August1991

This event troubles me tremendously. In 1944, Canadians landed in the Eastern part of Normandy and then liberated the northern part of liberated Europe. Canadians threw the Nazis out of Holland. Holland is a fascinating country. It is both Catholic/Protestant (like Canada) yet practical. The Dutch are honest but pragmatic (like Canada). We are tolerant and polite. We differ in the space we live in. I like to believe that good Canadians (or Quebecers) could live in such close quarters with such tolerance. ---- I had a long chat with an Amsterdam taxi driver about Pim Fortuyn's murder. This event, and the reaction to it, forces me to wonder what Voltaire would write.

Faith? I will argue using probability and something called the "Tragedy of the Commons".Go to Google and paste "Tragedy of the Commons" (with the quotation marks) in Google's search box. Then, click on different results until you find a link that makes sense to you. What does probability have to do with this? Our planet is a Commons. The tragedy will occur, it's just a question of time. ---- Much better question: What should we do about this?

I have heard Tolstoy described as a pan-Slavist but never as someone who denied the possible benefits of a government. In his old age, I know he did some weird things. He was on his way to Bulgaria when he died.Bakunin? A Communist, anti-semite. At what point in his life did he conclude that government is never beneficial? Stirner? I only know him as some German philosopher who followed Hegel (as did Marx, and probably Bakunin). I have a deep, deep dislike for Hegel. Did Stirner at some point say/write that he didn't need a management committee in his condo complex? BTW, why don't you note Kropoktin? I think he retired to Capri. ---- Hugo, I can't speak for TS but I AM NOT suggesting that government is at all times good. Rather, I happen to believe that like marriage and family, government can be a useful or beneficial institution. It is also capable, like marriage and family, of creating a living hell. I am also truly astonished by the person who, several thousand years ago, created numbers so that co-operation became possible using clear terms of trade, prices. This price method is not impervious to cheating or gaming and it also doesn't always work. It requires pre-conditions such as defined (defendable) property rights. Whether this institution "government" is called a "condo management committee" or a "town council", it still amounts to a method for people to co-operate and make collective services available. For heaven's sakes, Hugo. Have you never gone to a resto with friends and then split the tab? [it's easier that way, avoids messy calculations and preserves some friendships.] I frankly would prefer to avoid this line of argument of freedom to move to a place where there is no tax and no government and no social contract.I dislike it because, in effect, it means ostracism. The logical consequence of your argument is that you want to live entirely alone. Why do I say this? Because as soon as you live with others, you will immediately discover that many beneficial trades cannot occur through spot markets, and adding contingent markets won't solve your problems either. The terms of trade are not clear, nor contract conditions. Such is the daily affair of family. On Capri, or in the South Pacific, your hut will be struck by lightning and you'll suddenly need your neighbours' help to rebuild. But you'll suspect their effort is not as great as when you helped to fix their water supply. Your claim of a "circular argument" is simply an argument stating that you refuse all commitments, or long-term contracts - unless such commitments, contracts, deals guarantee that you win. Where risk is at issue, I'm sorry to say that no one will ever sign such a contract with you - unless you commit to compensate them. ---- We haven't discussed corporations. Hugo, if I choose to work for Microsoft, how is that different from your choice to live in Canada?

I found the following thread by accident on the web and I'm providing a link here. It describes a genuine case (drunk waitress with no medical insurance and no seat belt has accident in which she loses part of her skull - read brief, not too gory details at the top.) Then, skip down to the post "21. Crass Observations" where a Libertarian weighs in on the issue. The ensuing argument is good. I learned many practical details about the US medical system that I didn't know. It's not as bad as the NDP pretend, and Americans seem to have an idealized view of our system too. Here's the Link (Hint, after reading the basic facts of the case, Edit/Find "21.")

Fair enough, MS. (I reversed the BQ/NDP numbers). Do you have other evidence of mistaken data? Compare: Jun 2004 Election Lib .. 36.7% CPC .. 29.6% NDP .. 15.7% BQ .. 12.4% Oth .. 5.6% --- This poll: LIB - 41% CP - 26% NDP -17% BQ - 11% GP - 6% Elections Canada

Compare: Jun 2004 Election Lib .. 36.7% CPC .. 29.6% NDP .. 12.4% BQ .. 15.7% Oth .. 5.6% --- This poll: LIB - 41% CP - 26% NDP -17% BQ - 11% GP - 6% These numbers are generally within the margin of error. I would be suspicious if the NDP growth is due to gains in Quebec. If the Liberal numbers grow, even a little, expect the Libs to get more bolshie in the new year. Thanx MS for posting.

