Pliny

I agree that party policy and decisions made in government and laws passed are out of reach of voters. It is the representation that we vote for and who will best represent us. I believe it may have been yourself that mentioned we cannot all be informed enough on all matters to make decisions regarding law. That is the politicians job in my understanding. Often, they don't concern themselves with such but with their appearance in the next election. We do have to understand the policies and principles of the party we vote for and that has been blurred by confusing labels and slippery definitions of Liberals and Conservatives. What do they stand for? There are blue Tories and red Tories and varying degrees of Liberals that stretch the gamut of the left side of the political spectrum and the same with Conservatives on the right side. Are we voting for extremism, as each refers to the other as extremist. I believe it is important to make politics and government understandable to the voter. Political parties need to state exactly what direction they plan on taking the nation. In my view, the options we have today limit the direction to that of a larger and more intrusive government. I suppose that is what the people are voting for but are they voting out of receiving privilege for their own special interests or are they voting for good government, understanding that to be treating all equal under the law. And how is special privilege considered equal? I agree also that an oligarchy is setting in in this country but let's face it we are really still a colony.

In order to sail you must have a grasp of fundamentals. I agree there is no substitute for experience. Keynes was more about the mathematical aspect of Economics and not the human aspect. I await your critique on Hazlitt.

I have no wish to return to yesterdays except as lessons of what not to do. They are what brought us to this point. They were the days when people in North America implicitly trusted their governments to do the right thing and they kept the people safe to the point where today, the people just clamor for whatever they can vote themselves from the coffers. The future is what must be looked toward. Vigilance is necessary when it comes to government. As George Washington said,"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Briefly, the "they" you ask about are the theoretical economists that have devised economic tools and placed them in the hands of government, all for the public good of course, if it benefit the State, can that be a terrible thing? The theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes are the most prominent. May I suggest you read a book called "Economics in One Easy Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. I think I have the title correct but perhaps not exact.

I agree with this. Since about fifty percent of voters don't vote, government in Canada is not representative of the majority. It is representative of special interests. Interests that vote for their privilege mostly and gain enough support publicly to gain the attention of politicians.

I agree with your last statement. By confrontational I mean The Liberal party of Canada would have had to relinquish a lot of power or start buying the west. The people of the west would have gotten more restless and more demanding. The Liberals would have had the opportunity to continue committing more crimes and digging themselves a deeper hole and...... Call me a chump though....I would have preferred a victory and a moral one.

It is true that most people do not know what Kyoto is about, especially Environmentalists who think it is about saving the planet. It is the child of Maurice Strong, a Canadian, and it is a typical political-economic means of transferring wealth between nations and is not particularly about saving the environment. What is needed, if global warming or green house gasses are a problem, and I agree that if we can eliminate them then lets do so, but what is needed are tchonological solutions. Moving money around the globe isn't a solution. What Kyoto is telling me is that technology will not change until at least 2012, no matter what innovations present themselves, and the UN is certain of that. Does anyone believe in national sovereignty anymore? Because if it is being sold to the UN, as it appears, I would prefer it were sold to the US.

The staunch conservative, I see. You are probably correct but I would rather they had stuck to their principles than sell them to gain power. It would have been a more politically confrontational nation had they done so and less stable but in the long run we would have come out stronger. If we had continued and made it through the rough waters we would have had a more clear idea of where we were headed as a nation. Well, we do for sure now. A much larger nanny state.

Marcinmoka, you like the status quo. You weren't here 50 years ago. We have seen a steady decline in stability over that period. It isn't really a Canadian thing but a global problem of the encroaching State. They have replaced economics with a neo-economics to better engineer society. It may look rosy to you and to many developing countries that have governments that use their force to grab the wealth of their country such as Zimbabwe and Venezuela. There is no stability where private property is not the foremost right of the citizen. We here are losing more and more the concept of private property that can be usurped by government and governments that don't recognize this tend to fall sooner or later. Often sooner. Your comments reflect, I think, the majority of Canadians. In being under the wing of government we tend to give it more leeway and are less vigilant about it's activities. They are good and benevolent, after all, and will surely do well by us if we just let them get on with the business of governing. I must ask you a few more questions but I have no time at the moment. I will be away for a day or two but will get back to you.

Definitely. And I was astounded at the lax attitude of the public, particularly in central and eastern Canada, toward the Liberals financial wrongdoings. Well, I have been surprised by the way central Canada votes and am currently of the opinion that they can't seem to get behind Dion, so they can surprise me again. The Liberals should spend a couple of decades on the back benches, in my opinion. I have no uncertainty that the Reform party was railroaded into non-existence.

Harper already has shown his colours. He left the reform party, returned when it had been subverted and combined it with the Conservatives. I believe you are right that those things you mentioned will do him in. His policies have shown to be not much better or different than the Liberals. It only remains to demonstrate whether he will be as corrupt if he can gain a majority.

