August1991

I recall the study. It seems to me that it was of the "But on the other hand" style.I didn't know about the Supreme Court decision and I would like to see it. I am aware that Trudeau and Lougheed eventually negotiated a "new" NEP but Trudeau did this from a position of force. The NEP's main purpose was to establish a Canadian price for oil, distinct from the world price. The policy became moot when world prices fell. At the risk of being accused of turning everything into a Quebec issue, the NEP must be seen in a broader context of Trudeau's desire to reform the Constitution. Trudeau wanted to impose the federal government.

WTF?TS, it is that kind of moral reasoning that I find objectionable and apparently, you are oblivious. "If I had just given my car to the thief, he never would have had to steal it from me." ---- There are two points here that bear repeating: 1) The English-speaking/North American Left has a simplistic morality: defend the perceived "underdog" regardless. (At the moment, the Chechens are the perceived "underdog".) 2) Western values are the product of people standing up to obscurantism and superstition. The debates on this forum are evidence of western values. Unfortunately, many people in the world still reason like 12th century Christian monks. We should condemn such nonsense just as Voltaire, Galileo and Copernicus condemned the nonsense in their time.

This article might put some perspective on the issue. In 1996, the US Congress passed a law to forbid "late term abortions". Clinton, to his credit, vetoed the bill. It is a rare intervention done primarily to ensure a woman's safety. Since it is so rare, it may make sense to send women to Kansas or New York rather than have it done in Quebec. I understand that it costs 5000 US. Incidentally, it is just such services provided to foreigners that make international comparisons of health statistics difficult. The US provides health services to people from around the world. It's a growth industry and the US is on the cutting edge.

Let us stand up to superstition. Let us stand up to those who believe in cartomancy rather than an open-mind. Our forefathers (and using our beliefs, our foremothers) died to make our stands possible. Galileo Galilei said, after torture, "But it moves!" We must say the same to these Islamic idiots as our ancestors said to the Christian idiots.

Thelonius Monk, I am not one of those. IMV, the government, like the free market, a happy family or a well-run business, can be a source of good.

The weakness of democracy applies as much to the US as to Canada. I am not sure you are getting what I am saying. Certain states in the US have voted on bill such as the decriminilization of Marijuana, (Alaska and California, for example) and the death penalty (Florida and Texas, for example). I am not sure how this is an example of the 'weakness of democracy'. I also do not understand how the rest of your post applies to voting, unless you are one of those ultra-right wingers who believes in the abolishment of the gov't in favour of 'responsible anarchy'. Dear Thelonious Monk, The vote of one individual (you, for example) has never decided the result in any riding in any election in Canada. IOW, the single vote of an individual (such as you) will not decide anything. In the case of a State-Wide referendum, this notion should be more obvious. There is a symbolism to voting, and then there is the reality. True, politicians "fight" over the opinion of the "middle" voters. But middle voters (the 4%) are different people depending on the issue. Consider this US election. Abortion, Iraq war, gay marriage, tax cuts, future economy; you'll find different people (a dfifferent 4%) hesitating.I don't mean to ignore swing votes or downplay a single vote. I simply mean to say that one person's vote will change absoilutely nothing. That is a mathematical fact. Stop dreaming. You are not a benevolent dictator. Your vote will not decide the fate of humanity. It's just a vote. Others won't do the same, and the M-L candidate won't win.An individual is not inconsequential. But a democratic election does not allow an individual to express a view accurately. "Small things make up big things." How?