Truly admirable, Newf, but like a damn fool, I'll wander in and turn on the microphone: A marriage is simply a long term contract between two people. The state can offer a standard, one-size fits all contract (stipulating all the conditions in case of breach) but two people, in a sense, can always create their own contract (possibly enforceable). For third parties, such as the state, there are additional questions: survivor benefits, pension benefits, tax benefits, power-of-attorney, joint liability. Here, the State gets involved in the same sense that private insurance firms or lenders would be involved. Can I sue your partner if I lend you money? Now, then, there seem to be three broad arguments against allowing people of the same sex to have the right to such contracts. First, homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn't even shack up let alone have the right to sign a contract. Second, homosexuals can shack up but we shouldn't let them sign any contract. God knows what will happen if we allow this. Third, gays should be allowed to sign a contract but only use the term "civil union" to describe it. The State (and any other party) should recognize this in the same size as marriage. Fourth, gays can use the word "marriage" to describe their contract. ---- To me, the difference between the Third and the Fourth is the difference between "mayonnaise" and "salad dressing". I suspect the words "wife" and "husband" are safe from gay usage although I was struck the first time I read "his husband". The argument (I have heard) justifying the Second argument seems to be along the lines of "this is a new situation so let's see what happens before rush in...") I must point out an interesting detail I just learned recently. The Turkish language has no gender. Hence, he/she/it all use the same word. I'm not certain that this makes Turkish culture any less sexist. IOW, the Left (or Progressives) puts too much emphasis on symbol and not enough on reality. ---- Lastly, for myself, I firmly believe in live and let live.

TS: Is it a dog? After all, it has fur. H: True it has fur, but it's a duck. TS: Does it bark? The sound it makes is a yap. H: True, it'a yap but it's a duck. TS: Does it have four legs? I see four paws. H: True, there are four paws but it's a duck. ---- Hugo, you are free to move to another town where local taxes are lower. If you don't move, it is because you accept the taxes where you live. Hence, you have voluntarily entered into a contract whereby you will receive municipal services and you accept to pay local taxes. The municipality may use force to collect those taxes. Hugo, if you buy a condo, you accept to pay common fees. Hence, you have entered into a contract and the other condo owners, through the condo co-operative/management may use force (kick you out) if you don't pay the fees... Hugo, you are free to not buy a Big Mac. If you buy a Big Mac, you have entered into a contract with McDonald's. McDo may use force to enforce the contract... And so on. This is really, really silly (yes, silly) and it's not even useful. The more interesting question is: if we are to have a government, what services should it organize and how should the cost of these services be shared? ---- Lastly, I can't help but suspect that you have obtained your Libertarian ideas from reading American web sites. Americans too often cannot imagine that there is a world on the other side of either ocean.

By posting that, Michael Moore is in effect contributing to the demise of the Democratic Party as we know it. The Republicans will get all the fiscal conservatives and in addition all the holy rollers too. The Democrats, on the other hand, are going elitist, snob and school-marm. (Sort of like the NDP). Sadly, Michael Moore is simply wrong about the whole thing. Andrew Cohen (Bush led, America followed...) wrote (in the NP) a fascinating analysis of the election results based on CNN's detailed polling. It's well worth reading whatever your political opinion. The article compares Kerry's support with Gore in 2000. In any case, it should be rather obvious that one does not get 51% of the vote without having fairly broad support.

Many conservative voters in the US did not vote for Clinton but none, to my knowledge, spoke about leaving the country as a result of his election. What does it say about the so-called progessives in the US that some now talk of leaving? Have you seen Michael Moore's web site? You sure you want all those from LA moving north? Maple Syrup, are you planning to leave Canada because the NDP only won a few seats?

I'm beginning to think that Maple Syrup logs on as Caesar whenever the LSD flashbacks kick in.

Nor will I speak English in a room full of French people.Humans are social and we use a whole range of symbols to communicate. For the most part, these symbols concern a variety of messages concerning our willingness/ability to co-operate. The symbols have to be intelligible. The interesting questions concern where did the symbols come from and are they honest? I think adolescents are more interested in this than older people because they are coming to grips with this form of communication.

