Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    44,581
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. Clear: The idea of property is easy to grasp when you're talking about individuals with tangible goods. It becomes a lot less murky when you start talking about multinational corporations, intellectual property, speculation and so forth. If you do me some harm, I can bring a lawsuit and try to get reparations. But if you're a corporation, I won't have the resources to fight you and even if I win, you have limited liability so I might not get what is justly mine.
  2. No one should be paid for their discoveries, but business needs to contribute to the general welfare. Nobody should be taxed because they are wealthy. They should be taxed based on the money they earn. If somebody has 1B in assets and made no income on that, they should only pay consumption taxes on what they spent. That's ridiculous. You can't tax a discovery, or an idea. You can only tax money flow.
  3. 1) Wasn't the official theory on the collapse of that building supposed to be less than definitive ? Hasn't it already been said that there's a lot of uncertainty around that ? 2) Why would the entire investigation need to be restarted based on an error ? Considering the effort (physical, economic, spiritual) it required to investigate it, I think that would be a bad decision. There isn't much more to be learned about the incident by investigating the collapse of that building.
  4. The French have an entreched belief that the common person's standard of living should always improve. It's not practical, but you can see a sort of logic in it. At a certain point, the price of labour in such a country becomes too expensive.
  5. Right. I'll give them a chance, though. There's little to dislike in the five priorities (This is by design, of course. Last year, Harper discovered that he was a politician.) and I like the fact that had made a clear and focussed platform that everyone could understand. Then again, I liked the Red Book too and that ended up being a prop. It's up to Harper to do better.
  6. I understand why you feel that way. When I was younger I had no time for anyone with right-wing views. I truly believed them to be bigotted and self-centred individuals. By the time the web arrived, I had softened a bit and believed them to be merely misinformed. After many hundreds of discussions on boards like MapleLeafWeb, I determined that there seemed to be the same number of smart right-wingers as left-wingers. They had different priorities and principles, but the best of both sides had good ideas and truly believed their ideas were good for society. People from both sides had elemental beliefs that touched on truisms about people. (Not a good example, but truisms such as people are inherently mostly good or people are inherently mostly bad.) These truisms came from experience, or maybe they were born with these ideas, but like the wave theory and particle theory of light, they complemented each other. I came to believe that great ideas can come out of the type of create dissonance that left vs right politics engenders. Later, I remembered a description of the early days of American democracy in Neil Postman's book 'Amusing Ourselves To Death'. In the post-colonial period, town hall meetings were used to hash out ideas for local government. Intelligent writings and debates were the basis for the democracy and it worked well. It seemed to me that our current (dying) age of television was poorly suited to democracy, but thankfully the intenet is well suited to it. I invite you to open your mind and find some good in those who you oppose on these boards. It restored my optimism for democracy, and could do the same for you. By the way: Personally, I don't think I could live in a country that was run by evil people. I would have left Nazi Germany. I hope you stayed in Canada for all these years out of some sense of hope and positive thinking. Cheers.
  7. Auguste1991 - Some differences: The grocery store already has a lot of the worst options eliminated for you. You can't buy uninspected items, for example. You can't buy alcohol. I believe as well that certain types of food are not allowed to be sold because they're unhealthy. Also, items have to be labelled so you know what is in them (fat, sugar content etc.). I don't know if I could say what would happen if everyone voted for 0% social programs. And all of this operates on a legislative foundation that makes sure that everything runs well: food inspection, truth in advertising laws, and anti-monopoly laws. That being said, people still make bad choices. There's too much sugar and fat in the Canadian diet and too much processed food. Too many french fries. So the choices available at the grocery store represent a narrower range of options than you would have if you allowed people to allocated budget dollars on their ballot. And as I said people still make bad choices. ... As Riverwind has pointed out, these regulations recognize the symbiosis between producers and consumers. Global economics also require controls and regulation. If you've worked for a large American company recently, you probably have heard of Sarbanes-Oxley, which was developed in the wake of the Enron scandal. This was developed under a strong Republican administration because they recognized that the public will not stand to see common people trounced by a system of unregulated capitalism. So you can't use the same paradigms for a small business person as a global corporation anymore. It's true that the creation of the notion of private property was instrumental in making Europe an economic force that lasts until today. But there have also been controls on private wealth and behavior, institutionalized and cultural. There used to be a notion of 'noblesse oblige', which evaporated when governments started taxing wealthy individuals in order to create systems for the public welfare. Over the past thirty years, the wealthy have come to see access to billions of consumers as a natural right and though they have greatly profitted from the new order. We create a system whereby Bill Gates can profit, and so do the rest of us. If we taxed Bill Gates at 90% (As would have happened under Eisenhower) then maybe he wouldn't take the risks required to create innovation. If we taxed him at 0%, then the government wouldn't get the revenues required to maintain the public infrastructure.