This new thread, about Left vs. Right, is a branch of the thread on "Bush and the USA" in Canada/America relations. By old Left, I meant Lyndon Johnson, Pierre Trudeau and Harold Wilson. Tax-and-spend Democrats. (I didn't mean Marxist as Old Left - that would be Old, Old Left - they only exist on university campuses now.)The New Left is Clinton and Blair: people who can read the WSJ, understand all those numbers and still defend the "underdog working man". Old right as in Hayek, Bastiat and Smith? They are resurgent, true. Both Stalin and Hitler thought the State should be used to solve society's "problems". The Left wants to do the same, even today, to control for example transnational corporations. Where did you get those numbers?Life is not a zero-sum game. Life is not a single cake to be cut up fairly or unfairly. The whole point of life is to make the cake bigger. That happens when people co-operate (or trade). Free enterprise helps that to happen. Imagine you have $9 and I have $1. Time passes, we work better, and you have $95 and I have $5. Should I be angry? (My wealth increased by 500%!) Me too; the right doesn't have any brains that I have seen. Just greed. Caesar, markets with prices are an ingenious answer to our species method of survival. It's too bad that you don't understand it better. Market prices are dictated by... well, who dictates market prices? Workers always complain about low salaries and buyers always compalin about high prices. (House sellers complain they didn't get what it was worth and house buyers always paid too much...)But let me accept your idea that monoplies control market prices. So what! Monopoly market prices are still a great thing compared to what life was like without them. IOW, monopoly market prices are not theft. People deal with corporations voluntarily and there is a limit to corporate greed. Glad to know you realize that Thelonius. People in third world countries do not die young because there are thieves (monopolies) about them, unfairly stealing. They die young because their talents and resources never get the chance to be used. I doubt any consumer would like a monopolist, but a monopolist is always better than nobody if the consumer can choose solitude. Consider the large island with Friday and Crusoe, a small boat adrift with Joe Clark and then think of that Tom Hanks movie.Black_Dog: Nope, quite a few of them left, esp in the left wing of the Liberal party and among the NDP, people who still believe and drone on about the great possibilities of Marxism. I don't recall seeing the word "Marxism" appearing in any NDP literature or in any candidate speeches in the last election. Why, I do believe this is, if not a lie, then a gross exaggeration. Old Old Left is the Marxist tripe of capital accumulation, internal contradictions, surplus value, eventual collapse, flat earth etc. I'm completely surprised it still exists.Old Left is simply tax-and-spend combined with "it's good for the economy". I'm surprised it still exists. Hubert Humphrey and Neil Kinnock are dead. Even François Mitterand realized Old Left limits. One of my favorite right-wing boilerplates. Unfortunately, neoconservative economic policies have bombed everytime. Reganomics was a dud, Thatcherism caused far more woes than it solved, the Common Sense Revolution fizzled. Of course, in these instances, the right never applies the virtue of "personal responsibility" that hey drone on about: their policy failures are always someone else's fault.So, rather than argue that Old Old Left works (Soviet Union, Mao, Cuba) or Old Left works (UK, Sweden, Canada, US 1970s, France 1980s), you argue that the Right doesn't work.Forget Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney. Countries that open up to trade are rich: Hongkong, Iceland. Countries that are closed to trade are poor: North Korea, Albania. "Free" markets can tangentially assist the common good through increase in economic prosperity. But it can also harm the common good through short-sightedness and rampant greed. The only true purpose of the market is to exchange goods and services and maximize profits.BD, I really appreciate your posts here. They are smart and, IMV, on the money - even if I disagree. But here, you're wrong. Markets are not weak because of short-sightedness and greed. Um...in case you haven't noticed, wealth in western countries is confined to a small group: the "10 per centers". The vast majority are at the whim of the market place and certainly have little or no impact on it.BD, you missed my point. Poor people in Canada now are better off than poor people in Canada 30 years ago. Compare comparables.Incidentally, people in the poorest 20% bracket today will not be the same people in 10 years. But that's a different argument. (God is the Left clueless. I feel like becoming a Leftist just to explain this to them...) I agree entirely with you Argus. Surprisingly, the Old Old Left still exists.

This thread has become schzoid! I'll start a new thread in "Moral, Religion, etc." about the Old Left and answer some irritating posts there. As to Bush and America, thanks EasyChair for getting this thread back on track. Argus, you touched the key question.Iran is truly a country of two sides: western and eastern. Its language is western but its habits are eastern, and its religion a particularity. Saudi Arabia has the trappings of western but it's not western at all. Individual Iranians are western but proud. The US is not going to invade Iran. If Israel or the US felt that Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon and a reliable means to deliver it, either might send in a cruise missile or two. In a few years, there will be regime change in Teheran. Iranians will do it themselves. IOW, the Islamic republic as we know it will fall. It is already happening. It's pride. The "Biblical proportions" term is strange, EasyChair. Next objective, Iran? Is there some kind of predetermined plan here? Do you mean that Richard Nixon, in his secret will, laid out all the details? (Note: Ford appointed Bush Snr as CIA chief and Nixon appointed Ford as VP.) Welcome to the modern world. It ain't Bush they don't like, it's the raw expression of American interests.In the 1980s, I used to say that Russians are well received in Western Europe and Americans well-received in Eastern Europe. Everyone makes fun of lawyers. Same idea. ----- I have started a new thread "Old Left vs New Left" under the Moral rubric.