I guess we haven't figured out what the role of government is. It is, in my view, basically the only agreed upon agency in a society with the recognized legal ability to use force or designate the use of force. I suppose it is expected that on a political forum government policy is discussed. Missed that point somehow. Being an agency of force government is more about confrontation and conflict than co-operation and working together. The majority of individuals in a society will co-operate and work together for the most part. In my view, a modern, civilized society will have the greatest amount of co-operation and will require the least amount of force, and thus the least amount of government. Posit: I believe your fear of corporations stems from the governments protection and largesse it grants to corporations so that they may form cartels and monopolies. Corporations have no power of enforcement. Government is an agency of force and Corporations are not, so they will never replace government. They can only survive by supplying a service to the public. The cost will be mainly determined by the consumers and their economic priorities. The difference between a corporation that receives government privilege and one that does not is that the one that does not faces the risk of failure and must cater to the consumer. One that is granted privilege by government in the form of tax breaks, corporate welfare, etc., does not face the same risk and is in fact favored but is not entirely subject to the will of the consumer. Government services are mostly monopolies. Monopolies need not worry about profit or the consumer or innovation or ingenuity. If they are protected by government what incentives do they have? The most important thing is to work on maintaining the monopoly. The second thing is securing resources and the third thing is cutting costs in the delivery of services, essentially determining the costs of administration as high as can be justified.

You wrote that while I was compiling my epistle. I was surprised to see it as it was my view as well. I generally attempt to explain and justify my view because I know I will be doing it later. Hmmm... I generally have to elaborate further anyway. Oh well..

Well I watched the whole video. I wonder how many more people will see the video now because it was posted here. People who probably wouldn't have ever seen it otherwise. I know a Bernays promotion when I see one. Bernays always knew what emotion he wanted to elicit from his audience. The best thing to do with this kind of thing, in my opinion, is ignore it. If it should become popular it is a commentary on the state of society. I don't believe in hating nothing. I hate Brussels sprouts. If I boil some is that a hate crime? Maybe only if I refuse to eat them. Hate is a valid human emotion. A hate-crime is an aggressive act of force due to hatred. Hatred cannot be, nor do I believe it should be, criminalized. In this video has a crime been committed or does it just serve to incite? It just serves to incite hatred, I think, and perhaps the incitement of hatred will result in crimes. So why don't we just ignore this, not post it around the internet. Some will no doubt, but the majority, who are in control of their emotions, can ignore it or see it for it's hateful content. If it is justified as free expression or called art - just let it die as quick a death as possible. The mainstream media never hesitates to show and tell or shock and awe us with "Hate-crimes" and they don't want it to spread but they are busy making sure you know it is spreading by spreading it around themselves creating their own self-prophecy. I don't know! Make any sense?

I have been on a political forum for several years discussing politics and I find the Canadian forums discuss what government should do about every subject, or whether the Liberals or the Conservatives deserve to govern, or what best serves democracy, or if taxes need to be raised or not, but rarely hear or read that government should be limited, downsized and play a minimal role in the lives of it's citizens. I might hear those sentiments from some stray American who generally gets dumped on for his political views unless he is pining for things Canadian like "free" health-care and other government services. Canadians seem to have accepted government as having a very big role in their lives and can't imagine it being less intrusive or, if they do have some imagination, see that as a negative. The optimum governmental scene, in my view would be that everyone be self sufficient and essentially be his own government. The opposite of that "optimum governmental scene" would be everyone collectively dependent upon the State for their sustenance. So I would ask if we should work toward becoming dependent upon government or should we strive toward self-sufficiency? One leads to the totalitarian State the other toward anarchy. It is my contention that the size of a nation's government will be directly proportional to the irresponsibility of it's individual citizens, and I am of the opinion that Canada has a fairly large government in relation to the size of it's population and it is growing as is the US government.

Well, killed that thread, I guess.

Point made then! Why would the government have to define it under marriage? Because common law spouses wish to have the rights and privileges government provides recognized marriages. Originally the government promoted families and thus marriage, which was the traditional family recognized by society. The granting of privileges to families was looked at as a good thing but it unfortunately results in unequal treatment by government and inevitably results in complaints from those challenging the system of traditional marriage. It then becomes a legal and not a societal issue. If it remained in the societal realm traditional marriage may have deteriorated in importance but no process would have developed to legally seek recognition of alternative lifestyles. They more than likely would have remained in the closet. Without the collective force of law not enough interest could have been generated to bring about societal change regarding alternative lifestyles. People would live their lives the way they wanted, minorities would be socially ostracized by the majority but if laws made were just then all they would be about is no force being used by one person or one group against another. Who can say that polygamy, given the societal circumstances, such as one sex being predominant, may be the only way some people would ever have to enter into a family structured environment if that were the desire. I only suggest that society, the environment and circumstance decide what is best and it change according to circumstance, and not by the force of law.

