segnosaur

And if we cannot freely express our opinions (as we've seen happening with human rights commissions) we are not 'ourselves' either. And if we do not have the ability to spend my money as I see fit, then I am not myself either (and the hours and hours that I spend working Sorry, but your claims about how we don't "own" ourselves simply because we can't take drugs is nothing but empty rhetoric. The human condition does not simply involve the limits of our human body. If not, we'd be no better than the primates we evolved from. We are different because we we have a greater capacity to express ourselves, to recognize and interact with others, and to generate questions. Still waiting to hear how the NDPs policies that involve taking tax money from me and limiting what I can do economically are enhancing my 'freedoms'. Also, still waiting to see that properly conducted scientific study which shows that people can perform better when under the influence of marijuana. Also, waiting to see where exactly in C-51 you are prevented from consuming 'natural' medications. I see... so, are you interested in getting rid of any laws regarding food or drug safety? After all, if you are so convinced that we should have ultimate authority over food and medicines we use, then should I have the right to sell poison-laced milk, with the argument that 'people have the right to consume my product'? At no point in this thread have I suggested I agree with the current marijuana laws. In fact, I suggested it would probably be a good idea to modify them. The issue is one of freedom... and having one freedom becomes insignificant if we must give up several other significant freedoms in return.

Don't know why you'd think I'm defending either. I'm against both types of 'engineering'. I was simply challenging your statement that moral engineering is automatically worse than social engineering. Once again, how are they doing that? By trying to guarantee that your product actually works? Am I actually supposed to take this literally? Yes you should. Over and over again, I've seen the term 'nanny' used, suggesting that people were complaining that the government shouldn't get involved in business to consumer transactions. If you don't think the government should be involved at all, then (in theory) I could sell milk to children laced with rat poison, with the argument that people should be aware of the risks and make their own decisions about my product. If you think the government should get involved, then at what level? Testing for safety? What about proper labeling? False claims?

Ok, first of all, while it is true that the conservatives did propose 'revisiting' the issue, their suggestions were defeated in the house of commons, and it is no longer conservative policy to eliminate gay marriage. (Heck, even the Liberal party was, at one time, opposed to gay marriage.) Secondly, the conservative position is not so anti-gay as you might assume. While their policy at one time was against 'gay marriage', they supported the concept of 'civil unions', which would have granted homosexual couples full rights under the law. Thirdly, the issue of "rights" is not so black and white as you make it. Yes, gay people should have the right to get married. However, that does come into conflict with certain religious rights. What if, for example, a gay couple wishes to get married in a catholic church? Will the church have the right to say 'no', or will they be forced to allow the use of their facilities? In fact, at the time the Liberals were proposing gay marriage there was a large group of MPs who were planning on voting against the changes for that very reason. For better or worse, there haven't been any legal precadents to clearly define the issue. (There was one case where a catholic school was forced to allow a homosexual student to take his boyfriend to a dance, despite the catholic church's anti-gay stance. There was a second case where a lesbian couple sued a Knights of Columbus hall for canceling their reception there. In both these cases it was found that the religious organizations were in the wrong.. however, there were other legal issues which keep these cases from being good preciedents.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hall http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1129?hub=Canada Lastly, I never claimed that the conservatives were perfect. The issue is, are they any more or less 'pro-freedom' than the NDP. The conservatives may have been wrong (or anti-freedom) to complain against gay marriage, but the NDP are anti-freedom when they seek to limit my ability to spend my money as I see fit (due to high-taxes/social spending). Gay marriage affects the rights of 5% of the population. High taxes affect 100%.

