining debate. The alternative is that a socialist party forms the government and has the power to implement whatever program they want. This constitutional reform would allow more choice for those provinces that do not agree with the federal government.

Or an NDP scheme to implement a national daycare program. Perhaps this won't stop the programs, but at least it will allow the provinces the chance to opt out of them - with full compensation. Next they need to give indivduals the chance to opt out of government programs with full compensation. I support this motion to limit the Federal Government's spending powers.

I guess it's psychological. They're not really their own nation, but they get a nice meaningless label saying that they're a 'nation within Canada'. Makes them feel special, I suppose. It's a great way for the PM to acknowledge someone without actually giving them anything. But while we're giving out the status of 'nationhood', why don't they hand one out to me, or to you, or to all the other provinces, or to all the native tribes. "The nation of John Murphey within a united Canada"... I like the ring to that.

When was that? Just in the last five years actually.

What does that even mean and of what relevance is it? "Sure he pioneered economic theories that, when applied in the real world, caused tremendous amount of suffering ane inequality. But damnit, he meant well." Socialism causes far more suffering and injustice than free markets do. In our capitalist society, even the poorest among us have an abundance of food, employment opportunities, access to goods & services, and consumer products like shampoo and vacuum cleaners which were once considered luxuries by our ancestors. People are allowed and even encouraged to trade and profit and flourish. Countries in which economies are planned and dictated never provide equal opportunity for all. They often benefit one group at the expense of another--whether it be the government officials, or the special interest groups which keep the government in office. Friedman advocated letting individuals decide what they do with their own money and property, whereas a socialist state would decide that for us and try to regulate every economic decision we make. Friedman advocated phasing out all tarriffs, whereas a socialist state would keep tarriffs high in an attempt to 'protect' national industry. What that really does is limit trade, eventually leading to severe problems in the economy--(Look up the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act which pretty much CAUSED the great depression--Not capitalism). He more than just meant well--He saw the real causes of injustice: Government imposing its will upon people's individual decisions. And he devoted his life to studying the economy and coming up with solutions to make it work better.

Did any of you go to school in British Columbia? Because I did, and we learned plenty about Canadian History, especially the two world wars. Mind you, we didn't get to them until Grade 11, but still. I'm guessing that the curriculum differs from province to province.

Milton Friedman's theories in economics were an inspiration to me in my research on the benefits of free markets. It is partially thanks to Milton Friedman that I am a Libertarian today. I really appreciate his work. He was a great advocate of individual freedom. Thank you Mr Friedman.

I do -- Everyone whose labour is worth less than $8/hr is left behind without a job. Let's say you make $10/hr right now. Tomorrow, the socialists decide to be 'generous' and make the minimum wage $15/hr. Your boss legally has to be paying you $15 an hour-- If your boss can't afford that, or if he/she doesn't think you're worth that, you'll be out of a job. Whereas without a minimum wage, you would still be working for $10/hr. The almighty gov't may think that's too low -- but if it's what you agreed to, then you wouldn't appreciate them taking it away from you and leaving you with nothing. I believe in free markets. The gov't should let people trade their labour for whatever they think it is worth, and their money likewise.

Was their failure the result of a long reign-- or was it the result of a corrupt ideology?

Footwear is also fundamentally important for life in Canada--perhaps it should be publicly funded so everyone can have it. Some people don't like to see 'morons' walking around. Some people don't like to see barefoot people walking around. Some people don't like to see blue t-shirts--it doesn't mean there should be any force involved in making these people conform. "If you don't like it, Leave". Here's a nice little metaphor: A bully is repeatedly taking people's lunchmoney at school. They ask him to stop--but he says--Hey, if you don't want me to take your money, go to a different school. My solution is different--I would get the bully [gov't] to stop taking. Public school has plenty of bias. I went to public school, and we were blatantly taught that species emerged from different species over a period of millions of years in a process which is known as evolution. Also many of the teachers were naturally very pro-union, and spoke of the union as though it were the epitome of human civilization. In current events they were quick to imply that the world's problems today were mainly caused by capitalists, and people that were anti-communist. They stress that Stalin didn't practice TRUE communism, and the world would have been much more bright if Trosky had come to power. The Great Depression is taught as the reason why capitalism must be wrong and evil, and why Roosevelt's socialist "New Deal" was a life saver. I had some very left-wing teachers.. I also had some very right-wing teachers which greatly hinted that military service is a great way for one to receive training and pay and life experience. But mainly I saw hints from the left, anti-capitalist and the like. Just because something is public doesn't mean it's unbiased. Every person with an opinion has a bias, no matter how neutral they try to present themselves. Even journalists--in choosing which quotes they use, which angle to view a story--they are expressing a bias. We are subsidizing bias. Here's an idea--If we must 'create a level playing field', why don't we provide student vouchers instead of providing government education? That way schools will compete for students, becoming more efficient and cost effective. (See Stossel's "Stupid in America", you can probably find it on youtube)

Ah... the door is now open. How would they do that, pray tell? They would not use coersion to achieve such results, would they? I am just being a devilish anarchist. I will just give you my arguments and counter-arguments now: by the very nature of participating in the electoral process, they are stepping on people's liberties. Voting for a libertarian (or anybody for that matter) is imposing your will upon your neighbors. Not only are you saying: "This is who I want to win." but you are also saying: "This is who I want to rule over my neighbors regardless of what my neighbors want." Furthermore, if the Libertarian party accepts any tiny level of taxation, they are compromizing thieves --- even if they preach minimal taxation. I agree with you in principle. But in practice I think that it may be necessary to work within the system to change the system. Sometimes in communication you have to speak your opponent's language--and they speak democracy. Voting is one way to get your message across to them. Let's face it, we are a minority speaking the language of liberty while everyone around us is speaking constitutional democracy. If we speak constitutional democracy (by voting, or by participating in the election), we can send the message to them that we want to start downsizing the state--reversing the direction that it's going right now. If a Libertarian MP were elected. He or she would vote no to every bill that involves the increase of the state and vote yes for every bill that involves increasing personal liberties. It's not much--but it would help us go towards our goal of individual liberty.

Libertarian. They're the only party listed that would put individual freedoms over the lobbying of special interest and corporate cronies. For Liberty. It's what America is all about.