Pliny

Thanks for the clarification of those terms. betsy is only suggesting that the laws of society should be applied equally to all and that special interests should not deserve special treatment. The choice to have special treatment for Muslims remains in Islamic or predominately Islamic countries. But the level of respect a Muslim woman gets in those societies is probably less than what betsy would consider giving.

It is a special interest. I am saying society should make the accommodation and would if it were civilized. If it requires a law to enforce the accommodation of special interests what does that say about the society. We all have barriers to overcome, Posit. Are you going to legislate away all barriers for us or just until we have equal barriers. I believe your concept of equal is that of government attempting to "make" everyone equal not "treating" everyone as an equal. That is the right you have; to be treated equally. You do not have the right to be made equal to everyone else. No agency can promise that unless it is equality to the lowest common denominator. That means taking away any benefit or advantage that one might have over another, physically, intellectually, and economically. No government can give someone their legs back but they can take the legs away from everyone else. So when you ask for "equality" be careful of what you are asking for you just might get it.

You may think the government isn't here to look after our interests but they have been doing so, although inefficiently and ineptly. They still allow us to keep 50% of our earnings and say it is for social justice programs (Read socialist engineering). They could turn left wing communistic or right wing dictatorial at any time; that is the nature of government. Of course, they prefer there be order in society and attempt to legislate the engineering of society. All this with very little understanding of the psychological make-up of humanity.

They are worth nothing in the ground. Yes, of course that's it. The earth is just a gift for capitalists to plunder and the rest of humanity just wish to live parasitically off the capitalist. If you think capitalists are a problem you should have seen the USSR and Poland before the fall of the iron curtain. Now there was an environmental disaster. As a matter of fact, fly over Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It is almost as if the border on the map existed in reality. Guess which side is the greener? Then read which one has more security of private property(read Capitalism).

Letting the dollar drop below par with the American dollar is exactly that, a subsidy. The government enjoyed that because there was lots of economic activity, lots of revenues for them, but our resources were going across the border in record amounts. The Liberals certainly weren't concerned about the dollar.

You are the one who said you hated government, if you remember. Why do you think they should be so ubiquitous if that is truly the case?

You mean, a comment with which you can agree. Rather egotisitical to consider it intelligent.

Yes, you are accommodating a special interest. No law, that caters to a special interest, should be a law. Installing a wheelchair ramp would be a courtesy. Legislating that wheelchair ramps or assigning parking stalls is a necessity is unfair. I would praise those that make the accommodation of their own accord but it would be their decision as to whether it was necessary to do so. If it doesn't change the law to favour them it doesn't impede on anyone. You are right they are within their rights to ask to be accommodated but they must remain subject to the same law of identification as everyone else. Making legislation is very important. Your analogous comparisons make the whole issue seem unimportant but the factor of societal; or co-operative accommodation, as opposed to governmental; or forced accommodation upon society, are quite different.

One of the things that kept the imbalance of the market unfair was the high American dollar. when Canada sold raw lumber to the Americans they could do it without making any profit on the transaction but make forty percent on the exchange rate. So basically lumber companies were giving away the harvest of raw logs for no profit in order to profit on the dollar difference. Just an example of how government interference in economies distorts markets.

Fantasy would serve us better than some of the existing laws. Glad you liked that. I wouldn't count on that. They are a body of bureaucrats convinced of their own self-importance and their role in global affairs as well as how to best profit from their activities for themselves and their friends. They are a level of pseudo-government and they last less longer than most sovereign governments Sounds like as long as things go your way we can.

Good quote, Argus! “Public opinion, I am sorry to say, will bear a great deal of nonsense. There is scarcely any absurdity so gross, whether in religion, politics, science or manners, which it will not bear.” Ralph Waldo Emerson. I see a lot of politicians representing public opinion. Isn't it just painful when someone says they speak for the people. Their opinion becomes more important than other people's opinion that way. I see a few posters here hold that their opinions are public opinions. That implies of course that they have no personal opinion that is arrived at without consultation of public opinion. In the end, the only opinion that matters is the one that makes the laws. As a comment on the subject of the thread, I don't think Bureaucratic Lunacy of this sort is peculiar to Canada, it is more a disease of bureaucracy in any government.

Yeah but women don't count anyway. They don't need to be identified except when voting as their husbands wish them to vote. Politicians don't need burkas. They are unaccountable.

Your hatred of government shines through once again, I see.

No one can be forced to do anything without a law to back up the force. So Drea, if you're girlfriend wishes to see a female doctor only, she is entirely within her rights. If the "hajib" is wished to be worn during voting you are asking to change the law as it exists to accommodate a "special interest". You are essentially then forcing laws to cater to a special interest. they would have to eliminate any law to be identified at the voting booth to fairly and justly satisfy all interests - an option I doubt they will entertain.

Good idea! Now you're thinking.

Stuck in the past - like somewhere in the eighteenth century? The UN should go the way of the League of Nations. I vote with, Betsy. I don't know how jennie squares the circle of hating government and at the same time demanding more of it. It's kind of a love-hate relationship, I guess.