  8. Iraqi: We come here to discuss and debate. It's not considered appropriate to post items from the press only.
  9. Sorry, Rene... it wasn't meant for you but for others in this thread who commented.
  10. I agree that it's a positive statement. Unfortunately, it can't be proven as no device has yet been invented that will look into men's hearts. If you don't think that the Liberals of the 1970s were trying to build a better country, then you must believe them to be evil. I don't agree with the CPC, with Harper on most things, nor did I agree with Mulroney but I believe that all of these people fulfill their promises to act in the best interests of the country. Is the fact that the French in Quebec speak English so well something that Quebeckers should be faulted for or not ? Pick a side. I'll take that as 'yes'. The way that the government has dealth with the cultural divide hasn't exactly ingratiated Qubeckers to Canada either. If the solution that was provided was such a fantastic advantage to that country, they sure don't think so. The current status quo should end soon, then we'll see what happens.
  11. Yes - Burger Flippers, Government Employees, and Bankers all vote but they don't decide directly on priorities. Given the complaints I've seen on this board about the poor choices voters make, I'm surprised that we would trust voters to prioritize our tax dollars this way. And the idea that we should decide how much tax we pay directly is ridiculous. Revenues would dry up. Remember that we've had voluntarily (ie. charity) welfare in the past and it created a sick and dying underclass that was the shame of society. Society is necessarily made up of winners and losers. We can, as a group, decide how low we want our losers to be. Low status, or just scraping for their very lives ? Geoffrey said: I'm glad you say implicitly that the State has an obligation to keep you from starving. The State also intervenes in economic matters in various ways. I would say that these kinds of interventions should be done for the benefit of all.
  12. NBC From the story: It seems that the schools have become lightning rods for the simmering tensions between immigrants and Americans. The Americans have chosen which way they want to go with immigration. Likewise with multiculturalism. I suspect that identity is only part of the reason some Americans are upset. It would also be upsetting to a family that had two work two or three jobs only to get to the point where a single wage earner was fifty years ago. The American administration has done a good job of increasing productivity, creating a better business environment, and cheaper goods for consumers. When will they start to worry about the lack of real wage growth ? Maybe once foreign labour has eaten away at scientific, and information technology jobs, or the medical profession the middle class will show some concern.
  13. I re-read this part of your post. I suppose Quebec asked for American TV channels to be beamed into their province. It's not that hard for Quebeckers to learn English. Yes, some of them learn it to be more marketable but is this so bad ? Many firms that operate out of Quebec also deal with the ROC and the US. Do you think other groups should stick to their own language in the ROC ? Immigrants for example ?
