Machjo

I for one support both the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. Now I would like to see both organizations to be more grassroots and Canadian membership at the government level to be more limited. But membership in both organizations is a good means by which to build cultural ties.

Canada, not Quebec, is a direct member of the Francophonie. Quebec is merely a member by association. Also, your suggestion that we need to leave the Francophonie owing to the cultural ties involving book exports just shows your contempt. Clearly your goal is to silence French Canadian culture on the international stage as much as is feasible.

I agree that duplication is a waste of money. That's one reason I'd be somewhat hesitant about privatizing roads. That said, though, I don't have any proof either that privatizing them would lead to duplication. In fact, as mentioned before, I think that if roads were built by the private sector, they might even try to put each road they build to maximum use. obviously a road seldom use is not worth their money. How so? Under my proposal, I would be paying for any road use of my own, or any naval services needed by shipping lines that I may contribute to, etc., no? Or are you more concerned about your lifestyle being subsidized? Then you misunderstood. For me, middle of nowhere refers to a village many many miles away from any significant population centre and with a minimal population of its own. I didn't think I'd need to explain that. Oh well, now I have. Toronto is outside my home town but I would not consider that to be the middle of nowhere. I could imagine a company wanting to build or at least maintian some kind of road between Ottawa and Toronto. For the sake of efficiency, it might choose a road that goes through all major towns en route. Or if the market exists, it might build a direct route but charge more for it. Again, only if the market exists. Otherwise we'd accept the road going through all major towns on the way to Toronto. If you don't live in any major town, then tough. Move closer to it or buy yourself a Hummer. Yes, people need a place to live, and I'm happy that they moved close to Vancouver and built a reasonably high population density there. I'd lived in Vancouver years ago, and though it's still playing catch up when it comes to public transport, I found Vancouver to be well planned overall in terms of city layout. Also I believe BC has a higher gas tax now, does it not. That likely contributed to people moving closer together too. And if so, that would be a good example of why it's infrastructure is more efficient than here in Ottawa. Totally wrong. I don't mind my income tax paying for your kid's education if you don't have the money to do so yourself. I do mind subsidizing your imported and exotic purchases. Can't you see the difference between luxury and necessity?

When did I say that? Please quote. It's natural that when you can't argue your point you put words into my mouth. Nice try. And Surrey neighbours Vancouver. Coincidence? Had it not neighboured Vancouver, do you honestly believe it would have grown so quickly?It developed out of a spillover from Vancouver.

On the contrary. If I buy a product from overseas, and the company transporting that product has to hire protection from pirates on its way here, then it will add that cost as overhead in the price of the product. By paying that extra amount for the product, I'm thus taking some responsibility for the cost of transporting that product, am I not. Or did I miss something here? Now, if I decide to try to buy more locally and not rely on foreign goods, or at least rely less on them, then I'm also taking responsibility for not creating an artificial need for that extra protection to begin with, am I not? So unless I'm missing something here, it would seem that my proposal would make me more responsible, not less, for my actions and their costs and consequences. Now what you're proposing is that your taxes subsidize protection for these ships thus allowing me to buy foreign-products at a subsidized price paid for by your taxes. Now if that's your idea of my taking responsibility for my actions, then I think you need to clarify your definition of responsibility.

And I'm very happy for the golds all the players have won. However, I still don't think government needs to be in the picture. Privatize the Olympics, let the private sector take it over, and if it means a small budget or less frequent Olympics or less elaborate Olympics, so be it. I'll sill be happy for all the athletic successes. Bt I don't see how being happy for an athlete winning gold has anything to do with my love for my country. Whether any Canadian wins gold or not will not increase or diminish my love for my country either way. My love for my country is unconditional and not attached to how many gold medals we win. Even if we had not won a single gold medal, that would not have diminished my love for my country in the least.

And again, let's not confuse nationalism with patriotism. I love my country, but government spending at the Olympics is pure nationalistic chest-beating with no other purpose.

And how will all of that spending and those gold medals change people's daily lives? The Olympics are not an essential service and ought to be a private-sector concern. I'm certainly happy for the athletes, regardless of nationality, who won those medals. However, it's still not a necessity and so should get no public funding. And besides, how does an overweight binge-drinking and chain-smoking couch potato share in the national glory of a gold medal? As far as I'm concerned, that gold medal was earned the the athlete in question and not his country.

