Machjo

I should add that a Peace Corp could likely save us money too. After all, with the military, it's not just five years of education, but then five years of paid service too. With this Peace corp, it would be five years of volunteer service, meaning that the government would only need to pay for the education and then get five years of free service minus food, clothing, shelter and other necessities along with perhaps a monthly allowance. Much cheaper than the military model. And add to that that to join the military you must meet various standards. With a Peace Corp as proposed above, anyone could join and work at their own capacity, bearing in mind of course that the university contract would be reserved for those who can meet certain standards of course. perhaps an alternative contract, let's say three years of vocational education in exchange for five years of volunteer work could be offered too with different standards being required.

OK, point taken. I fully agree that junk food should not be subsidized, full stop. And I admit to being a little loose in my categorization. Obviously a farmer living right on the outskirts of town is not the same as one living out in the middle of nowhere. If a farmer chooses to live so far from urban centres where the food is needed, I fully agree that he should be paying more for road construction than the farmer living on the outskirts of town. Income tax does not do that, but a gas tax sure would. Again, I can certainly agree that we need to cut any subsidies to the junk food industry, whether direct or indirect. They're not screwing farmers over. Big Food Business (with its monumental and absurd political clout) is screwing everyone over, including the farmers who have been financially compelled to work for them. It's not the citydwellers (ie the majority of North Americans) who are to blame for this. To some degree I agree with you. If our tax system subsidizes those who live farther from work, it's natural that they'll be willing to move farther away if real estate is cheaper. That's not their fault since they're just reacting to what they think is a natural market trend, unaware that everyone else is unfairly subsidizing suburban transportation infrastructure. Thi does not change the fact though that this subsidy needs to end so that the real market costs can be made more obvious so that peope can make more responsible real estate decisions.

I could also see this as an alternative for people who land on hard times but are too proud to apply for social assistance. This way they'd have the option of joining the Peace Corp instead. Of course I'm not saying this with any intention of suggesting we eliminate social assistance or that we ought to look down on people on social assistance, and there may be legitimate reasons for people to apply for it that are none of our business. However, this does not change the fact that some people in need of help might feel very uncomfortable with the idea of applying for social assistance and so a Peace Corp could be an attractive solution for them.

I think the idea of a Peace Corp is a wonderful idea and we could always create something even better than the US Peace Corp (though this still wouldn't change the fact that they can still lay claim to having initiated it). I could see the establishment of a Commonwealth Peace Corp with a few improvements added. For example, in the Canadian military it is possible to sign a ten year contract whereby the government offers five years of education in exchange for five years of service. A Commonwealth Peace Corp could introduce this added bonus, except that it would be five years of volunteer work instead of paid work like in the military. A Corp de la Paix de la Francophonie could likewise be created as a francophone parallel organization. What would be your thoughts on this?

I could very well be wrong, but I do see some kind of change. The left recognizes already that it forms a majority in Parliament at the moment, but that it stays out of power merely because it cannot cooperate effectively to form a coalition, though it almost did that last year. It's only a matter of time before either the right or the left recognizes that to form a majority, you'll need some kind of coalition. The left is already starting to wake up to that, though it seems the right hasn't yet. Perhaps you're right about independent candidates, but I don't see why various right-leaning parties couldn't form a coalition of their own. For example, what about the Conservative Party and the Libertarian Party? If they should swing a little to the left, they might be able to attract members of the Progressive Canadian Party (descended from the old Progressive Conservative Party) an maybe some on the right-leaning end of the Green party. Though this would certainly prevent the formation of any kind of majority party government, it might at least allow for some kind of majority coalition government. And I think whatever side is first across the finish line to forming some kind of coalition is likely to determine whether the next Parliament will be majority left or majority right and, ore importantly, whether that majority will be able to coordinate its efforts effectively through a reasonably stable coalition.

Then again,quite honestly I wouldn't mind seeing more independent MPs on the left too. Having a nice mixture of independent MPs regardless of their ideological leanings would free from from party stricture, thus allowing for a freer flow of ideas, with some independent MPs, regardless of ideology, presengin new ideas to the House that would otherwise not see the light of day. This would also make both right and left leaning independent MPs willing to adopt good ideas from each other while parties on both sides must always reject each others' ideas for fear of appearing 'weak' or of admitting that their 'opponent' has just presented a good idea. Independent MPs are likely to be more cooperative on that front, especially since they really have no choice if they want to look for support for their ideas.