The excise tax had been imposed to end the deficit. That was paid for 10 years ago. The money now collected has been used to pad the surplus. Note that in my previous post, I've already addressed that issue, when I pointed out that funding roads may not have been the stated purpose of the excise tax, but it was a side effect. There is only one set of taxpayers, and only one 'government' (ok, there are provincial and municipal governments, but we can view them as one big collective). Having money 'earmarked' for a particular purpose is irrelevant, because if a something was going to be funded anyways, it still would have come from the same spot (the taxpayer). Money is going to be spent on roads regardless. Because roads require special expenses, then perhaps drivers should be paying a bit more, over and above the 'carbon tax'. I know about load profile. What information do you on it in regards to geothermal heating and pumps? At this point geothermal heating/pumps are irrelevant. We are talking about electrical generation here. It was you that brought geothermal when we were talking about east-west transmission lines. Even if geothermal is the greatest technology in the world for heating/cooling, we're not dealing with it in that context. How so? What citation do you have for that? Ummm... why would I need a citation? Its just logic... I've explained it over and over again. Not sure why its not sinking in. - the U.S. needs electricity - Nuclear and geothermal can handle base loads, but that's only around 40% of the needed capacity - To handle peak capacity they need some other generating technology. That will be either A: gas, or B: hydro - The U.S. doesn't have enough of its own hydro to meet its needs. (I've provided calculations and references for this in the past). - If they don't have enough of its own hydro, they will either have to use fossil fuels, or import hydro from Canada - Even if we do more hydro development up here in Canada, as long as we can sell power to the U.S. to offset their fossil fuel usage we are reducing global carbon emissions. Really, what exactly are you having troubles understanding in that? Or start a massive conservation program. Ah yes, there's that wonderful "proof by handwaving" again. Maybe Marvel comics should contact you about creating a superhero based on that particular power. Earth about to be destroyed by a giant asteroid? Along comes handwaving man to make the problem disappear. Supervillians about to take over? Don't defeat them with strength, defeat them with Handwaving. Greater ability to transmit power between provinces does have advantages (improved reliability, perhaps lower costs). But greenhouse gas reductions are not among those advantages. If you use a car, use it for combined tasks, use public transit more, walk, ride a bike, some people partially close heat and cold vents in rooms that don't get as much use, wash dishes by hand, use fans or open windows rather than AC all the time, unplug appliances when not using for a length of time. I've already done all that, and more... including (as I mentioned before) timed thermostats, using fans in the upper floors to push warmer air downwards, ensuring the furnace is tuned, etc. Which is pretty much the point I've been making right from the start... people (like me) are already likely taking steps to reduce our energy usage without the carbon tax. Some people get angry for paying tax at all. I guess you have to determine what you are getting out of it. Still haven't seen you answer the question. In earlier posts you were suggesting my complaints were unfounded because I didn't have to pay that much extra. Still waiting to hear how much more I'd have to pay before you suggest I have a valid complaint. How much money are you thinking about? Well, my very rough calculations suggested that the Liberal plans would see approximately 2 billion dollars shifted from one group of people (single people in Ontario/Alberta for example) to people in Quebec/Montreal, or people with children. So, instead of shifting that $2 billion from one group of voters to another, apply it to research. Note that this is not a serious proposal... I know it would never actually be accepted, and it would be a nightmare to apply. But, at least it would have the potential to actually give real solutions. How about nuclear fusion? More energy than we could ever use, taken right from water. (Lots of technical difficulties with it though.) How about pilot projects to create ethanol from cellulose (e.g. switchgrass, which can be grown on land unsuitable for corn)? Lots of energy for driving our cars, while minimizing the problems of increased food prices. How about genetic engineering, to allow extraction of ethanol or oil from either algae or bacteria?

Except for many people (especially in Ontario and Alberta, who do not have access to large amounts of hydro electric power), the tax cuts will not offset the new carbon taxes. So, for those people, they will end up paying both more taxes, AND higher energy costs. Weeee... How exactly would that be helped by making your energy bills even higher through a carbon tax? The market demand is not going to be going away any time soon.

I do think its necessary to get a proper ruling on this case. But, I have to wonder, what exactly is the point of this this committee getting involved? Unlike (for example) the sponsorship scandal, the basic facts already seem to be known, and the issue is already being handled by other organizations. Is there more to this than just providing political fodder?

