Charles Anthony

They all sound like candidates to carry on the Trudeaumaniacal torch. If only the Liberals could find a person to possess all of those characteristics.... This is a not a prudent argument. It comes up all of the time but it makes no sense. How can Canadians leave a federal government in a minority situation? People vote for a candidate to win. The distance between one person's vote and how it translates into a winning federal government is so convoluted. Granted, when people vote, they do think of what other people are voting, to make their final decision before they scratch and save -- I mean, vote at the ballot box. However, they can not possibly make a decision to vote for (or against) a candidate to create an overall minority federal government. That sort of decision-making requires balancing an exceptional amount of information. You can say, that the end result, after all of the marbles are counted, will lead to a minority government, but to attribute a collusive decision-making process to each Canadian is not a practical argument.

I use the terms interchangeably. Please forgive me for being harsh. I get enraged when I see big government and the opportunity to have small government is dismissed or questioned. My blinders go up. I guess MY answer was the stupid one. I was avoiding YOUR question. I have no idea when Quebec will separate. However, I am convinced that it will be inevitable -- as convinced that I am that the government in Ottawa serves no purpose that the government in Quebec City can not serve. I believe time is against Canada. As time goes by, more Canadians will continue to realize that they are getting nothing from Ottawa that is worth their money. I give every Canadian the benefit of the doubt with respect to eventually figuring that out. As far as waste is concerned, sending money to the Governor General is the same as sending money to the monarchy. It is actually worse than burning the same money. As far as waste and efficiency and bang-for-your-buck are concerned, sending money to the Governor General is the same as sending money to the monarchy. In fact, we would be better off burning the same money. Unfortunately, I believe your observation is correct. Get to work.

Not soon enough. Hopefully in my lifetime. If you want a more precise time, you are making a stupid request to avoid the issue of Quebec's independence on the longevity of the monarchy. Paying money to a monarchy will cost just as much or more than not paying money to a monarchy???

Well, as free as any person living with a non-libertarian/anarchist gov't can be.Well, at least we understand the same measuring stick. This is just tax reform. Nothing original from the serf's perspective. From where does the power of the Fleabusiness "government" come and how is it enforced?

Would the person "serve a purpose greater than itself" as a serf or as a free-person?

The monarchy in Canada will never die but it will be reduced to car flags and bumper stickers where it belongs. There is an even simpler reason why it will happen: Quebec will separate. The ease with which Quebec will dispense of the monarchy (and of a government in Ottawa, for that matter as well) will be a glaring wake up call to the rest of Canada. No doubt. After Quebec separates, every other Canadian will ask: why Ottawa??? why monarchy??? So, monarchist ostriches can keep their heads in the sand until Quebec sovereignty kicks them in the ass. Neither do I (except for the money saved by not having to fund the Governor General's festivities) but the question will come up after Quebec separates. There will not be a chance to avoid the question. Relax. Stop worrying about solving those "problems" in Canada and start promoting Quebec sovereignty. It is the most fair and efficient way to open up constitutional debate.

I would like to know: Who are these people that once voted for the NDP are now saying they would support the Tories? I also want to ask those people: What do you want from your government? What is it that you expect from the Tories that the NDP can not deliver? I am starting to like my rotating "turn at bat" political-power model more and more as a solution for dealing with these shenanigans. Forget about polls. Forget about elections. Hell, even forget about the electorate.

One thing that will be amusing is the division of "national debt" between a newly independent Quebec and the Rest Of Canada. Quebec can hold a referendum today, declare independence tomorrow and be an independent country the next day. Negotiating the division of "debt" will take forever. Quebec will be able to say: "Screw you. Keep your funny money." and continue to hold the trump card. Very little (short of warfare and or trade barriers) can stop them. Federalist Canadians will be wise to come to the table diplomatically because Quebec will have the upper hand.

They might be poorer or they might not. That is their right. Who cares? The poor people of Quebec might move away. They might get a kick in the pants and learn something new or create a new business. They might starve and die in their independent Quebec. Who cares? Is anybody responsible for spoon feeding them (or any other Canadian)? They probably are not advertizing it because they are NOT mooches unlike the Rest Of Canada. Separatists throughout the country have a sense of personal responsibility and do not feel that The Rest Of Canada should support their poverty. Just like Switzerland does not support poverty in Albania and just like Albania does not expect to be supported by Switzerland, Quebec sovereignists do not look to Ottawa and the rest of The Rest Of Canada to pay their bills. My, oh, my! How we like to complain when people mooch from Ottawa and how we like to complain when they try to stop mooching from Ottawa.

