Charles Anthony

I agree with the motives. But how do the mechanics of "direct democracy" work to reduce power from the politicians? Now, I will bite because...

irrelevent. That would depend on your point of view!No it does not. That is why I pointed it out. The point that you are missing is that you can not always know WHY (whether it is due to subsidies or cheaper labor costs or better technology or secret technology or better weather or lower taxes or whatever) for every single product that is imported or exported. Retaliatory trade practices based on WHY an export is cheaper is an excercise in futility. Ultimately, it gets reduced to special treatment for certain sectors of the economy over other sectors at the direct expense of the consumer.

That is a horrifyingly foul comment.

How long will it take people to abolish minimum wages?

I would like to expand on this proposal. In general, if I had only those two choices, I would go for this proposal. The way that I would expand upon it is to point out that we have more than two choices. I have to play the devil's advocate: Why the GST / road congestion trade off? why single out the GST? Why not abolish (or at least reduce) income tax and replace it with the congestion tax?

Are you serious?Yes. I am very serious. Can you read? Did I write that? No. Did I write that? No. Did I write that? No. The analogy that you presented is poor and does represent that. I will repeat word for word what I wrote: Individual European countries are politically independent. They do not tax other countries or tell other countries how to run their internal affairs. The relationship between the federal government and the provinces is different. I said politically independent not economically independent. Quebec sovereignty seeks both. Your analogy applies to one. Can you read without twisting words and making things up as you go along? I believe that the division of the debt will be more important than everything else that both sides will be financially better off to forget about animosities and negotiate cordially. By defacto, it is the only position from which negotiations will start. Yes. I will show you how. The day after Quebec separates, the debt will not be divided. Negotiations will start and it will all be with Canada. The next day, all of the debt will be with Canada. The day after that, all of the debt will be with Canada. Until negotiations are finally over, the debt will still be with Canada. Throw all of the scare tactics you want. That is what is going to happen.

That is a bad analogy. Individual European countries are politically independent. They do not tax other countries or tell other countries how to run their internal affairs. The relationship between the federal government and the provinces is different.

What exactly do you want? As far as who owes who, I see things in the reverse: give me my taxes back. Or else what?

Please explain more about the Canadian dairy market. Specifically, what is in place now to maintain that market between provinces that would then disappear with separation? Might we see a negotiated agreement between business analogous to what the softwood lumber industry has done? I would not deny that either. Other than the loss of current transfer payments, there is no real reason for their to be a significant difference in economic activity. If there was no animosity, there would be no change in prosperity. (I would take things a step further and say there would be an increase in prosperity directly related to less government waste and theft.) Hypothetically, if every single Quebecker and every single Canadian wanted separation, would the division of the country lead to a poorer Quebec? I think not.

irrelevent.

Indeed, perhaps you could dust off the old arguments, There would not be a whole lot to add except that... ...therein lies its universality. The reductionist thinking behind it minimizes subjectivity and baggage that comes with a lot of religions. Whereas a lot of cultures see "the golden rule" as a natural law and simply take it for granted, true anarchism renders it into a philosophy by minimizing subjectivity and incorporating reasoning. At its very finest, indeed, hairs must be split and a sense of arbitrariness comes out. However, those same hairs rarely get split in most other political philosophies which steamroll over human rights. Whether we choose to accept the discipline of following it or not, understanding true anarchism provides a baseline upon which human transgressions become more difficult to conceal. Which goes well with yours... the answer is that the stronger will seek to dominate the weaker. I believe reality is even more violent. I believe the weak will also seek to gang up and dominate anybody they smother. For this reason, I do not believe anarchy is stable: there are too many evil people and lazy people. Continuing with the original question, I ask: what powers? is addressed to the people who wish to construct a "government" ruling over people. A population is governed more on the righteous side (as opposed to the tyrannical side) of the scale when their domination has less power over them. That conclusion is derived from using anarchy as a baseline even though anarchy may never be achieved nor stabilized. I think of anarchy as absolute zero on a thermometer: never physically attainable but the starting point from which to objectively measure the heat.

No. If Quebec refuses both 18% and 22% then it is the same as Quebec saying "Screw you." because the negotiations are at a stalemate. What can Canada do? The only thing is trade barriers and warfare. That is what I said. Yes and Canada will also lose in a trade war. Thus, Canada will negotiate. Nobody can stop Quebec from using any curreny they want. I challenge you to explain how the Bank of Canada can stop it.

The original issue vis-a-vis Alberta deals with the averaging out effect of the Bank of Canada throughout the country. Since, Alberta is on the higher end of the economic activity scale, Alberta loses out with a common fiat currency in one large market. I believe Alberta does not need a faith based currency because of the economic growth. Thus, a commodity currency would be more efficient. Forgive me for diverting this thread. Discussing the advantages and disadvantages of faith-based currencies and all of the different types of commodity-based currenies while exchanging faith-based reWikiGurgitations of economies of yore (while tossing in a few vegetables with the apples and oranges) belong in a separate thread. Anybody up for it?

We will have cheaper cars available. If the Geely cars are better or just as good as American cars, people will likely buy them more than they will buy American cars. The Geely car companies will make profits and the North American car companies will make less profits. North-American auto workers will likely have to find work elsewhere much like the horse trader had to find work elsewhere when the automobile was invented. In your example, people will make a savings of $20,000 and out of the goodness of their hearts, they will donate that money to the American auto-pact companies victims charity to thank the American car companies for a history of higher prices. Our standard of living depends on foreign imports anyway. Pick up ANYTHING within a 1 meter radius of your arm and you will likely see that it is made in a foreign country. Are you able to force every Canadian to give all of that up?? Why should the farmers get special treatment?