Just out of curiosity, just how long will gas have to stay above $100 (or $75, or some other marker) before you say that it really won't fall any more? The fact that part of the GST is 'earmarked' is irrelevant. For every Gas GST$ directed directly at municipalities directly, there is less need to get the money from elsewhere. There's only a limited pool of money. The fact that some is earmarked doesn't make it appear magically. I should also point out.... the municipal 'infrastructure' does not necessarily apply to roads... it can include parks, government buildings, public transportation, etc. Once again... - Prior to the money being 'earmarked' All products and services have the GST applied for government revenue.. gas, haircuts, and movie tickets. The money supports basic government operations, some involving transportation, most not - Because gas used in transportation requires special government expenses (i.e. roads) it should have extra taxes applied to it . Although this may not have been the stated purpose of the excise tax, but it had the same effect - If the excise tax becomes the 'carbon tax', then the government is no longer funding those 'extra expenses' from the people that are using it (i.e. drivers using gas) Just out of curiosity, do you even understand the difference between base and peak load? I know I've explained the difference before (and just why geothermal, while it may hold some promise, isn't useful for all situations.) If you don't understand the difference, let me know and I'll try to find some sites to help educate you. It would cut Canada's contribution to global carbon emissions. It seems the argument that you've been making is that we can't do such a project without causing the U.S. to have an uptick in their emissions. My argument all along is how can untapped hydro being used in Canada cause this? If coal plants and natural gas plants are replaced by hydro in Canada, it doesn't suddenly cause the U.S. to have an uptick in emissions. Ummm... I never claimed that developing untapped hydro in Canada would cause the U.S. to increase emissions. What I said was improved east-west transmission links, which would allow provinces like Manitoba and Quebec to sell their power to Ontario instead of the U.S. would increase their emissions. (Or, at least have their emissions higher than they could be.) Developing new interprovincial transmission lines is a completely different issue than developing new hydro plants. The only way that an east-west transmission line (by itself) would actually reduce total carbon emissions would be if the U.S. had managed to generate all its electricity from uranium, geothermal, wind, or hamsters on a wheel, and utilities in Ontario had a surplus of power they needed to find a market for. Not sure where exactly you're getting you're 90,000 mws (I don't even know what units you're referring to.) That is different than the 30million kw estimate I've seen (for example, here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hydroelectricity). But, lets assume you meant 90 million kw of untapped hydro (and I got the units right). Problem is, the U.S. will actually need over 250 million kw over the next 30 years, more than 3 times the amount available from hydro. Now, Nuclear power could supply some of that. So could geothermal. But both of those are best at handling base loads. A rule of thumb is that base loads account for less than 40% of your total load. That would mean they'd need 150 million KW in peak load. Even if they successfully developed every hydro resource, they'd still be short 60 million kw. That means either A: use fossil fuels, or B: import from Canada. You think? No statistics? No actual calculations? You know, I think it speaks volumes about the quality of your argument and your critical thinking skills when I present long, complex calculations using published statistics as a basis, and you dismiss everything with "I think...". Nice. There are plenty of alternatives first before people need to downsize. Well, where are those alternatives? You keep claiming they exist. Why haven't you presented any? I've already told you all the things I've done to reduce my costs. (And I believe you were the one that first brought up the issue of house size.) I still don't see this as being shafted or the equivalent of losing a body part. I never claimed that having to pay more in taxes was equivalent to loosing a body part. What I was complaining about was the attitude that you and many other Liberal supporters seem to have that I shouldn't complain about being hurt a little over the plan. I was drawing an analogy... criticizing me for complaining about a $200 tax increase (when things could be worse) is similar to criticizing someone when they complain about loosing a hand, when they could have been decapitated instead. So, tell me, how much should I have to pay before you think I have a real cause for complaint, if you think $200/year is nothing? $500/year? $1000? Should I be willing to pay all my income to the government just for the joy and privelege of living in Canada? Where do you draw the line between something I should be happy to pay, and something I should be unhappy? I never claimed that regressive consumption taxes did otherwise. What I've said all along is that those taxes become unnecessary if market forces are already affecting the use of products. I've seen no evidence that research suddenly stops on the private or public front with this Liberal program. I never claimed that research would stop with this Liberal program. (And I never even claimed that the conservatives would increase the research budget either.) But, research can be very expensive, and there is often more demand for research grants than there is money available. I was suggesting the tax money be applied to research over and above money that was already being spent for that purpose. What I was saying is that if I did have to pay more in taxes, I would rather those taxes go to finding an actual cure for or environmental problems, rather than going to fund a tax cut for Quebec or Manitoba residents who just happen to be lucky enough to live in a hydro-producing province. That's because those figures are based on calculations I made myself. (I even admitted that they were very rough calculations.) The details of those calculations were given... if you have any problems with the details, lets see them. Or is this going to be a case where you just hand-wave away any sort of problems?

Don't really understand what you're claiming here. When you say that you have to spend thousands of dollars to "justify why", are you complaining just about your inability to label something? Is there anything keeping you from simply selling your 'capsules' without claims about what exactly they're for? Who said I was a "Libertarian" (capital L). I have libertarian ideals... I believe we should reduce the size of government in people's lives. However, unlike many hardcore Libertarians, I believe that product safety and proper labeling is a function that governments should be involved in. (I rather suspect that the Libertarian party would be against this bill.)

I can say anything I like, unless I'm trying to sell you something. Ummmm... I really didn't expect anyone to take that statement so literally. I meant it doesn't make logical sense to make a statement saying "Moral engineering is worse than social engineering" because of the large number of issues involved, as well as the degrees to which a government can apply either one. So, does this mean that you're against any sort of laws regarding labeling? What about laws regarding product safety? Should I have the legal right to add rat poison to food products (without any sort of product warning), since any sort of requirement that prevents the sale of unsafe or improperly labeled products is requiring the government to be my "nanny"?

I'm not sure if you can make any sort of absolute statements like that. After all, there are many different ways a government can engage in moral engineering (abortion rights, censorship of sex, drug laws, forced religious observance, etc.). There are also many ways that a government can enforce social engineering (high taxes/social spending, laws enforcing political correctness, etc.) And of course each issue can be enacted to varying degrees. Granted, an uber-religious government that has strict rules on all those issues I mentioned might be worse than the equivalent "socialist" government; however, the current Conservative government isn't exactly like that. They do not plan to bring in anti-abortion laws, they are not planning on bringing in draconian laws involving censorship of sex, etc. (Some of their supporters may hold those beliefs but the party as a whole does not.)