  14. A hefty sentence, Leafless. No I can't disprove a far-reaching conspiracy of any sort, nor can you. I can say that people aren't that evil, and that I knew many people in the 1970s who believed that this policy would unify Canada. And, of course, many of them have changed their position. If you really mistrust people that much, I would say that discussing issues with them on a web board isn't a productive use of your time. How do you know I'm not an agent dispatched here to spread the lie that government officials try to do the best thing for Canada ? That's a double negative. It they're not encouraged to not participate, then they're encouraged to participate. I'll put this down as a typo. Historically, the idea came as a 1970s response to separatism, and the situation then of a cultural minority (Anglos) dominating the Quebec culture. Of course, a lot has changed since then. It's a different time. There are two sides to every coin, though. The fact that Quebeckers are highly bilingual is taken by them as proof of cultural dominance from Anglos on every side. And because English media dominates their culture unlike any North American official language. This might fall under your definition of 'forced to learn another language'. As with any cultural clash, there are two sides to it and reason and empathy is required on both sides to find common ground. I can accept the idea that English Canada isn't happy with bilingualism, or with Quebec's continued calls for more rights and so forth. I'm not sure if you're the best person to be involved in such a dialogue, though, as you seem to believe: "can you supply proof that bilingualism was implemented not to obliterate the English language" If you think you're being taken advantage of, then I suppose furthermore that you want Quebec out of confederation.
  15. Yes, we force them to do that in high school just as we force them to take Canadian history, Algebra, gym and other subjects they might not want to take. Official Bilingualism - or Dual Unilingualism - may have failed but if we're going to agree to abandon it, let's understand that it was attempted with the best of intentions.
  16. I have very limited knowledge, but even I know that it's the hardware that makes Israel's armed forces the best in the region. Just thought I'd add that....
  17. Ok. Pardon my ignorance. What is the difference between two official languages and officially bilingual. Yes. Because that's what I thought you meant when you said: "I doubt very much if Spanish is taught in any Canadian primary or public school at tax payers expense." Again, your point is taken. I don't think we're disagreeing on much here. Just a few points that I'm not understanding for whatever reason.
  18. I read that the credits program was based on a similar program used to reduce coal (?) emissions in Pennsylvania. They effectively created a market for trading emissions, with the overall emissions being slowly reduced. It sounds like an innovative approach to me. Governments aren't going to shut down factories, so this seems like a good way to nudge them in the right direction.
  19. Reuters Article Urban renewal by remote control ? While this story seems to highlight a success story, it seems obvious that the crime has simply moved somewhere else. The success may yet happen in this neighbourhood, but there's still a social problem that needs to be looked at. Or not.
  20. I'm taking your points, and learning that there's something to what you post even when I have to step through factual mistakes. Please take that in good faith, and understand that I'm trying to work with you on these discussions. Some examples: Canada is officially bilingual. Spanish has been taught at taxpayer expense, as has been esperanto, yoga, and women's studies.
  21. Ok. I was addressing your point about foreign languages, but your point is taken. Again, point taken. But there has also been the general idea of promoting national unity through bilingualism. Whether it has been successful or not is debatable. You're plowing though a bunch of false assumptions, again, but I see what you're getting at. Official bilingualism hasn't worked in satisfying Quebec, so maybe removing it would be the best for all involved. If people want to learn French, Spanish, or Urdu in high school or university, though, let them do it.
  22. Used by whom ? Who says it requires praise of these beliefs ? Who is excluding Christians. You've posted a phantom. If somebody did/said this, then we can criticize that person. If there's some organization, governmental or otherwise, then we examine what they said. What we have is somebody saying "this is what people say", then criticizing that. That's nothing to go on.
  23. My father taught a unit of Spanish in a small town high school because there were enough students that wanted to take it. It was done as part of the public school system. I'm trying (again) to figure out what you're getting at. There's nothing wrong with learning for its own sake. The very act of learning another language gives students perspective and skills they wouldn't have otherwise. Many high school students take art, drama, music, ancient history, algebra and other courses that they will never need in adult life. Should we be teaching them how to use a photocopier instead ?
  24. I don't think either of this things had an effect. I think it's this: The defeat of the Martin Liberals meant that the radio jamming of 'scary conservatives' ended. The natural 'bump' a new leader gets after an election. The fact that Harper's qualities are actually very Canadian. He's reserved, soft-spoken and practical. Without the aforementioned radio jamming, he comes across quite well.
×
×
  • Create New...