Charles Anthony

Please define what you mean by the "country's benefit" and who has the authority to decide it. 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? Do not say "level the playing field". The local farmers lobby governments to impose tariffs to raise the consumer price of imports. Consumers are forced into paying higher prices for the imports if they want them. You have everything completely mixed up. You are saying that the imports start higher than local prices and import prices must drop. Why would local producers need tariffs???????? This is ridiculous. You do not even know what your are saying.

---

You do not even know what protectionism is anyway. Thanks for the interchange.

Nonsense. Who would you impose this tariff on?Every person who goes outside without full body coverage or without a parasol. Every window that is not tinted. The example is deliberately ridiculous to illustrate protectionist policy and the principle is clear. Country's benefit??? Define. Who decides???? Local farmers??? There is a door open here.... Can our priorities be centered around farmers who produce at higher prices??? The local farmers who insist on protectionism are raising prices for local consumers. Local farmers under protectionism are screwing the local consumer. Being a nation requires stealing from local Peter consumer to give to local farmer Paul? Are we a nation of thieves?

Why not?

No, the Panama invasion was all over the news, on every channel, at the time. People didn't choose to ignore other information-it was withheld from them.I do not think that people were interested in it at all -- enough to question or look below the surface. It does -- regardless of whether Mammon is happy or not. No, you do not. All you would have to do is show that the media systematically produces propaganda (or lies). How they arrived at that is irrelevent. They could have all picked up the same tea leaves. They could have all made the same fleeting hearsay unreliable observations. They could have all arrived at the same conclusions -- because they think the same way. They could have all looked at what their competitor is doing and copied as fast as possible. They could be taking advantage of the fact that most consumers do not care. Answer this: what is the difference between Coke and Pepsi? (I know, I know, technically they do taste different) They generally taste the same (restaurants always treat them interchangeably). They are chemically the same. They cost the same. They are EXACTLY the same size. They are sold in the same packaging. Would you say that there is a cola cartel? No, it is the result of a free market. It would be wise to look at the media industry as any other supplier that is vying for the same consumers. Ergo, they produce the same things.

No, you do not. Yes, you do. No, you do not. Yes, you do. No, you do not. Sorry, I am just being silly. I could not resist. I will be serious now. What you call "threat to the security of that country and the livelihood of its citizens" is a political way of euphemizing protectionism. What makes protectionism (tariffs, quotas, subsidies, etc.) wrong transcends anybody's responsibility to security or livelihood of other people. Thus, even if the tariffs or quotas or subsidies were in the interest of combatting threats to security and its citizens, it would still be wrong. It would be like saying: "I am stealing from tax-payer Peter so that I can give to farmer Paul so that farmer Paul can continue to protect and feed everybody regardless of whether Peter wants the protection or if he can feed himself differently." Should we force our own citizens to go bankrupt (or at least pay higher prices) so that they can eat? regardless of their own individual choices? You are mixing everything up. Either the farmers need protectionism or they do not. (That is why I could not resist the jest above.) If they are profitable, they do not need intervention in the market (protectionizm). If they are driven out of business, they are not profitable. Individual consumers should have the choice of whether they want to forego their nation's ability to produce food (or national security) or not. However, I am curious: how is our local inability to provide our own food, a national threat? If we can pay for imports, who would threaten us?

No. We can complain. I think it is more effective to clean up one's own backyard.

Oh! No! The wrong's best weapon: search or seizure!

I believe that the choices are dismal now. The commercial Western world is under attack. I think this is a profound statement on the part of Japan. It would be a horrible political mistake if they back-tracked upon it. In fact, it would be legitimate for Japan to act "pre-emptively" now. Japan is under serious threat. In fact, I think that whether North Korea is bluffing or not, they should be called by all of the warring-types of the world.

You are too hard on yourself, if it could logically work, it would defend itself.The trouble with me is that I am not too sure if it is in fact logical. I never thought it through yet because I take it for granted. To illustrate: if I taught you a new game called soccer -- I mean, football. After explaining all of the rules of the game, I ask you to logically prove that the ball will fall to the ground. Can you prove gravity? Can you explain gravity? Is the force of gravity logical?? Most people would not bother wasting effort thinking it through -- they go about every day of their lives comfortably taking the force of gravity for granted. Luckily for me, the morality of my super-natural beliefs are compatible and do not conflict with my political beliefs. However, I am sure you have heard enough of my politics. I am curious. Would you describe it as "more fair than democracy" without revealing what it is yet? When you say "something" do you mean a power (example: God, yoga energy, etc.) or a principle (example: human rights, world peace, etc.)?This is starting to sound like we should move on down to the Moral & Religious Issues category!