Who cares about owning the podium. That's just a bunch of expensive nationalistic chest-beating paid for by our tax dollars.

Just transfer at least some military responsibilities to the private sector. For example, protection for commercial vessels at sea should not be funded by the government. Make it user pay, rent it out to those companies that want protection.

I suppose similar could be said for military expenditures too. For example, the Navy spends much money on securing safety at sea from pirates in parts of the world, mainly protecting commercial and industrial vessels. Why not let the private sector deal with that. An armed private merchant marine of sorts could be contracted out to escort commercial vessels. Again, it would mean an extra cost for shipping companies but less burden on the taxpayer. The cost would of course be included in overhead for imported goods. Again, you want to buy imported goods, be my guest, but pay the real cost of getting it to your table, and not a government-subsidized cost. Again, imported goods are a luxury, not a necessity. Government should be responsible only for our basic necessities and education.

If the local market is big enough, they'd certainly want a road built to exploit that market. Either that or move to the market. So the only reason they would not want to build such a road would be because the local market would not be big enough. In that case, why should the taxpayer subsidize road construction to benefit me because I live too far from market? Should the onus not be on me to either build my own road or move closer to a major urban centre so as to meet the supplier half-way? this is the problem with 'human rights'. I have the right to live in the middle of nowhere and expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab because it's my right to live wherever I want? Whatever happened to responsibility? Yes I'm free to live where I want. But if I choose to live in the middle of nowhere and no one wants to build a road to me, that's my problem, or at least it should be. Now if I need help from the government, fine, the government could provide me with free room and board in exchange for public service of some kind. Since most of that work is usually n bigger towns, that would likely mean moving me to the bigger town. So instead of building roads to nowhere, the government could save money by bringing the needy to civilization. Roads to nowhere ought to e considered a luxury for those who can afford it, not some kind of human right.

Of course, but I can't imagine you spending so much on a road and then not at leat try to exploit it for profit. It would just be too stupid. But again, companies like to function as efficiently and profitably as possible. So naturally they'd likely exploit the road to their maximum advantage by also selling real estate on either side of it by building townhouses, condominiums, plazas and other businesses all along that road. If they can't afford it for themselves, then they'd likely establish cooperative ventures. So I can guarantee that unlike public sector roads that often have nothing for miles on either side, a road built by a private entity with the intent of making a profit would be fully utilized. If you consider how many roads and highways we find in a typical city, I'm sure there'd be enough room in the market for two roads fully utilized on either side. Again, if one company cant afford it, it would work collaboratively with others to do so. Our taxes would go down but the price of goods coming from farther afield would naturally go up. Again, more or less what I'd been proposing all along. And then you'd be free to choose whether you wish to buy local or import. Two possibilities. If I live in a big enough city, you will build a road out of your own self interest. If however I live in too small a town to make it worthwhile for you, then that's my problem, in which case I can either buy myself an off-road vehicle to get around or move to a bigger town. Fair enough, don't you think? And again, this falls more or less in line with the original idea of making people more responsible for their decisions. If taxes are subsidizing roads to my little village in the middle of nowhere, is that fair to you? Certainly you'd expect me to either pay to build my own road or at least move closer to town, no? You're leaving something out of the equation though. If we did not spend that money, the government could pay off its debts thus keeping interest rates low. The government would spend less thus keeping inflation low. And the government could possibly lower taxes eventually once the economy is strong enough to handle it. So with low interest rates, low inflation, and lower taxes, then Seattle would have an advantage over us in terms of port facilities, but we'd have an advantage over Seattle in terms of lower taxes. Then if building a port really is worthwhile, the private sector could do so. Otherwise, the Seattle or US taxpayer would be subsidizing the building of a Seattle Port to bring things to Canada. Why would you not appreciate such a subsidy? Now as for port workers losing their jobs, the lower taxes over times would lead to more spending money in our pockets which we'd spend elsewhere thus creating jobs elsewhere. Yes, it may be the government's job to guarantee jobs for all. However, it's not the government's job to dictate what those jobs will be.

I'd choose to go on the road that charges the lowest tool, taking my destination and the distance, etc. into account. Again, common sense, why would a company spend so much on road construction and then not exploit it to their maximum advantage for profit. They might build the road to get their goods to market. But considering the cost of road construction, certainly a company with half a brain would make money off of the road itself. What would be the point of having the road barely used all day except for their own trucks when they could make money off of it by setting up a toll booth and using it as a side business in its own right. That's only commmon sense.