Quebec will be dependent on Canada for what?

The NAFTA was a large trade agreement that had the words "free" and "trade" in its title. I am not trying to sound flippant or smart. The truth is that some sectors were excluded and others were treated differently and some were set free. Correct. You could say that we have "freer" trade but in general, but we do NOT have true free trade across all sectors.

I am leary. I bought a bunch of plywood last year and the manager at the hardware store put a limit on how much he would sell to me. (Luckily I did not need more.) He said he was running out because his supplier was not sending in the next shipment until he learned more about the dispute. I fear it is worse than that. Now, I wonder about the Canadian tax-payer. The U.S. justifies its tariffs by accusing the provinces of subsidization and dumping. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/In other words, we are the bad guys. Maybe we are. Maybe we are misusing non-private land. Maybe we are screwing our own tax-payers. [Funny, something is starting to smell like....] The premier of B.C., Gordon Campbell wrote to the feds government about some concerns: http://www.fftimes.com/index.php/3/2006-07-06/26034Would not discuss the specifics. Hmmm? It sounds like they are hiding something. Maybe we are the bad guys. Maybe we have something to hide. Saying "market-based timber-pricing reforms" sounds like a euphemism for hiding subsidies (or some sort of intervention!) otherwise, what the hell is the government doing? Hey! Government! Can you help ME with some market-based pricing reforms, too?? I have a phone bill, a hydro bill, a water bill, an insurance bill, a laundry bill, a tax bill..... Oh, but now we have evolved to "governments" conspiring together against the public! I doubt it. I believe that the reason is more simple (but disappointing): "friends" of the governments are using their clout to screw the consumers. Again from the same CBC webpage: Funny, private land ownership can lead to prosperity without the perfidious coercion and intervention of government. Come to the dark side....

To play the devil's advocate, short-run transitions in every (whether labor or goods or services) market may appear as zero-sum situations. To make market transitions even more difficult, there could be demand and supply changes happening concurrently. To illustrate, imagine being in the early days of the fur trade. A well established trapper or tanner may be infuriated by all of the new immigrants who take advantage of this huge new country called Canada. Naturally, they will say "There are not enough beavers to hunt down for everybody! They are taking our jobs!" yadda yadda yadda. Simultaneously, unbeknownst to the Canadian-born fur trader, fashions are changing in Europe. Nobody wants beaver skin hats anymore. They want mink coats (or even worse, they want polyester!). [i believe the illustration is clear but I can not resist belaboring (pardon the pun) the point some more by jumping ahead to the present. Imagine now that fashions change to having everybody opposing hunting animals for fur. Period.] In the short run transition of the market, the Canadian trader only sees immigrants taking his job and a glut in the labor market. His employer (or broker or middleman) may just be telling him also: "I can not pay you as much as before. Times are tough because of those damn immigrants! Sorry." instead of telling him the truth: "I can not pay you as much as before. Times are tough because the demand for fur is shifting. Sorry." The little guy domestic laborer can easily be swayed. Since we are not all dead in the long run and since our economies are sooooooo intertwined and since new demands are always created, we are always experiencing market transitions whether we know it or not. In all fairness, it is possible for MikeDavid2000 (and everybody) to be complaining about a transition in the labor market that is slow and arduous. CAVEAT: No matter what, I am still comfortable saying: "Too bad." in the labor market because I do not impose a sense of loyalty upon anybody towards anybody else's job or livelihood.

Canadians do not want more democracy. They want power. The current form of "democracy" in Canada gives more of an opportunity for concentrations of power than what you propose. When Canadians vote they want to get something from somebody else. Never stop dreaming -- particularly about Canadian democracy because it is all that you will have. Of course, that will all change after Quebec separates! There is still hope!

Whenever the topics of citizenship or free trade or borders or sovereignty or amalgamtion are brought up (regardless of whether the angle is politics or commerce or culture) I always like to suggest the following exercise to test any hypothesis: "Why stop there?" To illustrate in the context of this thread from Canadian perspective: If you support one big USNA, why stop there? why not join together with Central and South America? What advantages do you have (commercial or cultural or whateveral) that can not be agrandized even further by forming one enormous USNCSA too? If you oppose one big USNA, why stop there? why stop at Canada? why not fraction every province? or every city? What advantages do you have (commercial or cultural or whateveral) as a small country (keep Canada as it is, i.e. not part of a larger USNA country) that can not be improved even further by becoming an even smaller set of countries?

Are we forgetting Canadian consumers? Will it not raise market prices on our side of the border too? If there are no tariffs, what prevents Canadian exporters from cheating and breaking the cartel?