It would be worse than unsporting: it would be difficult to attack. Suffice to say that I believe in the super-natural (do not ask me specifics, they do not matter). Thus, it would be foolish for me to discuss or argue my beliefs which incorporate the super-natural. Hence, I hesitate before responding because I wonder if a benevolent dictatorship is possible. I really had to think about it. (Not only can I not defend my beliefs but nobody could attack me. As far as a discussion is concerned, everything I say would sound like a hocus-pocus cop-out.) My gut instinct is that a natural benevolent dictatorship is not possible, but then again, anything is possible if you believe in the super-natural! However, if it was physically possible, I think I would like it. I think I would submit myself to it. Nevertheless, I also question whether it would be strategically stable. I doubt that any dictatorship would be stable in the long run. Luckily, my original statement included "more fair" so I can side-step a lot of my true (unfortunately, indefensible through logic) beliefs. I can answer the original question: No. The reason is simple: a benevolent dictatorship can not be fair at all. I must reject it automatically even if I would like it personally. I have a better cop-out (and I am expecting people to hate me for it).

Benevolant dictatorship ?Hmmm.... I am tempted...... I am not too sure how to answer this appropriately without getting myself tangled into an argument I can not defend.

You could not possibly have forgotten this thread, now, could have you? The confusion is my fault. To me, there is no reason to have different rules for either. They are both democracy. It makes no sense to me to separate the counting rules. That is why I boldly carry on this thread! Stop. I only said that if we had to be ruled by democracy I would rather have a 50%+1 count. I never said that I would be willing to make such a system work. I think there is something even more fair than democracy.

I do not accept that premise. I think that accepting concessions is the same as nullifying democracy. It is like being sort of pregnant. Again, there's no basis for that allegation in my arguments.Yes, there is a basis. You constructed a rule (66%) but did not justify it except for practicality. That is the same as gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is designing the rules (albeit, the geographic layout of constituencies) to produce the "democratic" results that you want for the winner -- not to represent the electorate. It does not sound like your method is majority rule. What you describe has already been summarized:

You do not justify 66% as opposed to 65% or 67% other than practicality. Practical for creating a rotation. I could say that it is more practical for everybody to stay home on election day and that we let the raging socialists take turns at bat with the evil capitalists on a rotating 10 year cycle. All of the money that was spent on the election would be translated into tax cuts or hand outs to every potential voter every 4 years. If my proposal was put to a vote, it would have the biggest turn out and it will be the last election we ever see. If we must be ruled by a democracy, yes. That is correct. I prefer that because it is the only counting method that removes subjectivity in determining the winner. Perhaps. My personal views of democracy can be more closely represented by somebody before me. However, my views of democracy are even more extreme....

I understood that perfectly. I was pointing out that 16 out of 30 is a 50%+1 result. I should have said: "If you accept democracy involves any sense of "majority rule" than you must accept that if there are 30,000,000 people in Canada, 15,000,001 makes a majority." A 50%+1 count is the first count that qualifies as a majority. That is clear. Anything above that threshold is not "majority rule" it is convenience rule. I read that and I think: what could be more clear than 30% of the population getting 30% of the power in a democratic election? what could be more fair? I understand that democracy may be impractical and expensive or inefficient. Forgive me, but all that I see in your posts is that your justifications use democracy as a method with which to acquire power over other people. You construct the rules (in effect, a different kind of gerrymandering) to get the results to suit your preferred result.

There are more than 3 people in Canada. I know, I know, it sounds like a snarky smart-aleck come back but I am being serious. How do you define democracy? I want to hear it from your mouth. If you accept democracy involve any senses of "majority rule" than you must accept that if there are 30 people in Canada, 16 makes a majority.

You have not explained why 60% is valid as a threshold. why not 59% ? why not 61% ? What if 58% was only necessary to give the "disadvantaged conservative voters" a win? would you still ask for 60% ?

Good. We can work with that. CAVEAT: The trouble is that some people believe it is ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Some people even steal from the poor to give to the rich! They get around the immorality of theft by denying people's rights to their own property or by imposing a sense of charity that we must all have. Of course, they determine who is on the receiving end! Other people think that any instance of genetically modified agriculture is immoral. I will say that "forcing something upon a person against their will and stealing their property" are objectively immoral. Not every country has the same resources and some countries have amicable relationships with neighboring countries who can provide you food for cheaper. Think of what you are foregoing. The local citizens can look at it this way: A subsidy forces local citizens to pay extra (through taxes) to give money to local producers so that they may continue to produce locally -- without the ability to opt out. A quota reduces supply to local citizens -- without the ability to opt out. A tariff forces local citizens to pay more directly through a markup -- without the ability to opt out. What is moral about forcing a local citizen to buy local? If a "local" farmer figured out how to produce coffee beans or bananas and his uncle was Prime Minister of Canada, would it be moral to subsidize his "local" greenhouse? would it be moral to raise tariffs and set quotas on imported coffee and bananas? so that our "local" farmer can make us self-sufficient in our coffee consumption? to encourage more people to get into the expensive business of producing "local" greenhouses? to pass on higher prices to local citizens?