Can you read??? I have not said that. Where do you read that?? I am not telling the American electorate to pressure their government to subsidize American farmers. I am saying that SINCE they subsidies their export industry (in this case, farming) and because WE can not change THEIR policies, let Canadians buy their product at the price they want to sell to us. Period. If I was an American tax-payer, I would say that the American farm subsidies should stop. But, I am not an American tax-payer. Can you provide ONE quote (from this thread or any other) of mine that even hints that I support subsidies of any kind?

We should dump the sex war thing and choose a different demographic. There is probably too much discrimination against short people. We should make sure there are 50% short people and 50% tall people in the House of Commons. Wait a minute..... maybe we should make it 50%+1 in favor of short people....

I will take it one step further. I would not doubt that it is a set-up or a trap. From the same article: They make a public accusation and refuse an interview. I do not trust them.

My argument will not change. I understand the predatory practice you describe. The larger company (even at a loss) undercuts the smaller company long enough to make the smaller company go out of business. The larger company is hoping to gain all of the market afterwards and recoup their losses now that they have more volume. That can happen in international trade too. My argument will still not change because: 1) it is a result of freedom 2) it is a result of consumer choice; consumers freely choosing to buy the cheaper priced product 3) the world economy is soooooooo big that a smaller company can only be ran out of business in predatory pricing when the small company is truly charging more (consumer is being screwed) 4) consumers should not be required to prop up any business unless they want it I understand that afterwards the larger company will have market control to jack up prices even higher than before. It is still a result of freedom. No one company should have the power to go to the State (and the tax-payer) to support their business. (I know we see that all of the time. I say it is wrong everywhere else, too.) Why should farmers get special treatment? Why not? Most of what we consume are imports. Food would be our last concern if we stopped our imports. Specifically, in international trade and this thread, the extra amount of money saved by consumers from buying cheap imported corn can go to something else. The same amount of money will buy two or more things instead of just corn. That is the savings. Consumers are better off. In fact, I will take it one step further: it is not a savings, it is a return to the consumer what is unfairly extorted.

I would ask why you would even need them at all.

Yes. Only out of fairness. I do not want the government to have the power to tinker with the economy or make winners and losers. Trade gold or silver or lead or pearls or sand or corn or olive oil, anything, so long as it is real. Currently, our central banks do precisely that: they play with the money they force you to use. (Actually, they just make it excedingly difficult to use any other currency but their ow.) The actions of the central banks create winners and losers by "averaging out" the economy in question. Correct. It will not stop inflation. Inflationary pressures will be free. There will be more inflation but when it occurs, it will be striclty a result of something "real" in the economy: increase demand or supply or a discovery of more gold. The governments (through their central banks) will not have the power to create winners and losers. The advantages of controlling inflation with central banking is real. I do not deny that. It is as real as the advantages of stealing money from rich and prosperous parts of Canada and giving it to other parts of Canada in the form of transfer payments. Trading currencies backed by commodities that have real value (i.e., gold) and thus can not be counterfeited.Even hardcore conservatives, and I mean harcore, wouldn't agree to thatI know. I am not a hard-core conservative. I believe in extreme freedom -- more so that what any "conservative" believes. Russians manipulate the market with gold??? I do not know what Russians do. I am curious. Please explain. Nevertheless, that is not why "conservatives" want fiat currencies. The appeal of fiat currencies is specifically because you can "print" it or "suppress" without creating any real wealth to back it up. Thus, allowing the State to distort the economy -- i.e. steal from Peter to give to Paul.

lets just turn ourselves into a bunch of bickering little fiefdoms who have no other national interest than what they can extort from the rest of Canada.That is what we have now. We do not have to reduce anything. That is an apt description of the entire history and current affairs of Canada. The bickering continues because people use the power of the State (under the euphemism of "patriotism" and "national vision" or whatever) to extort and coerce other Canadians for financial gain. To stop the bickering, we need smaller government and less government powers. The native populations should have that right to separate from Quebec in the same way that Quebeckers should have the right to separate from Canada. Personally, I doubt natives will separate from Quebec because the political power struggle between first nations in Quebec and Ottawa is more imbalanced. Two smaller groups of people side by side will likely make a compromise whereas one small group and one foreign group in Ottawa will not. Power struggles usually lead to compromise between smaller groups who live side by side and share the same resources. I believe that natives deep in Quebec and Quebeckers deep in Quebec will only find it natural to share. Whereas it is only natural for provinces on the East of this continent to have difficulty sharing with provinces on the West of this continent. No. With a clear referendum win, anybody can declare independence with their current borders. All they need after that is international recognition from an other country and secession will happen. The biggest challenge will be internal to Quebec. Quebeckers who want to stay as part of Canada will not readily accept secession. However, Canada is not going to send soldiers into Quebec to fight. Quebeckers will have to se We will probably see a bunch of Canadian-Quebeckers with dual citizenships.

Trading currencies backed by commodities that have real value (i.e., gold) and thus can not be counterfeited.

I look forward to the first set of conjoined twins that set a legal precedent whereby one of the pair consumes or does something that harms both of their lives. Arguing the laws around pregnant women is starting to get tiresome.

It does not matter. Keep them both. Just reduce (or eliminate!) their power. The first question to ask is: What powers do you want to attribute to the Super Decider of the entire land?

The only thing that concerns me is that the media must get licenses from the government. I do not like alliances between business and government. I would rather that the broadcasting industry be left to regulate itself freely. Conflicting radio signals can be solved in a free market without tax-payer dollars. Why should a person who does not watch television pay for regulating the televsion inudstry? Why should a person who does not listen to radio pay for regulating the radio inudstry? Why should a person who does not read newspapers pay for regulating the newspaper inudstry?