I wouldn't say that. So far, the majority of telemarketers have been from credit card companies trying to sell me credit. These people would be eliminated (getting rid of half my problem.)

Nope, its simply means I understand the logic when it comes to the balance between the tax break you get, and your energy costs. Wait a second... You agree that I end up paying more than other people, you agree (or at least don't give any suggestion otherwise) that the Liberal plan itself will help buy new appliances, but you say I'm not getting shafted? Ummm... did you ever hear of the term 'inflation'? Even if I get a pay raise, that money is not likely to be available to cover new purchases. Its going to be used to cover price increases in food, clothing, and any other necessities that will see their price rise over time. First of all, as I've said before, those low income earners don't exactly have much incentive to buy new appliances. Yes, they may have to pay a carbon tax, but they've already benefited so much from the income tax cuts that they're already further ahead. Secondly, I need help to buy appliances too. My finances are tight. No, I'm suggesting that, if it were possible to do easily, that the government cut the GST (or whatever manufacturing taxes may still exist) on products that were more energy efficient.

Your exact quote was: they want to basically make all natural health products that compete with Tony Clements pharmaceuticals illegal. . (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=11573&view=findpost&p=325532) That was obviously incorrect. Except it doesn't. Your local snake oil salesman can keep selling his herbal pills if he wants. (The government will be doing random checks, as they should with all food items, but there is no costly 'approval' process.) The only approval process is if this snake oil salesman wants to prove his product cures something. Then, you need a clinical trial. Oh, and just in case you are arguing that it would cost too much to get "natural products" approved, keep in mind that the market for natural products in Canada is $2.5 billion. Assuming things in the U.S. are proportional, that would mean that the total North American market for "natural products" is $27.5 billion dollars. Thats more than the research budget of the top 5 drug manufacturers in the world (companies that put out dozens of products). Except the problem is, there is no pharmaceutical company in the world that has a monopoly. Here's a list of over 100 companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharm...tical_companies. Any one of them can sell products in Canada. Ever hear of the term 'clinical trial'? The scientific method? Control groups? Pharmaceutical companies have to go through the steps to prove their stuff works. If you want to claim that natural medicines do the same types of stuff pharmaceutical companies do, then why should they not prove it? The fact that its been used as a traditional medicine does not mean that its effective. Believe it or not, not all folklore is based in reality. Nothing keeping companies from selling garlic pills. Nothing keeping you from using them. They just can't claim they fight colds if they don't. Why not? People have died from using 'natural' health medicine. I've already pointed to one in a previous post. Just to remind you... http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-d...5321684868.html ...a baby who died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies. No it isn't, for 2 reasons. Reason 1: As a private individual, any claims they make do not have any 'legal' weight. (If I tell you to take 2 aspirins to cure a headache and you end up dying from it, I'm not liable because I don't have any expertise in the field. If a doctor does so, they would be liable.) I have a friend who's a doctor who explained all that to me. Reason 2: Because "feeling better" is a term that does not have a very specific definition. Heck, even your herbal medicine companies could continue claiming their stuff makes you "feel better". They just can't say it makes you "feel better because it cures your disease". Except it won't. From: http://www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/facts-c51-fiches_e.html Bill C-51 does not regulate growing an herb garden. Please explain how taking away my economic choices (as the NDP would do) is improving my freedom? Please explain how my right to free speech is improved by having a human rights commission ruling against people for hate speech? Actually, no it doesn't. As long as individual citizens are not taking steps to cause actual physical harm to yourself or your property, their actions would be valid under liberal ideals.