We still do commerce with them. We could make them re-write their history books overnight with financial sanctions if we wanted --- I mean, if we could afford it. Rule #1 in life: Follow the money.

In general, I am suggesting that we should make a concerted effort to think about different points of view with respect to the nature of life. That is fair.First, it was in response to an initial statement "I don't think any pro-choice advocates claim abortion is a "guilt-free shedding of lifeless tissue"; it is recognized by the majority as a regrettable but necessary reality. That degree of subtlety is certainly not found in the more vocal members on other side of the issue," yadda yadda yadda -- go read the entire post for the rest it. I gave an example of subtlety among members of "the other side" that refutes this statement. It may be a different metaphysical explanation. It may not even be convincing. Nevertheless, it subtly recognizes that NOT having an abortion can be conceived as "a regrettable but necessary reality" too. It is disengenous to treat "the other side" as cold-hearted baby-savers. They actually do care about babies and mothers, alike, and they do so by appealling to the grace of God. Second, it is not a rebuttal. It was an example to illustrate that without proof of anything, we can look at the same events and provide our own metaphysical explanation to reconcile it. In the case of life, we can explain its nature through the theory of evolution. We can also explain it with an omnipotent deity. We can also look at how our coffee swirls in our mug for an explanation. Without proof, we will likely come up with our own explanations of things that are difficult to understand. Third, I would like to address the vehemence in some posts within this thread. My comment was focussed to address those who feel under attack. The theory of evolution is no longer a theory: species change over time. What is still a theory is how much they have evolved: i.e. from where did the original single cells / proteins / sludge originate and did we come from them? That is still a leap of faith, yet it is valid. I recognize that religious people do impose their views (as do those the irreligious) upon others when it comes to public policy and law enforcement. However, one person's metaphysical EXPLANATION of an event does not threaten a different person's explanation of the same event. In other words, somebody's belief in evolution to explain the nature of life does not directly impose all aspects of the theory of evolution upon non-believers (except for when everybody votes). Likewise, atheists are already spared of God's intervention if they want it that way -- all they have to do is disbelieve. It is highly irrational for an atheist to feel threatened by the intervention of God. However, it is rational to feel threatened by the intervention of people who believe in God. Thus, we would be wise to understand different views. Correct but it does not exclude you from voting. Thus, if all of the religious people out-numbered the irreligious people at the poll booths (or had all of the guns), there is no point debating, is there? What is rational or irrational is irrelevent. We have to understand different views.

Correct. It is quite elementary and when you try to defy it either you (or your government) eventually goes bankrupt. Sounds like a fiscally responsible standard, does it not? Forgive me but in the long run, we are not all dead; Keynes is dead. Unfortunately, the spiral of debt financing seems to have lived forever. His statement was an asinine rebuttal to people who suggested that excessive government spending may have ill effects in the long run. Sorry, the children of the baby-boomers are now paying for the experiments of Keynesians in the long run. Actually, it is precisely the inelasticity that that makes the depletion of physical reserves the problem. Prices will rise dramatically beyond affordability. We can not continuously expect consumers to be able to afford higher and higher prices. Where are they going to get the extra money??? Thus, we have to start research now. .....all of the consumers who could previously afford oil at $12 will magically have an extra $58 dollars to spare? to continue consuming at the same level???? Profit depends on the number of sales you make. Zero multiplied by $70 is........CAVEAT: In all fairness, "we" do not have to start any research at all. The oil "capitalists" are already on it. I am sure they have already figured it out. They are just waiting for us to get there. Do you think they would leave the fate of their profits in anybody else's hands?? In the long run, it is highly irrational to think that the oil industry is planning to be dead with the rest of us. However, they can be beaten at their own game. Developing alternate sources of energy will make the demand for oil less elastic.

Uh...what part of Price Increases => Quantity Decreases did you not understand?????????????????????

Immoral? Let us be careful: the words immoral or moral have never been mentioned in this thread nor does this thread in the Moral & Religious Issues category. Is that a mistake or is it bait? The words "taking away the consumer's choice" and "supporting our local economy" and "geneticly modified" and "dumped and subsidized" have been mentioned, to name a few. Identify exactly what you mean by immoral.