Are you dismissing Charest's statement as having no substance? nor any political significance? From the same article: "Charest goes even further than his predecessor Bourassa, who stated in 1990 that it was up to Quebeckers alone to decide their future." For years, people have categorically dismissed Quebec independence as financially non-viable. The "No" side now has one less stupid weapon. Who knows why Charest said this. It may have been a trap. He may want to still be part of the action when Quebec separates. Nevertheless, his statement must open more ears (on both sides of the St. Lawrence seaway) to be more receptive to sovereignty. I hope and pray so.

You are the person paying for it. (I will presume that part of your wealth is exacted from you in the form of taxation on a periodic basis against your will. Not many people can escape it.) Wait. Please clarify. What intervention? Do you mean "tax-payer funded" health-care? or personal health-care decisions?

You are not baiting anybody. I now understand why you do not answer any pointed questions: because you can not justify your retaliatory and protectionist policies with anything intelligent nor logical. Canada can not also grow coffee beans and bananas on its land. However, Canada can grow coffee beans and bananas in greenhouses. Should we screw the consumers and the taxpayers with subsidies and tariffs and quotas to support all of the greenhouse farmers?

Is it better to leave this issue to the will of the members of parliament to whom the people sold their votes? is that a better answer? Not afraid, but I don't see the point in putting such a relatively minor issue through the referendum process.Because we want it. Why not put them all on the ballot? Are we afraid of democracy? or is democracy just a tool to gain power under the illusion of "will of the people" to give some semblance of legitimacy? Why not make that change?

True vote. Free vote. Party vote. Whatever. Why not hold a referendum? We will likely have a federal election soon enough. All we have to do is add it to the scratch and save -- I mean, ballot box. Is anybody afraid of having a referendum on the issue?

I think I understand the confusion. I concede that my questions may have seemed rhetorical when they were not meant to be and vice versa. That makes it seem that I am implying points of view that are contrary to free trade. No. Not at all. We can not change US government policies. We have to accept them. We may not even know what they are. You said: to which I asked: I was not questioning that they are wrong. I should have said: "Neither do I. However, I can not change foreign policy. I can only change domestic policy to which I will not support domestic subsidies for domestic producers -- even if they are retaliatory to foreign subsidies. I will not support tariffs and quotas either for domestic producers -- even if they are retaliatory." Saying "I do not support subsidies." if you are talking about foreign subsidies is ridiculous. Nobody can support a policy of a foreign country unless you are in that foreign country. I assumed that the point was obvious and thus moot. Obviously, it was not obvious. Thus, when I ask "Why not?" I want you to say explicitly: "What is it that makes subsidizing traded commodities wrong?" I am not questioning that they are wrong. I want to here from your mouth what it is that makes you think they are wrong. We may in fact agree but we may not. Again, I remind you that you brought up the morality of trade protection and you refused to define what you meant by morality. I did define my concept of morality. Since you refuse to define morality, I have to deduce it from you and pull it out piece-meal by asking to say what is wrong with subsidies. I will back-track and rephrase my questions and answers more explicitly. Who cares? We can not change subsidization policies of foreigners. We can only make policy changes domestically. Therefore, we accept it. Look at it this way: If the foreign producers had figured out a new technology or method of cultivation that made it possible for them to be more productive, they could have the same effect on our domestic market. Would you still keep tariffs for domestic producers?

I thought you were definitely baiting me because you never answered any of the questions posed by myself nor by August1991 which examined the "morality" of protectionism. You still have not. I doubt whether you can answer them. Fair is fair. I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you answer the questions posted aforehand which specifically examine the "morality" of protectionism. Remember: you raised the issue of questioning morality and ethics in trade subsidies. I will save you the trouble of skimming through the thread and list them here: Why not? Country's benefit??? Define. Who decides???? I do not understand why farmers should get special treatment. There are many industries in Canada (and elsewhere in the world) that struggle without government intervention. Should we ask for retaliatory protectionist policies on every industry? Why should farmers get special treatment? Here is the kicker: Why would producers need protectionism in your example???? in your example, local produce is starting cheaper!

Oh well, would you look at this: http://allafrica.com/stories/200607050656.html Muslims ordering to kill other muslims... http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../NEWS/607070384 Muslims torturing muslims now.... Since "its o.k. to speculate", I speculate that maybe there is a lot more about muslims attacking muslims than we knowledgeable Canadians are willing to admit.

Huh? That sounds like a hocus-pocus super-natural political theory put to poetry, to me. All it needs is some background music to support it...