Michael Hardner

Don't say that it's clear - prove it. What do we do about it ? What we already do: engage in law enforcement and intelligence projects to root it out. What else do you propose ?

Charles, You say, roughly, that believing the current system works is hopelessly naive and foolish yet you submit a 'zero tax' plan that you think would solve our problems. That is much more naive and foolish. The system you propose has already been tried. Power (money) accumulates and the 'choices' of those who don't have it becomes very limited. You're apparently unhappy with the tax system so you would throw us back to the 1600s, and wreck many lives, to save yourself some money. People complain about decreasing services. Are services decreasing ? If so, what are the reasons ? What can be done ? There are working poor in Canada. Do they not benefit from government services such as EI and nationalized healthcare ? If I haven't given the entire picture, it's because we live in this picture and we're aware of its shortcomings and benefits. Your picture is drastically different than anything we've seen in centuries. I doubt you could anticipate the full effects of your proposal so I won't ask you to paint it for us.

Charles, jdobbin makes some good points. Being part of a country means that one is 'forced' - for the most part - to obey the rules set by the majority. If you're going to use the term 'force' to describe the state of citizenship, then go ahead but it's seems like philosophical grandstanding to me - the system works, it's proven, and if you have something better, then put it forward.

Your post sidesteps the point I made. How exactly can he keep Quebec and Alberta happy ? Do you think he's planning to ditch the program, and push power (including taxation power) to the provinces ?

It's imagine to see what Mr. Harper has in the bag for this issue. All the solutions that I can conjure up are zero-sum: one province gains, another loses. If he thinks that he's got enough credibility with westerners to buy votes in Quebec, he's probably wrong.

I don't see it. The conservatives that post here do often express concern about the state of the nation, or the community so to give a blanket statement that they are equating self-interest with moral good needs more evidence. On the social side, conservatives are associated with traditional values, with opposing abortion and gay marriage. How is that a self-interest for them ? On the fiscal side, I have known a few conservatives that were under the poverty line. There are some people who vote in their self-interest, but I haven't known any of these people. Most vote as an exercise in identity, and to promote their world view through the ballot box.

So Falwell doesn't figure into it then ?

And how does Falwell figure into it ?

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. It seems that this was a hate crime, an onerous thing. If one personally feels outrage at these kind of crimes, then one can post a lament, an emotional outcry - but beyond that what can one say ?

We're talking about the benefits of bureaucracy, for what there are of them, and that's an organizational issue that applies across the board. Canada still provides individual aid to nations as well, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The UN provides coordination for areas that need coordination.

We're discussing the things that a UN could possibly bring to the table, not what they're good at now. If they're an inefficient bureaucracy, it doesn't necessarily follow that NO bureaucracy is better.

If they ask you to do it, then what's wrong with it ? United Way, for example, is an umbrella organization for a host of charities that don't want to expend the effort to raise funds.

Instead of having parallel services doing the same thing, overlapping, you can create an organization above them to organize it all.

You have some good points, which is why I would say reform, not abolition, is needed. Bureaucracy has a bad reputation, but it is required sometimes. It eliminates redundancy, it allows for central planning, for coordination, and for prioritization.

Charles, Peacekeeping, conflict mediation, assistance for the poorest of the world, and a medium for global cooperation to start. It seems like you just want all of this to disappear. Are you unaware of the work that they have done, or do you find it unimportant ?

That's not what you said above. You set some criteria for relevance, which you're now dropping. Why is the UN not relevant, then ? I agree with you. Effectively disbanding the UN then... What would you suggest to replace it ? It does do a lot of good, though.

As an aside, this is a peculiar argument I hear from right-of-centre posters. My response is that anger is an emotion too. So there's plenty of emotion to go around on both sides. Just a sidebar...

How so ? You're saying if 49 % of the resolutions passed are adhered to, then the UN is irrelevant ? The bar is too high there. If the number were that high ( I have no idea what it is ) then that would at least suggest something is working. Too often I hear rash calls to 'abolish' the UN, but what this is based on, I'm not sure.

Infidelity is ILLEGAL ? Really ?

As superstitions and aversions towards homosexuality abate, homosexuals will be marketed to as an identifiable group, much as men, women, or new Canadians are. Your question is a little silly, though. I don't see there much chance of any country being gay, as in 50%+ gay.

You've posted this before. I responded with a discussion, yet here you are again implying that they've done nothing. If the UN needs to be reformed, then let's discuss that. From the UN site, a list of accomplishments: UN Accomplishments

I suspected that this might happen. Israel has killed UN peacekeepers in the war zone, and the anti-UN people now hate the UN even more than they did before. There's no reason here.

You can't put anything past MapleLeafWeb !

'We', meaning whom ? The average Canadian ? The typical Canadian ? Your implication seems to lead you into NDP territory. How does that matter ? If you work for less, business can pay for your training out of their savings. I would say because the economics are tilted towards those who are closest to power. What would you say ?

- Canada naturally has negative population growth. More people demand more goods, which spurs production. - Lower labour costs improve productivity. - Immigrants bring technical skills, contacts with global businesses, and innovation. These are some of the arguments I've heard, from conservatives as well as liberals. The US has been adopting these policies, too, so it's not just a Canadian phenomenon.