Michael Hardner

Agreed. There is a constitution that partially addresses that. However, there's only so much that institutions can do to mitigate horrors like Nazism. Maybe we should ask what parts of administration are not emotionally charged and look to move our governments to adapt similar practices. It's hard to bridge the idealogical gap between us to discuss how that would be done. However, my pet peeves about how government work involve the poor job they do in communicating with their stakeholders, the electorate. There is likely some common ground there. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- My idea for a revolution in government would be for cross-political citizen interest groups to study some area of government activity, and to agree on communicating objective measures of how the government is doing at that activity. In the area of health care, that would mean the group would agree upon some objective measures of how healthcare is being administered, and then collect and regularly publish statistics on how those measures are doing. There are groups that do this now, however they are all set up with money from either private, government, union, or some other professional group. They are all political in nature, and don't represent the general interest. I have been posting on this topic on my blog for years now. Even though your ultimate interest is in removing government from such areas, I'm sure you can agree that an interim goal in your interest would be to show how government is doing (in your view, failing) at delivery of services. I do think that something like this will arrive at some point in the future. There are some examples of groups that have tried to do this, and have taken initial steps. I have joined several of these and most recently have engaged with a TTC interest group in Toronto where I live.

But... you have invested it right ? Doesn't the precept that your labour is yours end after you SPEND your money on something ?

Right, but even the US has basic social programs. I'm not saying that their system produces less billionaires, less disparity but I'm saying that if you take a wider view of it, countries with some social structure do well. Welcome to the world. Emotional response continues to drive politics in every issue that we care about. Worse, though, is that boredom drives our lack-of-response to many other things like eHealth in Ontario.

Co-determination is, I believe, a trend that will continue independent of the minimum wage question.

I'm not as careful when I post as I used to be, owing to my relative lack of time on here of late. Yes, you assume correctly with regards to integration. The default position, I believe, is that humans are generally alike. If I were to present you with a situation where a group acts differently than other groups then it would be on me to explain why I believe that to be the case, and to back it up if asked. We could look at other examples where there have been conflicts within groups but it seems pointless to look at other examples when you seem to be talking about our example, our countries, and our own time. So I ask you to make your point. So, it's numbers then, that make Muslims different ? If Jews had had bigger numbers we would have had the same problems ? I have business in little Pakistan, in the east end, from time to time. You can see the gamut there - young religious Pakistani Canadians, as well as more westernized youths on dates. Families where the grandfather is in traditional garb, and the grandson is wearing a hip-hop t-shirt. That's the way of it. This is what the forefathers guaranteed when they set up western society to have freedom of religion. After the Muslims are integrated, then separation of church and state will have effectively won. You should be happy about this.

To distract us, and for purposes of higher political strategy, obviously. Of course, it could be that Harper has been concerned about the non-gender-neutral lyrics of the national anthem since he attended Richview Collegiate high school.

Gambling isn't taxed in Canada because it IS a tax. Shouldn't there be a philosophical difference between money you earn yourself, and money you try to invest with ?

My general comment about the libertarian point of view is that it is logically consistent. I also think that it makes more sense with richer economies, although we're not rich enough to make it work. I was hanging around my libertarian friends a few months ago, and a friend-of-a-friend was there - who told me he spends a lot of time on political forums and that he was (surprisingly) right-wing. Since the group is basically downtown left-of-centre and quite gay, I expressed surprise at his politics. He looked as though he was in pain, thinking to himself I'm sure: "oh no, now I'm going to have to defend my point of view to this idiot." But when I asked him what kind of right-wing he was, I added "Are you a fan of the Austrian economists, Von Mises, Hayek ?" he perked up. As a result to the conversations I've had on these boards, we were able to have quite an edifying conversation. Basically, I read an article (I no longer have the link) indicating that a disproportionate amount of billionaires come from the US. Ah... here is a link: Billionaire list. What happens ? Then the rich, they are stolen from eh ? This is why Robin Hood is a hero of folklore and not a villain.

But isn't that just money spent on the fruit of your labour ? Why shouldn't investments be taxed then ? Should they ?

Trolls are a culture ?

How about by investing in China ? There's a bit of a shell game going on here where people are talking about "China" being a country with citizens that own factories that produce goods to export to the US. In fact, countries are not what they used to be. Foreign international investment in China accounts for about 60% of imports and exports. Which means, in terms of exports, "China" could really mean "Sweden" "Hong Kong" or "America". Good to know.

Even at that rate, the numbers are different when you take into account that not 100% of immigrants are from any one group. Furthermore, the historical setting for immigration is 200-300 years' difference, right ?

That seems good. The numbers still aren't comparable, though.

The discussions with Renegade, and with Pliny elsewhere are worth looking at, but indeed we do go in circles. I concede that taxation is "theft" by definition, as it is a forcible seizure of cash. I prefer, though, to think of it as a mandatory "tithe" which the nobility of previous years would feel obliged to pay in order to take care of their vassals. To me, the best argument for our system is that it works, it gives great wealth to the richest members of our countries - even more than in countries where there is greater disparity between rich in poor, or anarchy. But it's good to keep in mind that all of these systems, including simple prescriptions against theft and even murder are social constructs and not natural to humans. In fact, we have to use our base urges (such as social shame from the group) in order to defeat OTHER base urges to steal, kill and so forth.

But it is a career for too many people. This is what happens when the system drives down costs successfully.

I agree. And do the "fruits of one's labour" include investments ? Is investing a labour or is it gambling ?

Jews were certainly foreign religious types. They lived among Christians, yes, however in very difference circumstances. Jewish immigrants to America, even in the 19th century, had far more rights and fraternized with Christians much more than in their native Germany, or in Russia where they were persecuted. Keep in mind, too, that Christianity is not a monolithic religion. There has been violence between Christian sects for a long time too. For what reason, do you think, are Muslims different from every other religion on earth ? Is it genetic ? I'm interested in your theory.

My Google search says more like 5 million over the whole continent, which means they were outnumbered in the east by the time of the first US Census, which tallied about 4 million citizens. There was a lot of resulting violence in the 18th century.

As others have posted, though, the UN's carbon market has huge exposures to corruption. Companies are given credits for future development, if they change plans to a more carbon-neutral proposal. This leads to people saying "initially this project was to be fueled by coal, but since I'm now using hydroelectric (wink, wink) I should be receiving X million credits".

Me too. I'll even tip the hat to my Conservative mates in that they get upset when government doesn't work. More left-of-centres should do that, rather than shrugging as they do.

That's absolutely incorrect. The quote is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" This is sometimes true, historically. At other times, they purchased a slave to do that work. Still other times they would do things like kill strikers to make unions seem attractive. So when Socialism arrives, all human nature changes ? People just lose pride in their work and don't care about anything ? All the same goods and services are available to everyone here too, aren't they ? Things are sold to people who have the money to buy them, in both systems. Socialist societies aren't set up so you get nothing by working, whether we're talking about pure Marxism or Scandanavian-type socialism.

There was intermarriage and trade early on, but an immigration rate much higher than the 1% you quoted for Canada. And the dynamic is totally different. Nobody is coming here thinking that this will be a Muslim nation anytime soon, or trying to buy land to make their own country. Muslims will integrate as all other religions have - why would it be different ?

Is that how you're put together ?

I mean there's nothing that says people can't be fired for poor performance, or rewarded for good performance...

There's nothing in socialism that says that that has to happen.