Of course spikes defy supply and demand. That's why they're spikes. The thing is, prices are not likely to be going down much further than $100/barrel (there may be a dip, but it won't sit there forever). And the price of $100/barrel is already the price that many people quote as making certain alternatives attractive. For example: - Standard Ethanol production (corn/sugar cane/etc.... becomes competitive when oil is under $70/barrel (and that can be done without subsidies. We could be importing ethanol from brazil) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-25-03.asp - Wind may be competitive when oil is above $40/barrel http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/business...ess/28wind.html - An oil-from-bacteria scheme may be competitive at $50/barrel http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle4133668.ece Ok, first of all, municipal infrastructure includes more than just roads. It includes water/sewer, parks, and a whole host of things. (Even the article you referenced points that out.) Secondly, while the GST from the gas tax is being diverted to 'infrastructure', it means that gas sales are not pulling their weight compared to, lets say, hair cuts (or anything else the GST is applied to). Gas is still being given 'special' treatment. Yes it would. But I thought the purpose was to prevent the use of gas altogether. If you want to claim that we should be self-reliant, I'm fine with that argument. But that is not the same as the argument that an east-west line will cut down global carbon emissions. And if they don't have access to cheap, renewable electricity from Canada, and they have no rivers of their own left to tap, then they will go to the old standby of gas. Although smart meters have given some benefit, California still expects to see its peak demand increase over the next decade. (See: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2004-03-24_700-04-003.PDF page 11.) Not that smart meters don't have benefit, but I think you're vastly overestimating their ability to eliminate the problem of peak loading and eliminating the need for gas powered plants. If your interested in transportation issues, maybe. You pointed at ethanol as the problem. Are you now admitting you were wrong on the issue? Yes, house sizes have gone up. Of course, this is partially offset by better standards for insulation. And it was one of the smallest houses I could find. Hmmm... I wonder why the Liberals don't make that the central focus of their green plan.... "Vote for us... we'll force you out of your home and into someplace smaller". Want me to start working on the advertising campaign now? Lets see... that $200 increase would be the equivalent of a 2% income tax increase. I'm trying to put money into my RRSPs for retirement, and that $200 will eventually cost me around $3000 within a decade (assuming I invested it in a safe fund). And of course the critical word in your above sentences is if it is reducing emissions. What still needs to be shown is whether A: it actually causes people to reduce emissions (more than they would have due to the natural increase in prices), and B: if it was the most effective way to reduce those emissions. Let me put it this way... there are around 20million taxpayers in the country. If half of them get the same type of penalty as I get, it will mean about $2 billion. (Granted, that is a very very rough estimate. And yes, the other half of the people would end up getting money back. But I'm not a member of that group.) Now, imagine what type of research we could have accomplished with that amount of money.... we could have funded research to turn algae into fuel, we could have done more research into nuclear fusion, or even geothermal. Personally, if I had a choice I'd prefer my energy to go to something that has long term benefits.

Why exactly does the presence of one (speculation) negate the effect of the other (rises due to increased demand). Even if there's a lot of variation, energy prices WILL skyrocket. That's the important point. And that provides incentives to change. Ah ok. Hadn't seen that. (I had read the actual green shift plan and did not recall seeing anything there about predictions. By the way, I'm still waiting to hear... of the carbon tax doesn't help Canada reach its goal, are the Liberals going to turn around and give me my money back? By the way, I find it ironic that in the article you quoted, it states: Given that automobiles account for a large part of greenhouse gas emissions, it's hard to see how this policy will have any material effect on a major source of consumption and pollution. "If you really want to move the yardstick forward from today on the environment, you have to tax gasoline," said economist Dale Orr of Global Insight in Toronto. The Liberals claim the tax on gasoline is already high enough, but "I don't think that's a convincing argument at all," Orr said. "I think they're not taxing gas because they don't want to take the political heat for it." And: Orr, however, points to an array of politically motivated benefits to select groups that make the plan look like something less than a straight income-tax cut. ... "You can't say this plan is driven by environmental objectives," Orr said. "There's a lot of things that are in there because various members of the Liberal caucus want to see them there." Not that I'm necessarily going to say I'm right just because some economist says I'm right (I'll leave such tactics to you)... but these are 2 arguments I've been making for a long time. And its right in the reference that YOU provided. Sure they are. It is called the GST and it is gas as well. The GST is meant for general revenue and it is applied on things that don't even have any environmental impact or requires government spending. Why should something like (lets say) a haircut have the same GST applied as gas, if the use of gas requires road maintenance that the other services don't? Any way you look at it, gas purchases are getting an artificial 'boost' compared to other types of consumption (both energy and otherwise). If you want to be consistent (in that people pay for the use of 'resources', you will need both the carbon tax and some sort of road maintenance tax on gas. I believe geothermal is the wave of the future. If this becomes the standard for new homes built (just like R2000 construction was), it could mean huge savings for Canadians in their power needs and help reduce energy dramatically. I never claimed that geothermal didn't have a lot of potential to generate electricity in both Canada and the U.S. What I was pointing out was that the nature of geothermal (namely the inability to 'throttle' the generation) may make it unsuitable for all situations, and that gas or hydro will be needed for peak periods. I have never heard of such problems. On what type of scale are they talking about? Hasn't been a major problem so far... the Wairakei generating plant saw the temperatures available to the plant decrease slightly, but they were able to make some modifications to keep the plant operating at capacity. It may simply be a case of making sure that we don't build geothermal plants that are larger than needed. From: http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull19-3/art69.htm ...despite the near stabilization of the "at depth" pressure and mass withdrawal the apparent enthalpy of the fluid continued to decrease slowly, reflected by annual decline in fluid temperature of around 0.5 deg. C per year; indication the system was being slowly mined of its heat by the production process. Again, it may not necessarily be a major problem. The main problem (as I said before) is that geothermal may be suitable for handling base loads but not necessarily for peak power generation. Don't think I ever made that argument. You suggested that Canada should supply electricity for its own needs, plus whatever current contract requirements we have with the U.S., but anything extra should stay in Canada (via the east-west transmission lines). If the U.S. needs power to handle peak loads, they may end up having to use gas. I never said it wasn't good economic policy. What I did say is that it wouldn't help global greenhouse gas emissions. It is now being looked at by Canadian utilities this month. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...p-4793623c.html Those are smart meters. Ontario has been playing around with them for a while. Frankly I think they're a good idea. But really, they're more for billing than anything else, and they don't really do much that (for example) a good timer wouldn't do for the average home user. They're not about to shut down major industries (for example GM) for an afternoon just because a smart meter tells them to, and business/industry IS the reason for peak demands. Ethanol is certainly a major differences that can't be easily dismissed. By all reliable accounts, ethanol causes a loss of efficiency of around 4%. Your experience was 5%. The comparison you gave between the 2 states was 13%. The difference due to ethanol would only account for about 1/3 of the difference. Town home, less than 1200 sq. feet main floor+upper floor. Located in the middle of the block. New home, top quality windows and insulation. Not sure what else you'd need to know. So, in other words, because I'm only getting hurt a little I should be happy? By that argument, anyone who looses a limb should be happy because they at least they didn't loose 3 limbs. I never claimed it would be catastrophic. I've already stated that several times. But at the end of the day I'd still have less money in my pocket. Rather ironic that you'd complain about people overestimating their 'hardship' over this program, when you are just as cavalier in dismissing their concerns with a "perhaps you can find savings" attitude. Face it, even many liberals have stated that the plan does a lot to 'help the poor'. That should be more than enough to show that there will be some people who pay more.

