Jerry J. Fortin

This nation has underused industrial capacity, and it has abundant resources. We have what we need to succeed.

There is a step in the right direct Oleg. Changing the way we think of ourselves. We literally can be all that we want to be.

Yet society has and will continue to evolve. We are in a post industrial revolution stage where the actual method of production has changed all that we knew. The next phase of development is already mapped out and that is automated production. We WILL morph into a resource based economy whether we want to or not. This nation is poised for huge potential, if we can only get our heads out of the sand and start thinking about how to go about this ourselves. We no longer need foreign investment to take a few steps forward. On the other hand because of our past we will need to start heading things off at the pass in short order.

I didn't say he was the top dog, I said people were starting to listen.

I didn't say he was the top dog, I said people were starting to listen.

Confusing yes, but vitally important don't you think? By this I mean that the public does not seem to understand the road ahead. Very few do, but those that can add two plus two and get four ten times out of ten ARE capable of understanding that there are logical consequences to be dealt with in all situations. Lately a new buzz word has been created, corporate governance. Unfortunately it has yet to gain traction. On the other hand the concepts so hard debated by C.H. Douglas are now becoming discussed in economic circles, folks like Ron Paul are being listened to more and more. These people have something of great value to teach the citizens of the world.

My vision is not subject to any vote, I am a private citizen. What we hold our noses and vote for seems to me to be less of what we desire and more of what is available. Speaking of which, available choices are far more important than imposed government dictates.

I am sorry. I meant to say that the existence of both natural and legal citizens is nearly the root of the problem. The legal citizen, that of limited liability and limited responsibility, is a man made creation that is tragically flawed. That is not to say that man is not flawed, but just that we made things worse rather than better with the creation of legal citizens.

I do not agree with your views on the current state of affairs either. I see the government as a corrupt ineffective bureaucracy that costs the tax paying citizens far more than it returns in value. I seek accountability of public servants, the obedience of those servants, and value for the expense of those servants. I see that as a positive vision for the nation. I think we need to embark on a quest of nation building that is far more than the mere industrial development and environmental rape that passed for our last attempt. I seek the means to help this nation evolve beyond its current state into the enlightened society I know it could be. Both the left and right wingnuts of partisan ilk fail to understand that the population is desirous of less taxation, less government, more democracy, more freedom, and most of all less debt.

Legal and natural citizens are nearly the root of our current problems. As it stands, legal citizens have more legal protection and enjoy greater freedom than natural citizens. Legal citizens cannot be put into jail, even when convicted of felony charges. In some instances the directors of companies have been made accountable but those occurances are few and far between. Their treatment under taxation law is another story, they suffer not with holding taxes as citizens do. Their treatment under international law is another thing as well. Free trade provided more rights to legal citizens than to natural citizens. Yes but that page is from a book nobody wants to read because they are afraid of the truth.

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? What part about "between elections" did you not understand? An election called when the government thinks it can win, and not called if it thinks it could lose puts the concept of democracy in question off the line, your little play with words may work for some but not for me. Again more with the word play. Judges are creatures of the system, as are politicians. Different systems, same problems. Our form of government is hundreds of years old and is in need of immense democratic reforms. Judges are indeed citizens, otherwise they would be ineligible for their positions. As to qualified, well that deserves some explanation I guess. In this nation, you have many methods of trial. Not all involve juries, so being judged by your peers doesn't always play into the game at all. In addition judges are appointments for life, subject to the requirements of judicial review. Which in any case only renders decisions based on the application of existing law. That same panel could be convened to question the ruling made by an independent citizen. Whats good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, so why not just have one election and choose all of your public servants and be done with it? The next election should be held when somebody dies. Or is the horse a different color?

In a democracy we can do anything we like as long as what we want is supported by a majority of citizens. That is the damned definition of democracy. The notion of a King having the final say was ended by Cromwell a long time ago. Well what we have now is only different in name. The government does what it wants, the people have no say or recourse between elections, none at all. The government controls election timing to a large degree when in a dominant position, yet another advantage. The popularity contest you are talking about exists only in your own mind. Nobody is advocating tossing the laws out and having "Fred" render a judgement based on what "Barney" wants. What has been suggested is that the citizen have some input into the operations of government. Citizens being allowed to sit in judgment of another citizen. You have a problem with that?

First of all you can reduce your source deductions on request from your employer. Secondly you can contest your tax load with the CRA by with holding any taxes in dispute pending resolution. Every citizen is allowed to arrange their financial affairs in a manner that would result in the least amount of tax being paid.

Don't hold your breath waiting for it. These guys can simply write new legislation to cover their every move. I would suggest that the best way to tackle these folks is to exercise a little self control and suffer through a little active planning to formulate a functional approach to resolving these ongoing issues. One way to deal with the problems is to claim ownership of a tax revolt. That little gem can be leveraged to the nines using existing legislation. Once the ball is rolling you can effectively wrestle control of the nations revenue streams from the government! You will get their attention that way .

They came to be as a way to avoid liability for risky adventures. It was a legislated means of providing monetary protection from failed ventures for directors and managers of business from their shareholders or investors. At one time when a business failed the shareholders got their money out first and the directors and managers were subject to prosecution, but times have changed. Now the bankers get first dibs, and the managers and directors get a get out of jail free card. This has not exactly done wonders for corporate responsibility and corporate corruption. Systems are designed by mankind to work for them, not the other way around. That is the blessing and the sorrow of democracy. Its all about leverage, and we have tons of it with lots to spare in absolute terms. Our problem is both of perception and finances. Those two sides of the political tripod are bothersome to say the least.

Valid point.....an existing system.

You know what? I really didn't like Preston, but I did like the party. Then again I was once a member of the Social Credit Party of Alberta. There are lots of things the Harper government has done that I do like and have and will benefit from. Yet the guy seems like a used car salesman to me, I don't like him either. There simply isn't a national leader that I do like like right now. I would like to see Brian Tobin come back to the political scene, and there are folks from both the NDP and the Conservatives that I would like to see return to federal politics.

Good point, but I still suggest that the part of the system I have problems with is in part a process. From the legal charges down to the penalties. These things have processes which are determined by governments and can in fact be changed. In fact I want them changed. I also want to see accountable public servants, and judges fall under that category.

I do not mean to say that mergers will be a good thing at all. I do mean to say that it seems to me that such things would make the way toward a majority government more likely.

Thats nice. Considering it comes from a right wing drug smuggling kingpin type of US puppet government.

Letting out violent offenders after a couple years in the big house makes sense? Letting murders and rapists and child molesters out on the streets to re-offend makes sense?

All true. Yet the reality of wealth and power need to be factored into any equation regarding national economies. Please remember why corporations were created in the first place, then look to what they have devolved into. Look at what governments once were, and look to what they have devolved to. Now look at what links the two together, its money. Look at monetary policies, central banks and the fractional reserve system. How did these things come to be? Perhaps of more relevance is the "why" these things came to be? Things can change for the better. Leverage brought us to this, and leverage can take us away from it. The tools are there for all to see.

Bingo!

Governments have the ability to act in the national interest that is a given. However at the moment there is no crisis and the very thought of nationalization is a show stopper. This nation needs to seek ways of increasing trade and production and even talking about nationalization scares off investors in droves. Risk of capital investment is a given, but some things are just a bit to risky to undertake.

Yet when the crunch came Reform failed to come through.