It is mostly politics and perception. Have you ever seen anyone rant about greedy "corporations"? Politically, the Conservatives wish to shore up as much of the left vote as they can. The apparency to the public in income trust taxation is that greedy corporations are being stopped dead in their tracks in their attempt to avoid paying their fair share and giving back to the community - the scoundrels. Point for the Conservatives gaining some marginally left voters. They did however alienate those who voted Conservative for the very reason that they said they would not tax income trusts. Only Economists and investors would fully understand that, hopefully for the Conservatives they lost a smaller number of voters than what they gained. I don't think the Conservatives like to be perceived as "managing the economy" unless it is doing well. The Liberals like to be perceived as managing the economy and talk about it as though they are the benefactors of all things economic and their primary concern is to not let anyone appear to be getting rich because we know that getting rich occurs on the backs of the poor. It means to the leftist public that the pie is not being divided equally and the poor must be getting the shaft somehow. I don't believe there is much advantage to government in taxing Income Trust corporations. There is not much change in revenues. It is a political ploy to be perceived as delivering "fairness and social justice". I wish governments understood fairness and justice. So I agree with geoffery in that it wins over votes. I don't know why he would have pinpointed Quebec (Some bias I suppose)though it is generally the Liberal voter to whom this move is intended to appeal and there are lots east of Manitoba. As far as understanding the economics of it I like Augusts comment about "checking his wallet". If you are not a doctor you cannot understand healing, and if you are not a lawyer you cannot understand law, and if you are not an economist you cannot understand economics. All part of the erudition of professions. This would be an excellent economic policy to implement.

Listen to all sides? Doubtful!

Well, Golly gosh! Is the Federal reserve not going to lend any more money to the government? The direction of economics in the world is toward trading blocs. The US dollar has to drop, I would have said "tank" but that is too dramatic. The acceptance of a North American currency is the prime concern. Nationalism is still strong among the populaces of the US and Canada. Canada is not too willing to accept a common currency and the Constitution is a roadblock to that in the States. Are we in for a recession? We are in for a period of high inflation most certainly. It could be considered a recession because people won't buy at what they consider high prices. It isn't really high prices but a drop in the purchasing power of the dollar, i.e. inflation, that they are looking at. At any rate, these are interesting times, economically.

How can you make sense of it? Sorry, geoffery, that "it is a unique structure" does not explain it! Our government represents the Crown, not the people. I do not wish to infer that the Crown has treated it's citizens badly or that all is a sham. I merely wish to illustrate that the hierarchic structure is not as it seems, and for good reason. Perhaps I have said too much.

Yeah, Dude! Allright! Thumbs up, man! Cool! Freakin' Cool!

Yeah, Dude! Allright! Thumbs up, man! Cool! Freakin' Cool!

I didn't find this article particularly anti-Liberal as you seem to have interpreted it. It appears to exalt the Liberals in that taxing income trusts was their idea originally and the Conservatives implemented it. The problem the Conservatives have is that they campaigned on a promise not to implement it. This article seems to me to be a reminder of The Conservatives betrayal and a vindication of the Liberals and their policy. The article isn't really about economics. I agree with geoffery as to the economic ramifications of the tax. People personally or professionally will move to toward tax avoidance if at all possible. This was the reason for businesses moving to income trusts. If fairness in corporate taxation were the concern the Conservatives could have given Corporations a tax incentive to remain as they were. It would have cost them revenues though so it was an unthinkable alternative.

I don't think most People realize the negative effects of drugs. Of course the government should decriminalize them all so that they could truly experience this and so that users do not have the pressure of "the law" on their backs. They could truly enjoy the indulgence and not have the government to continuously blame for their rough lives. The ones that like to use them will associate with each other and wonder why they live in ghettos. Perhaps they can appeal to government to help them get off drugs - but I wouldn't support that view. After awhile people might realize the negative effects of drugs on their lives and no longer wish to associate with drugs. But then, they may be happy and content with having nothing but a good hit now and then if that becomes their level of ambition. At least the pressure will be off them. There will be those that will attempt to keep drugs scarce and the demand high and the thus the price high. But the market will usually attempt to undercut the price. Monopolies and cartels would be kind of scary - those are where the real drug wars might occur - heavy competition. Society, in general, frowns on the use of drugs of any sort in general societal intercourse. If one wishes to interact in society it is generally expected one be sober and aware of his surroundings and the people around him. I don't think a law is necessary to enforce that view. Occasionally, one might wish to celebrate, but he better know himself pretty good and have a sense of purpose and thus know what he should and shouldn't be doing. Some drugs are psycholgically and physiologically damaging. Having a direction in life makes one more conservative and cautious in his choices especially if he has to suffer the consequences of those choices. Choosing not to use drugs, would be the correct course of action if one wished to improve his percentage of achieving anything substantial in his life. That some people say they use drugs regularly and live normal lives isn't an argument for drugs. They have a job, are married own a house and have two cars and argue they lead more normal lives than most of their friends and neighbours just doesn't say much for what they consider normal lives. Oh, by the way - I would never vote Green or NDP. They are most certainly not about liberty.

You appear to be stuck in it.