What do you mean 'privately' vote for parties? I've stated several times in this forum that I voted for the Conservative party in the last election, even though I don't agree with all their policies. Why did I do that? - Because even though I have libertarian ideals (believing in smaller government), I do believe the Libertarians often carry those policies too far for my liking - Because, even if the Libertarian party itself were the best fit based on my principles, voting for them (for better or worse) would be basically a wasted vote. - Despite not agreeing with all aspects of the Conservative party policies, they are closest to my ideals of freedom. Any of the major parties that I might support (at least that have a chance to win my riding) believe in some restriction in freedom. I just choose the lesser of 3 evils. If the Conservative party decides to take on stronger "social conservative" aspects, if they decide to try to ban abortion, force religion in schools, increase censorship, etc. I will likely end up supporting another party. At this point in time however, the risk of that is virtually nill.

Really? Even if I decided the level of taxation/social spending was too high, and decided not to pay my taxes for a year, you'd actually try to keep me from going to jail? While that does have the potential to cause some, ahem, unfortunate situations, I don't consider it a serious transgression... After all: - Having libertarian ideals means that you oppose having the government interfere with your life. A neighborhood watch program (regardless of how annoying the citizens get over it) has the government playing only a minor role, if any (and citizens can, if they choose, back out of such watches if they choose). Personally, if there were a "suspicious" house in the neighborhood, wouldn't it be better to have private citizens watching it rather than dozens of extra cops? - Consider the alternative... people become paranoid about the 'strange' house down the block, and decide to take preemptive action without any sort of police involvement, only to find the people there are totally innocent. At least with the police involved, they may act as a mechanism to prevent vigilante justice - Even if citizens are watching some house where drug use is going on, they have no ability to actually press charges themselves. For that, the police have to get involved (which still involves all the legal protections of any other similar situation.) Earlier you had criticized people for not wanting things like mental health and addition treatment facilities in their area. Well, welcome to the concept of "NIMBY", a concept that seems to cut clear across the political spectrum. (To be honest, I can certainly understand people's concerns over the issue... if you have paid a significant amount to live in a 'safe' neighborhood you'd hate to see your house value go down due to the presence of a drug treatment center in the area. Even if the 'risks' are overemphasized, the drop in property values could be significant. Unfortunately, I have no good solutions for situations when one person's activities (crack house, mental health center) negatively affects someone else's property. About the only solution I could think of is more use of 'gated communities', but of course that would probably be seen by many people to be a bad thing.