I'd tried the test a number of times before and have found it to be quite unreliable. Though I personally consider myself more left-leaning than right, that test usually puts me to the right, though each time I've taken it the answer has always been different, since too many of the questions are open to interpretation as to their exact meaning, and same goes for the answers. It's a highly unreliable test to say the least, though I suppose like going to see a clairvoyant it could be fun as a passtime or just for the sake of curiosity.

Of course I wasn't suggesting an NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition for the right, though that would likely be a wise strategic move for the left. Considering that it's almost been done just last year, it should serve as a warning to conservatives that if they don't get their act together soon, they could find themselves with a majority left-leaning coalition come next election. And as for those sitting to the right of centre, though they may prefer a right majority to a left majority, they may also prefer a coalition majority over a party majority, and it does seem that the public mood has become quite skeptical of any party majority in recent years. I've even come across conservatives hesitant to vote Conservative when they perceived that the Conservative Party could form a majority in spite of the fact that the Conservative Party was their preferred party otherwise. That says something to the fact that the public mood has become quite skeptical of parties in general. This is why I think if the right shifted to more independent MPs it could possibly attract more of these centre-right votes precisely because they'd then be less fearful of a party majority on the right.

Considering that Harper has never formed a majority yet, and that his lack of respect for basic democratic practices has led even some on the right to park their votes in protest with small fringe parties, it's not likely He'll form a majority any time in the near future. Even some conservative voters tempted to vote for the Conservative party will often do so only if they are certain it will not form a majority government! It's only a matter of time before the current Conservative Party simply implodes, but when that happens, I don't see conservative turning in droves to the left. Instead, what I think is more likely to happen is that many conservatives will turn to independent candidates, and this could have a number of advantages. For one thing, it could reassure moderate conservatives that no conservative party will be able to form a majority, thus making them more comfortable with voting their conscience. This could potentially lead to a conservative majority coalition comprising independent MPs or more likely a combination of independent MPs and one or more conservative parties. This would have the advantage of forming a conservative majority in Parliament while still keeping the conservative coalition in line by virtue of the fact that it is not a party per se with party discipline, but rather a coalition comprising various independent candidates and possibly one or more conservative parties. This would reassure conservatives that it is possible to have a conservative majority in parliament without any one party being granted excessive power.

Sorry for the delayed response; I've been busy. Now here's my response: They can afford to live there because urbanites and country folk are subsidizing them whether they're aware of it or not. City dwellers can walk to work or, at worst, cycle to work. Townsfolk often work at the farm right behind their house or can likewise walk or cycle to work seeing that the town is so small everything is nearby. Suburbanites are generally those who are most dependent on roads and are the ones who contribute the most to traffic and the need for further transportation infrastructure spending, yet on an income tax basis pay no more than their urban and rural counterparts of equal income for road construction. So of course suburban living is affordable for them; it's subsidized by those who don't live there! I've lived abroad myself and can say that geographically speaking, Hong Kong is not much bigger than Ottawa, yet has a much higher population. Personally, I found life there to be much more convenient than Ottawa owing to urban planning. Ottawa appears to have grown in a very unplanned, ad hoc, and so quite unmanageable manner, and subsidies to suburbanites through income tax certainly does not encourage more efficient urban development. A gas tax would more accurately reflect the real market cost of suburban life. The drop in income tax would lead to a more affordable lifestyle for urbanites and townsfolk who tend to live closer to work, while making the suburbs more expensive as they more accurately reflect the real market cost of living there as opposed to the artificially low cost of living resulting from government subsidies to their transportation infrastructure. This would likely result either in more suburbanites moving to the city centre or to smaller towns, or alternatively more businesses moving to the suburbs. Either way would lead to a more efficient urban infrastructure. The natural attraction this would cause between businesses and residential areas would likely encourage a higher population density too as people try to move near work and businesses try to establish themselves where their workers live. Artificial subsidies to suburbs does nothing of the sort but merely encourages even more suburban sprawl which only pushes spending on transportation infrastructure up even higher with no one understanding why every time we build a new highway it just fills up again with cars. That's precisely because the cost of suburban life is kept artificially low owing to unfair subsidies. If you're sincere in this statement I take it you support scrapping taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and have us pay more income tax for lung cancer and liver disease treatments? If you're sincere, you'll answer yes. Nice attempt at a cheap shot when you're out of arguments. But this is not at all the case; you clearly totally misunderstood my intent. I don't care whether my taxes go up or down, but I do care if they're being spent in an unwise fashion. If you want me to pay more tax, fine, raise my income tax. But make sure that money goes towards projects that benefit everyone such as improving elementary or secondary school education for all, not on just building ever more roads so you can live out your suburban dream at my expense. Again, if you think it's about how much tax I pay, then you've totally misunderstood my intent. Now if you do stand up and defend eliminating cigarette and alcohol taxes in favour of higher income taxes, then my apologies for questioning your sincerity.