Because I signed a contract of my own free will with the leasing company stating that, if I did not keep up the payments, they could repossess the car. Show me the equivalent contract I made with the government, please. *Sigh* ...when you used your immigrant visa to come to Canada. And in fact, the contract was not with the "government". It was with other people living in Canada. If you want to say that the guy at McDonald's is my slave while he cooks my food, fine. But you yourself described, using David Friedman's example, how justice could be entirely private and contracts enforced. It sounded violent to me.As to the use of the word initiation, I can argue that you initiated the violence when you chose to come to Canada. I could argue too that you choose to continue to invite initiated violence because you choose to live here. You agree with me that private clubs/private communities exist which provide public goods to everyone's enjoyment by somehow "taxing" everyone. So, in that we agree that "government" is a good thing. I have presented this as a "social contract" which people "voluntarily" accept - as immigrants, or when they are old enough to decide. The alternative, presumably, is to live entirely alone on an island in the South Pacific. The comparison to marriage is apt: When two people agree to have children, it is understood that either or both must pay to raise the child. Would you describe the enforcement of child support payments as "initiation of force"? Someone might call me sympathetic too. Alan Greenspan has Ayn Rand books in his office. But then I might be described as a socialist-sympathizer too because I tend to favour state organized health insurance.

Maybe they enjoy it. A better example would be people who take heroin. That is not a widespread phenomenon. I guess they like it, or are coerced into listening while walking in a mall where it is playing. I guess they feel they have no other way to argue with their Mom.---- Rationality says nothing about what people want, it merely suggests that people will seek the easiest way to get it. ---- Probably from their friends. But bnow you are saying that advertising is merely informative of new products. True but it is more than that. Advertising works in the same way good spelling on this forum works. Don't be a snob. For the same reason, I suspect, that young people dance alot more than older people. They can, and they want the world to know.

Cartman, please reconcile those two statements. Greedy people, I assume, are concerned primarily for themselves. They are rarely if ever swayed into doing something that is not to their benefit. So, how can mass media dominate such people? ---- Hugo made the better argument that advertising will never get people to give up their MP3 players in favour of 8 track tapes, or give up their SUVs in favour of horses. The Left frequently confuses form for content, symbol for reality, signal for message.

Ignore.

No one has seriously threatened violence if Quebec were to separate. Many countries obtained independence in the past century. The condo management would simply be enforcing a contract as is government when it collects taxes. This is what you fail to see Hugo. You are going to say that "I never signed the social contract". And my answer is that you signed the Canadian social contract the day you married your wife and decided to live in Canada.I would offer the same argument for somebody who was born here and in effect inherited their parents' condo in the condo building. The contract we have with government stipulates - as do agreements to live in a condo building - that condo management may alter terms or payments as necessary. There is typically a constitution giving voting rights to residents. It's not fallacious, it is a simple fact. Moreover, in a federal state such as Canada, you have a variety of jurisdictions to choose from. (Hugo, I will refrain from being sarcastic since you have recently objected to my style.) Is that how you see all marriages? Don't you think there might be some nice guys out there? Are all men wife-beaters?And incidentally, it is analogies like that Hugo that drive me to sarcasm. You are not really interested in discussing whether government can be a useful institution. You have decided that government is a "wife-beater". I gave the example above of a condo management, in effect a government. It is a useful institution - like a market with monetary prices - for people to co-operate and achieve common goals. (In this case, renovating their entry.) If a single condo owner is not happy with the fee structure/renovation (taxes/benefits), the condo owner can buy a house in a private community with a different fee structure, or a house with local property taxes. Slavery of this kind (theft of this kind, if you prefer) should not be within a social contract.IOW, do not get me to argue that the collective should have the right to confiscate everything from one person. (Once again Hugo, you often make these kind of false dichotomy arguments.) The issue is how much will we each put into a common pool to pay for services that cannot be obtained easily otherwise. A leasing company has the right to repossess your car if you don't make payments. Even you have suggested various forms of coercion to enforce contracts. I dunno. When people quit a job because they don't like the boss, do they get compensated because they lose their friendly work colleagues. You are striking at the very heart of what constitutes a choice and how each of us value things differently.But Hugo, consider language. Imagine you are unilingual Finnish. How much can fellow Finns get you to pay for the government services they love? Hugo, I am the last person on this forum who would view the government as "ordained". I have made it plain on numerous occasions that the government is a mechanism for people to work together. The institution of government must operate through coercion. Without coercion, there would be a problem of free-riders.Hugo, there is no guarantee that a collective solution based on the individual wills of free people will be a "good" solution. On the contrary, there is a strong likelihood the solution will be "bad". That was my analogy of the Chinese boat men. I have never read Milton Friedman make the same arguments as you make. Friedman was also pragmatic, arguing in favour of a positive approach.