Hey, I agree, getting rid of unused laws (or partially enforced laws) is a good idea. However, I don't think it would actually eliminate the problem where the police or others in the government unfairly target individuals. After all, a certain amount of discretion will probably be needed when dealing with all laws. Take for example assault... I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees we require a law against assault. Yet how exactly do you define assault? If I get into a shoving match in a bar, is that assault? Somewhere along the line there will have to be some policeman who has to make the distinction between something that was worthy of being classified as assault, and something that could be considered a harmless shove. Of course there's always the possibility for racism; a cop could overlook a pushing match involving white guys, but end up arresting black guys for pretty much the same thing. There's simply no way to avoid the possibility of such 'racism' occurring through direct legal means. Hey, since the start of the thread I've stated that it might be beneficial to reform the drug laws. I just don't see it as such a significant issue dealing with our freedom as many of the others. False argument. The fact is, the RCMP wouldn't have to get people to monitor and/or profile capitalists. Any such abuses or loss of freedom would come through other mechanisms. If, for example, I thought taxes and social spending were excessive and decided not to pay my tax for the year (preferring the freedom to fund my own 'social programs'), I wouldn't need to be monitored by citizens or the RCMP, I'd be caught by Revenue Canada (or whatever they call themselves these days.) And if someone complains about "hate speech", they don't necessarily need to go through the RCMP, they can go through the human rights commissions.

Hey, Emery might have been a Libertarian at one time. He may even consider himself a libertarian now. However, there are many possibilities: - He may have actually changed his stance on certain issues (people do that some times, you know) - He may never have subscribed to full libertarian principles, but only engaged in libertarian politics because they supported the freedoms he wanted, even if he personally rejected other elements of libertarian ideals - He may have developed tunnel vision because he overstresses this one particular issue (partly due to his own business and legal issues) Much like Anakin Skywalker... he may have started good (with noble principles), but he's gone over to the dark side. Unfortuantely I cannot speak with Emery personally, but I'd be very curious how he would reconcile the anti-economic freedom and the anti-free speech aspects of the NDP with his own supposedly libertarian beliefs. By the way still waiting to see where in C-51 that safe and effective natural products are going to be banned. I provided a link to the text of the bill. If you're so sure of your opinions you should be able to find a reference pretty well. Or ask one of your 'natural product' selling buddies. I'm sure they're experts in the field of law and politics and can find the reference for you.

The difference is, China and India have started to engage in very wide-scale industrialization that just did not happen a decade or two ago. So while there may be minor "boom/bust" cycles, even their economic downturns are going to have higher economic activity than even their best times under Mao. First of all, do you actually have a reference to that particular statement of his? I've done a quick search and haven't found anything on it. Secondly, even if your statement is accurate (and that he's dealing with the 'fast rise') that does not mean that he doesn't think energy prices aren't going up anyways... Personally, I'm basing my claims on an interview I saw with Gore on the program Meet the Press. In it, Gore stated: ...oil prices and coal prices have been skyrocketing and because China and other emerging economies are demanding so much of it, and new discoveries of oil have fallen off dramatically, no matter the debate over drilling, the new discoveries have been declining and the new demand has been completely swamping it, and over the long term, those prices, everyone agrees, are going to continue to go up. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25761899/ Because emissions are no where near dropping emissions to 1990 levels. Please point to me where in the Green plan it guarantees that it will result in emissions dropping to 1990 levels. And just out of curiosity, if the levels don't drop to 1990 levels under the green plan, will the Liberals then reverse the program, repeal the tax cuts and remove the carbon tax? There are taxes on gas. There just won't be added tax on top of what is there now. Existing taxes on gas help fund road maintenance (directly, or even indirectly through general revenue/transfer payments). The 'carbon tax' is supposed to be a tax based on environmental impact. Converting the 'excise tax' into a carbon tax means that the government is no longer collecting money from drivers to pay for their use of a common good. And just what exactly do you think is going to happen to those larger homes that already exist? As I said, it is up to the U.S. They would be a good candidate for geothermal as well in large parts of the country. Admittedly, I'm not an expert in geothermal...however, from what I've read, geothermal plants are typically base load plants (much like nuclear). The U.S. would still need gas or hydro to handle peak demand. There's also the possibility that geothermal may not be quite as renewable as thought... geothermal plans may end up cooling down the area of the earth that they are located in (although after a certain time the heat may return; it just makes geothermal a little inconsistent.) I never said they did.... They can use a lot more nuclear and geothermal, but as I said, they deal primarily with base loads. They could simply use gas/oil (plus what hydro power they have) for the remainer of their needs, but again if the idea is to reduce global carbon emissions, the idea of saying "We're better than you because you're forced to use gas generators" isn't really helping. The utilities being able to turn off or turn down homes and businesses is to prevent blackouts. There is a financial incentive to those who sign up. Seems to be working well. It may be financially viable for some companies to agree to have their power cut during peak demands, but I doubt that is going to be very wide spread. Heavy industry can't very well afford to have employees remaining idle, any office-type business would be very unpopular with their employees if they had their air conditioning shut off. Really? After you stated the differences in MPG following the ethanol switch, you tried to claim that there were no major differences between the states. You even pointed to their similar geography and climate. In fact, in your post you even stated: The only difference was in mandated ethanol. (Your very own words: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....p;#entry325878) So you weren't claiming ethanol was just ONE of the causes of differences in fuel efficiency, you were suggesting it was the ONLY difference. You never mentioned running them through the website. Actually, I told you exactly where I got my numbers from. It would have taken you about 30 seconds to verify them. So now, even though you are now at least partly 'accepting' my claims about how much I'm going to pay (hey, only took what, half a dozen posts), you're going to hand-wave away the rest? Nice. Well, lets see... I could install energy efficient lights. Oops... already did that. Could install a timed thermostat. Oops, already do that too. Could drive less. But wait, the Liberal plan doesn't give me any extra penalties for driving. Could install new windows or upgrade my insulation. Ooops, I already got the most energy efficient windows/insulation when I bought the place. Could sell my place and move into something smaller. But wait, I've already bought a relatively small place. (Even bought it near the city center so I wouldn't have to commute far, and could take the bus when necessary.) Actually, I have to admit, in theory I could go and buy new appliances. I did buy the most efficient appliances I could afford at the time, but there are more efficient ones on the market now. But wait... If I couldn't afford the most efficient appliances before how exactly can I afford them now, especially since I'll be loosing even more money thanks to the green plan? You see, that's one of the problems I have with some supporters of the 'green plan'. Rather than actually admit that there are significant flaws and that I (and others) will get royally screwed, you try to justify it by hand waving.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. So does that mean that now you are admitting that I (or anyone else in similar circumstances) indeed would end up getting shafted by the Liberal Green plan? And since I am getting shafted, don't you think I'm justified in opposing the Green Plan? And if the argument is that I should save on my electricity by buying more efficient appliances, my question is, how? I've already bought the most efficient ones I could afford; with the government taking hundreds of dollars more from me than before, I will be even less able to afford new appliances. Even if I wait until my appliances wear out naturally and need to be replaced, the fact that I'm loosing so much money means that I may even have to buy less efficient appliances than I did before. I've always stated that this was a big flaw in the Liberal plan... they offer these broad based tax cuts, but the cuts aren't targeted at the people that would actually make the best use of them. As an end result, the people who would need to buy more efficient appliances don't get enough to help them out, and people who live in provinces with natural supplies of hydro (rather than coal/gas generators) have no need to buy new appliances because all of a sudden they've got this big tax cut, and don't really have to worry as much about the carbon tax. If the government wanted to encourage people to buy more efficient products, perhaps they should have given tax breaks to people buying more efficient products... the higher the efficiency, the greater the savings, to even out the price difference.