When did I suggest she was. If anything, I was suggesting that her stance against her government was born out of a patriotic sentiment, a desire to better her country morally, which in this case involved fighting the Japanese Imperial Army.

Then you're quite ignorant of China's history. The Japanese attacked China at a bad time for China, since China was undergoing a civil war of tis own. When japan attacked China, the Communist Party offered to work with the Kuomintang, while the Kuomintang chose to fight a two-front war between Japan and the Communist Party. Other smaller parties ended up forming an alliance with the Communist Party since it seemed more co-operative than the Kuomintang. When fighting on the front, the Kuomintang would divide its resources to fight Japan and the Communist Party at the same time, so when the Communist Party retreated from the front, it could get public support for that act since the Kuomntang seemed more interested in politics than saving the country. Hasegawa offered to work with the Kuomintang first because it controlled Shanghai at the time, but it refused to accept a Jpaanese collaborator. So later, when the Japanese took Shanghai and she retreated North, she contacted the Communist Party and it took her in its ranks. Regardless of what the Communist Party had become since controlling the country, at that particular time in history, the Communist Party was far more reasonable than the Kuomintang. This might be a reason the Kuomintang lost. It burnt all its bridges. So that side of it has little to do with ideology.

OK, this I agree with. And this is part of the problem. Since I'm paying as much whether I use the highways or not, I might as well drive to work, buy bananas from Ecuador, figs from California, and oranges from Florida. Suddenly, traffic increases at our airports and highways, so the government increases our income tax to build more roads and airports. Well, since I'm paying more income tax now, I might as well make even more use of the highways and airports and import even more exotic foods and buy a hummer while I'm at it. I'm payng for it no matter how much I use it so I might as well use it to its full. I'm sure you see what kind of vicious cycle this creates. Because there is no obvious correlation between income tax and highway use, we are pushing our own taxes up by our behaviour without even being aware of it. Meanwhile, the government can't figure out why traffic just keeps increasing. Now if we ensured that taxes actually related to use to a certain degree at least, then people would think twice about using the roads when not necessary. Suddenly, people's behaviour would change when they realize that he who uses the roads pays for the roads. Then people would act more responsibly, traffic would drop, government would save money, and we'd see our overall taxes drop as we find ways to reduce the gas tax we pay. Hey, if you're starving to death, I have no issue with helping you get back on your feet and get an education. That's a far cry from my subsidizing your driving and exotic eating habits. That's precisely the problem. The only way I can see myself leveling the playing field is to contribute just as much as the others to traffic. So in other words, the only way ot benefit myself in such a system is to screw you over. And the only way you can benefit yourself is to screw me over. So in the end, we're all busy screwing each other over and nobody wins, traffic keeps increasing, and so government has o build more airports and highways. So you want me to screw you over even more? So do we privatize the roads? And what about monopolies? If there is only one road to a place,for example, the owner of that road will be laughing. Roads are too intertwined to be privatized overall, and that's why a gas tax might be preferable.Once people see how costly our roads really are, they'd start using them more responsibly. I could agree with that. Once we start paying less in taxes because we're not hogging the roads and airports anymore, we'd have more money to give to charity in the first place.