Thelonius wrote: Terrible Sweat wrote: Are both of you guys playing with a full deck? Smoking wacky tabaccy? Missing French fries from your Happy Meal? A US invasion of Canada makes sense only in a Hollywood movie plot. Miniscule possibility? How about putting it, on my list of fears, after "3428. Meteor falls on my head."BD is right though. Economic and political convergence is possible. I don't think it will happen and it doesn't frighten me but I can understand the fear. Hell, the Americans can buy what they want from us. It's cheaper that way. (What a thought about a way to end warfare!) Nothing is funnier than English Canadian fear/dislike of the US juxtaposed with American supreme ignorance/disinterest of Canada. Please, drop the US invasion scenario. It makes the thread look foolish. ---- As to the threat of a Korean missile, yes, while very small, it exists. Let's trust that the Americans have already informed the combless Korean demi-God with the Elton John glasses that he and his country will be donged if any Nodongs dong North America.

Here is the Tory press release, here is the NDP press release and finally the BQ communiqué. All three are identical. (Even the election date error is the same in the Tory and NDP versions, but not the BQ.) Nice little kicker too: The Liberals will have to go along with this because the three could form a coalition government, make the enabling legislative changes and then resign.

Politics of fear? In the last Canadian federal election, the Liberals essentially said that a vote for Harper and the "Alliance Conservatives" was a vote for the end of Canada. Cheney giving a speech in Iowa is nothing like the sight of a gun firing in your face. When the Republicans run an ad with people fleeing a New York City mushroom cloud, then you might have grounds for being upset. I'm sure the Dems will use fear too. Incidentally, the Moore argument that "fear" motivates gun ownership seems wrong to me. I would argue that fear is the naturally Leftist argument. Fearful people are inclined to want protection from a strong state.

Will this agreement hold? Harper, Duceppe, Layton gang up on PM PM I think the G-G dissolution thing is a way to blame PM PM if we have another election.

OK August, I have been looking for info, maybe I am looking at it the wrong way then show me why I am wrong. At least I am trying to back my arguments here I didn't mean it wrong that way. Thanks for the links. The CBC article says that equalization payments are about $10 billion in 2003-04 but it doesn't say how this is split between Alberta and Ontario. You state that Alberta expects about $8 billion in (oil?) royalties (what year?). I don't have a quick link to give the answers. I just know that the equalization formula is messy and as the CBC article notes, equalization is just one way the federal government makes transfers. (I've always been curious to know how much the large chartered banks transfer too but that info is private...)

This applies to NS and Nfld, I believe. This is wrong.

!!!!!

Aside from Ontario, Alberta is the only other province that contributes to equalization payments according to this site. check this august I don't dispute the numbers. (Is it not sad that BC is now a receiver though?) My point is that if the federal government collected the oil royalties, then equalization might not be necessary and Albertans would have no reason to believe they pay "welfare" to other provinces. In the UK, London gets the royalty payments (even though North Sea oil is off the coast of Scotland) and all UK citizens benefit. In Norway, Oslo gets the royalty payments and all Norwegians benefit. No region in Norway believes that the other regions are free-loading off the money.

On the contrary, democracy is good in practice but bad in principle.A constitutional, representative democracy means the majority is hemmed in and so in practice, the worst features of the mob are controlled. The representatives, in addition, can do deals on our behalf and express partly our varying feelings on issues. Michael, polls have nothing to do with the pointlessness of your individual vote. I am not saying that one person is insignificant in the world. I am saying that one vote is insignificant in an election. The weakness of democracy applies as much to the US as to Canada. Corporations are now under proper control (that the Left says otherwise depresses me to no end). When most people buy products from Walmart, work for Walmart or buy Walmart shares, they research, investigate and check what it is they are doing. Why? Because each individual benefits directly from making a good choice. "Sears offers better working conditions." "Canadian Tire has it cheaper."Now, compare that to the election of a (transnational) government. One of my neigbours told me he paid $7,000 in federal taxes last year. He doesn't know the name of our deputy and he didn't vote in the last election. Of course, my neighbour benefits from federal government expenditures. But those benefits are not contingent in any way on his individual vote. His benefits at Walmart on the other hand are directly contingent on his purchase choice. The last period of Globalization ended in August 1914 and the outbreak of World War I.The calm, tranquillity, stability and economic development of the 19th century gave us the basic scientific discoveries for all the technology we have in the 20th century. I'll stand corrected but it seems that since the 1920s, there has not been any great insights in physics on a par with the Michelson-Morley experiments, Einstein or Planck. Electricity, radio transmissions, radiation were all ideas of the 19th century. (OK, the double helix arrived in the 20th...) As to the Great Depression, I think most would now agree that the US Fed really, really bungled in the early 1930s. The international evidence shows clearly that economies improved when their countries left the gold standard (and stopped imitating the foolish policies of the US Fed at the time).