Why exactly is price relevant? Whether a utility generates its electricity from coal, gas, nuclear or hydro has more to do with the characteristics of each type of generator rather than the cost.

Actually, its even more complex than that... Coal powered generators also cannot vary their output significantly, so they are used largely for base load. On the other hand, Hydro power is used for both peak and base load. (I kind of gave a simplified statement earlier since I didn't want to get into all the messy details.) That's why I specifically said it may result in additional emissions... it is a complex system of inputs/outputs. Its probably a general rule of thumb that electrical power used at night results in fewer emissions, but there are possibly exceptions.

Actually, that may not be true... You see, nuclear reactors take a long time to start up and shut down. Therefore, they are usually left to run at full power all the time (including night). For this reason, they are used to handle 'base load'. On the other hand, gas-fired plants can greatly vary output, depending on the circumstances, so they are used during the middle of the day when demands are highest. As a result, any electricity you use in the middle of the day may cause more carbon emissions than electricity you use at night. Note however that I said it may cause more carbon emissions... after all, coal is also used in part to handle base load, whereas hydroelectric may handle both base load and peak loads.

Ok, let me get this straight... You don't really care as much if marijuana is legalized; you just think think that the letter of the law should be followed, so if we have the laws on the books people should be arrested? If you want to argue that having unenforced laws might lead to abuse, I'd agree... it is a potential problem. But then, there are 2 other things to consider: - Canada has a much better record of tolerance than the U.S. While the potential for abuse is there, you're less likely to see abuses than you would in the U.S. - Many of the other abuses of freedom I've pointed out have already been used in a biased manner. If you are going to complain about the potential of abuse due to selective enforcement of drug laws, you should be prepared to complain about such abuses happening with other laws too. Consider for example the Little Sister's book store case... they were a gay book store that regularly had its shipments seized by customs canada. On the other hand, those same materials were freely available in other book stores in the country. It was ruled that this store was being targeted by Custom's Canada. And this was a real case, not some 'theoretical' situation where there "might" be abuse. Or how about other abuses of free speech? Not all "negative" speech is banned. There is, in theory, the possibility of statements made by a certain individual being ruled as "hate speech" while similar statements by others is deemed acceptable because of political correctness.