So if I understand correctly, you'd build the road to get your products to market, but otherwise would not exploit the money-making opportunity of the road itself by allowing others to use it for a fee? You'd rather only your company use it even if it's almost void of traffic most of the time, and swallow the cost as overhead by having to sell your product on the market at higher cost? Clearly if your competitor decides to build a road of his own and share it, he could make more money on the road and so not have to swallow quite as much of the cost as overhead for his products, which in turn would allow him to sell his products at more competitive prices? your choice. And then I'd just use his road.

Similar applies to smoking, alcohol consumption, etc. It all adds up in costs to health care, etc.

OK, bad example, But I guess I'm thinking more of those who simply take road costs for granted such as those who take the car to buy one thing and then later take the car again to go to town to buy another, rather than waiting to buy both things at once. Or the one who takes the car just to gow down the block when he could have walked. Granted that last example doesn't contribute much to traffic, but all of this quicky adds up.

Thank you for the good example. Now aside from the question of whether the company would own only the road or also the land on which it's built, I think, depending on the details, such an idea could work to a degree. First off, if I understand you correctly, the more I'd use that road the company built, the more I'd pay the toll fee. If so, that could work in relating actual use to cost. Also, I'd assume that companies would rather share a road rather than each build their own in order to save at least some money, for self interest. On that front, I'd take it that if the companies should have to pay for the road maintenance, they'd add that as part of the overhead costs of their products, meaning that the more I buy their products, the more I'd pay for the maintenance of those roads. If so, I think that would be fair enough, and in the end your example comes close to my proposal interestingly enough. Now, honestly, I'm hesitant about privatising any kind of communications network (which includes roads, etc.), however, I won't say I'm totally against the idea. I could see the government regulating the use of roads but privatising them otherwise. I coudl also see ineffieciencies in this too, but it's something worth considering to make people think more about their road use for example. Alternatively, we tax resources as a means of achieving a similar goal. But the example you gave might not be a bad idea depending on the details.

Granted. However, when people just decide to gofor a drive for something to do they're contributing to traffic, pollution, asthma, etc. etc. etc. while others are using the same roads with actual purposes in mind. You make roads more user-pay and people would think more about using them.

I'm taking roads as an example here. Now as for the Middle Ages, what have they got to do with it? Just because we have lots of land it doesn't mean wasting our resources just to use it up ought to be the ultimate goal.

Of course I don't support subsidizing transit, and even municipal public transit buses should pay gas taxes like all others or alternatively pay the fees for private roads. Overall, the cost of bus fare would go up, but since the cost of driving would go up even more, more people would take the bus anyway. And the smart ones would find themselves with more take home pay in the end if they use our public resources more responsibly.

Then we need to distinguish between need for roads and need for additional roads. for example, imagine John dirves an hour to work every day, and Jack drives for three hours once a years to go to another city. On the one hand, John uses less roadway than Jak, but Jack uses less mileage per year than John. As a result, Jack is not likely to contribute to the need for another parallel highway to get to that city since plenty of people can use that same road if they all use it so infrequently. As for John, he would contribute to the need for another parallel road to alleviate the daily traffic he's contributing to. With a gas tax (or perhaps if there was a way to privatize the roads), then it's more likely that John would choose to reduce his road use. Same applies to bananas and apples. If John eats apples all the time and John eats bananas all the time, who's contributing the msot to the need for an additional airport runway for the banana flights? Certainly a gas tax would be added as an overhead cost to the bananas. While food generally is an essential item, bananas specifically are not. Again, government should cater to social necessities, not luxuries.

I do use the roads on occasion, and certainly I'd be paying the gas tax, either directly or indirectly, like anyone else. The only difference is that those who use the roads much more than I do would pay more, and those who use roads less than I do would pay less.

And how is the Commonwealth of nations any different? A little one-sided there don't you think?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Providing public education for all, or public transportation to ensure people can get to work are reasonable subsidies perhaps, but not subsidizing a person's joy rides any more than subsidizing candy in the candy shop. Again, it's a matter of making a distinction between necessity vs luxury. Luxury ought to be left to the private sector, with government dealing only with need. So those who want to use public roads without considering their extensive use of it ought to pay more for it naturally, and so the rich would naturally pay more... if they make more use of the roads of course.