Idealist, these links are interesting. (I always wondered where the term "Borden Line" came from.) And true, Trudeau's Memoirs is a weak book. However, since you open the box, you must take out all the contents. In the 1950s and 1960s, Canada had a variety of tariffs against imported goods. This meant that Westerners had to buy expensive equipment from Ontario and Quebec rather than cheaper products made elsewhere. This was an indirect subsidy from the West to the East. I still maintain that the Albertan government has been three-times lucky to receive royalties on oil. 1) The BNA Act was drafted that way. 2) Oil is under Albertan soil. 3) The world price of oil is now relatively high. In this sense, I think that it's incorrect to say that Albertans pay the way of other Canadians.

I'll read these recent posts more carefully but DAC's comment made me think. Strange it is, and immoral too I think. As presented, both you and the politician are exerting effort for no perceivable benefit.A thief threatens to steal from your home. You install a lock. The thief goes away. The lock requires effort producing no benefit. (It just returns you to where you were before.) IMV, this is the reason that theft is immoral.

I was going to start another thread on "why democracy is bad" but I might as well use Hugo's start. [The question is broader. The Left often says that Corporation must be brought under the control of "democratic governments" which are the "only legitimate expression of popular will".] This is false. I'll give two fundamental reasons. 1) By making it "one man, one vote", democracy inherently leads to mob rule. I think that's Hugo's point. This is partly corrected by having explicit rights protecting individuals or minorities against the will of the majority. Federal states are another solution (a separate jursidiction houses a minority). I suspect a successful democratic Iraq will be federal. The real problem here is that "one man, one vote" is a bad method. Different people have different feelings about things. For example, some people feel strongly about Kyoto and others care much less. There is at the moment no way to get people to reveal honestly their feelings about such questions. 2) One person's vote makes absolutely no difference to the overall result. Worse, no one gains anything by voting. From the individual's viewpoint, it makes no sense to vote. This becomes more obvious if one considers the time required to figure out what the various politicians are saying. Most people won't bother. As Hugo pointed out in the case of Iraq, people frequently save themselves the trouble of all that research and merely vote for their "tribe". People are understandably far more informed about selecting a mate or buying a house than they ever are for voting in an election. I think Trudeau is wrongly credited with saying that "The ultimate measure of the success of a democracy is in how the majority treats the minority." IOW, the minority should still sometimes have a say despite what the majority wants.

Time to bring this thread to the top again for the new posters. Do the test below (its fun and takes about five minutes). Then post your results (Economic Left/Right) and (Social Libertarian/Authoritarian) in this thread. Political Compass Test

Reading through this thread, the only poster who makes any sense is TalkNumb. It is absurd to blame Putin, Russians or Bush for the murder of those children. Yet many posters to this thread have done basically that. These same posters would no doubt have found ways in 1938 to blame England, France and even Poland for the looming threat of Nazi Germany. We in the west have worthy values to defend because our values are good ones. The scientific method does not mean that every viewpoint is valid. The scientific method is an intelligent sceptic's way to finding the truth. I sense that somewhere, somehow, the Left has lost its moral compass. Yves Montand, a one time member of the French Communist Party, understood this.

Federal civil servants in Ottawa will get little sympathy from anyone in the real world.

I fully agree BD.But Klein got a meeting with Cheney about this - and you can be sure Bush was briefed before meeting PM PM. The point is that this is nowhere on the agenda right now (election and all) and in all likelihood won't be for some time after. Read A World Transformed to understand how often a Prez and a PM can consult. Ours are not talking. I think that was Harper's point. WTF? Does that make Harper a running dog lackey?

And I see PM PM has held a cabinet meeting in Kelowna. If movement could guarantee progress...Joe Clark was another big fan of flying around the country, generally to no effect.