In Canada, all levels of government purchased 20.7% of GDP in 1996 (for current consumption or investment). Fraser Institute on Taxes in Canada I do not have stats readily at hand but I think US numbers are roughly similar. CdnRep, do you think that number is too high or too low?

WTF? Bush? Sulk? Do you really mean to compare Hitler and Bush? Do Americans get prickly?I think the whole point here is that Americans know little about Canada and care even less. But they do not wish us ill. ---- Carolyn Parrish has every right to speak her mind - in fact, as an MP, I think it should be her duty. But she is speaking to a certain group of English Canadians, that's all. I suspect that she is knowingly engaging in demagoguery, playing to the cheapseats, perhaps because it makes her ego feel good.

I was rather amazed at the level of support these proposals received. I think the proposals received around 30% to 40%.When a small minority asks for something, the majority is usually oblivious. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these proposals concerned the use of the word "marriage". These proposals were not about "civil unions". I personally have no objection to two people of the same sex using the word "marriage" but I can understand why some people might object. (I suspect the words "husband" and "wife" are safe from usurp.) I don't think so, really. Look where Bush got his support. The hicks. These people have always been suspicious of the sophisticates on either coast. I don't mean that Bush only got his support there. I'm sure many gays voted for Bush and many Ivy-league professors too. But the US has always had a strong strain of Protestant, populism. Lewis wrote Elmer Gantry in 1927. Do Teletubbies have gender issues too?

There have been numerous terrorist attacks against non-American targets too.And I agree with Thelonius that "support" for Israel is only one issue of several. ---- I think it is somewhat false to say that the US supports Israel. The US has mediated in the past and now, among bordering countries, Egypt and Jordan recognize the State of Israel. (Syria and Lebanon do not). On the other hand, the US is staunch in defending the right of Israel to exist. So perhaps, that is your question.

Under whose authority do you make that judgment?

This is the data I could easily find: Between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004, 46708 people left Canada. Stat Can In 2002, we accepted 5288 immigrants from the US. CIC Web Site Between 1990-2000, on annual average, 24395 Canadian born people moved to the US.US Census Roughly speaking, Canadians move to the US in much larger numbers than Americans coming here. This is not going to change because Bush Jnr got re-elected. ---- Eureka, you said that Johnson "attacked" Pearson by pulling his shirt collar. Pearson always wore a bow tie and it would have been impossible for anyone to pull his collar. Johnson was a physical kind of guy. I have no doubt he touched Pearson on the arm. Perhaps that is how the story got started.Johnson did verbally upbraid Pearson and accused him of pissing on the carpet. I think Kennedy referred to Diefenbaker as a "prick". Nixon did refer to Trudeau as "that asshole". (Nixon was waiting for Trudeau to answer the phone.) Bush Jnr has yet to invite a Canadian PM to Crawford. And too many Canadians know all these factoids whereas very, very few Americans do. The supreme irony in our relationship with the US is that some English Canadians are supremely twitchy about the US while Americans are supremely indifferent to Canada. Pierre Trudeau understood such English Canadians very well and he played to their twitchiness.

BBM, eureka, caesar - your points are mistaken. That is, the stats quoted take your points into account. Canada may be a better country than the US but not for the reasons you offer. Please understand all of this better. Don't give up. Be original.

The collar was Nixon and Ziegler. Johnson lifted his dogs by their ears. The Johnson-Pearson story was different. Some web siteApocryphal story, repeated endlessly. Ever see a photo of Pearson's shirts at the time? The correct reference is "pissing on a carpet". (LBJ did say that!) Eureka, do you know what LBJ referred to? Eureka, if you want to be pro-Canadian Liberal PM, anti-Democrat American President, at least get your facts straight. [bTW, what did JFK do to Dief?] 300 million people, all out of step? The masses are confused?When you use the word "America", what do you mean?