We can take the conspiratorial avenue of the government attacking and tearing down the traditional family or we can say that the government is messing up. I would say they are messing up for their own aggrandizement. I think people are more like children than adults these days and it goes back to the State having to define every relationship in an individuals life and no associations are made without legal protection. I was on this board a few years ago and it was a really sad commentary on our state of affairs when a discussion about a business transaction agreed to on a handshake between two friends met with dire warnings from others of ruinous "legal" ramifications and covering your backside legally was the most important thing in any business transaction. No personal relationship is safe to cultivate anymore in the minds of a lot of people in society today and there is always condolences from government and perhaps even some opportunity to gain some revenge or retribution and just make it all better. So no matter the choices we make in our life, if they turn out to be something other than we imagine the government can make it all right. How did a discussion about polygamy turn to this? Well, does there have to be a law about this? People will act and make decisions according to their own views on life wouldn't it be better if they could make wise decisions with regard to their lives instead of legislated decisions?

Where we end up is everyone equal,of course some will be more equal than others but most will be equal to the lowest common denominator. Oh, and the slippery slope did not start with the legal acceptance of gay marriage. It started when the federal government, for it's own tax purposes, altered the definition of "marriage" and included common-law marriage as legal. In my opinion the dictionary definition should not have changed to suit the government's purposes. They opened a Pandora's box with that one. If you look for reasons for social decay it generally starts with the enactment of legislation proposed by meddling, do-good politicians. Legislation regarding this type of cultural and social engineering is, more often than not, entirely unnecessary but is the first step in any politicians attempt to build himself a legacy and representative bureaucracy. It is society that will define marriage and not a law. The law is only about governmental benefit and privilege - get rid of that and there is no reason why anyone would demand the definition of marriage include them or not include them.

The government has failed us. The question should be, "Do we really need the government involved or are they just an introduced arbitrary?"

You posted a website with some statistics and I stated I didn't accept them as valid. Once again, within that same article was a qualification, criticizing the methodology and criteria used for the rankings. "The Canadian health care system is pretty good." What can I say here? It is ranked 30 in the developed countries. It is not ranked pretty good. It is one of the worst in the developed nations. By the way, that ranking has not been criticized, although I would be glad to offer my opinion and state it seems a bit high. What choice do you have when you are denied it? If you can't afford it you have to rely on friends and family. If you have no friends or family what's the sense in it all. If they can't afford it appeal to the community, if the community can't afford it then appeal to the nation - anything but government who cannot provide health care. They only make laws and shift money around. I didn't say the option was private insurance. If the health care industry would have evolved correctly it would have been in the same category as a religious charity tax-wise. Not paying corporate taxes, income taxes, capital taxes or any taxes. It would be fairly easy to become quite viable without those burdens especially when heavily contributed to by the community and it's importance is indubitably recognized by society. This would also not sacrifice choice and options and ensure innovation and ingenuity in the field. It is government that considers it a business and enforces it to adhere to the business model even under its socialized form. What has to happen now is the whole thing has to collapse because of the many who are reliant upon it for their sustenance, and I am not speaking of consumers in this case. People such as yourself will only allow tinkering with it and will make increasing demands from the taxpayer but the camel's back will eventually break.

It means exactly that - "it is the most expensive health care system in the world", and I stated why I believed it to be true. Here is a quote from the wikipedia article you quoted which is basically my complaint. Now I am not playing context games. I totally understand why someone would perceive the statements, "one of the worst systems in the developed countries" and "the worst system in the developed countries" are identical. It is the same affliction as thinking the 30th ranked system is the best in the world.

I was quoted in context? Really?

Global news - Isn't that a right wing news organization? Just joking. I know that is impossible in Canada. What the problem boils down to is whether the faceless state should have the power to decide which minorities should be denied service and which minorities should have privilege. Costs will determine this but they won't pick on the underdog. It just seems too cruel. If anyone need decide I would say the patient, those who are closest to the patient and the doctor should make final decisions and the State should never be allowed to determine who should or shouldn't get treatment based upon "cost".

I would like to argue as well that the proponent of a socialized system is arguing for a legalized monopoly. The same goal that any private corporation would love to achieve, and if it did would no longer concern itself with profit but cost, no longer being challenged to be innovative or use ingenuity, in its delivery of service. The only other concern it may have is an erosion of its position as a monopoly - consequently fighting innovation and ingenuity in service delivery. Socialized services are promoted by vested interests, and painted with the altruistic motive of helping the poor or being collectively responsible. It looks very appealing but all socialism is, is capitalistic interests combining with government to gain the impossible (under true capitalism) position of a legalized monopoly. Those with a vested interest, I understand. Those that support a monopoly out of altruism are sorely misguided.

What's a "fascistLibertarian"? Political correctness wishes us all equal as well. Their problem is that we should all be "equal" to the lowest common denominator. What do you mean by equal? The problem the west has with Muslims is in who should make the law. In the west it is government that makes laws. Force and aggression against another can only be used by government or government designated authority. Islam requires it make the laws. There will inevitably be a struggle. Can Islam accept that it cannot be a theocracy? Can it accept that it cannot validly use force against non-Muslims or even Muslims where it has no authority to do so? Their law, their justice is based upon Islam and has existed for centuries. Basically, the power struggle is the problem as it has been throughout history. Islam points to western decadence and immorality and its negative influences while the west points to Islam's oppression, barbarity and lack of individual freedom. Is either one wrong?