Wilber, you hit the nail on the head there. With a gas tax, people would naturally want to move closer to the things they consume precisely to avoid the gas tax. This would automaticlaly reduce traffic on our highways and at our airports, thus resulting in an overall tax reduction in the end. Sure it might mean less government revenue. But then again, with less need for highways and airports, it woud also reduce government expenditures too. So they'd balance out in the end.

Agreed. But how can I know this when our current taxation policy distorts prices. Looking at food as an example: If I go to a supermarket, sure oranges, pineapples and such might be a little more expensive owing to the extra gas used in transporting them here. However, this still does not reflect their real cost to society since it's our income taxes that pay for the airport and highway maintenance for these fruits. Now if our income tax were lowered and a gas tax introduced, then while the cost of all fruits would go up, that of more exotic fruits would go up much more owing to the more gas they consume along with more tax as a result. However, the cost of local fruits would likely go up less my the drop in my income tax, so it would be a benefit to me. If I prefer exotic fruits though, then I'm likely to pay more in tax overall, since my neighbour's income tax would no longer be subsidizing my increased use of highways and airports. It would be more fair that way. If I'm clogging up airports and highways while my neighbour buys locally and so just uses local roads, it's natural I should pay more than him. Since then I'd know the real cost of these fruits to society (since my neighbour would not longer be subsidizing my food), I'd react accordingly and either buy local or move to Brazil. The same applies to cars, furniture, etc. Once a gas tax is introduced and income taxes reduced, then the real cost of a product to society would be more obvious, and so people would tend to buy more locally or alternatively to move closer to industrial and agricultural areas. But what incentive is there to do that when I know you will subsidize my bad purchasing habits anyway with your income taxes?

As for seasonality, I suppose I'd have no choice but to pay more in winter, or I could increase my consumption of dried foods. But again, unlike with income tax, the choice is mine with a gas tax. With an income tax, there is not action I could take (other than lower my income) that could allow me to pay less tax. With a gas tax, I do have the option of buying products that have used less gas and so are less expensive. At least unlike an income tax, the choice is mine. Are you against choice?

No, there are not many farms where I live. A shift from an income tax to a gas tax would make that more obvious. Right now, we pay high income taxes without really being aware of the cost of all the infrastructure to get our food to us. If let's say my income tax drops low and my gas tax shoots up, suddenly I become aware of just how expensive that highway maintenance is. With an income tax, I have no incentive to try to alleviate that cost since no matter what I do, I'll still have to pay it. With a gas tax, suddenly I might become more attracted to foods produced closer by. When farmers living far the city suddenly realize that we prefer buying food more cheaply from farmers living closer by who don't have to spend so much on gas tax because they have less far to travel, those farmers will suddenly want to move closer to town too. Then, maybe there will be more farms close by. Also, food prices in small towns would likely plummet since farms would be just on the outskirts, and so that might make those towns attractive, first for retirees since they have no jobs to go to, and then businessmen following the retiree market. As they move out of town to reach for cheaper food, farmers would be taking over some of that residential land in the suburbs. So essentially we'd be seeing a gradual decline of the suburb as agricultural lands begin to reclaim it and suburbanites move either into the city centre to be close to work to save on gas commuting to work, or to the small towns to find work to benefit from lower food prices. Over time, both would benefit. The one moving into the inner city would find that as more farms relocate into what were once suburbs, food prices would drop in the cities. And the one who'd relocated into a small town could find a place to live near work. So essentially, suburbs would tend towards disappearance and agriculturalization, cities would gradually transform into mid-sized towns with an efficiently high populaiton density, and villages would grow into such towns. A gas tax would naturally incite people towards more efficiency.

On the contrary. We pay for the fuel already at the regular market price, so clearly proposing a tax shift from income to gas has nothing to do with paying for the gas which I'm paying already, regardless of whether I drive or not. After all, the cost of that is already included in the price. That means that a gas tax would force me to pay for more than just the cost of the gas. The idea here is that instead of my income tax paying for transportation infrastructure such as road construction, etc. it would be my gas tax. Again, even if I don't drive and choose to walk to work, i'd still be paying this tax as it would have to be calculated into the new overhead costs of the farmer. I don't understand what you mean when you say I wouldn't have to pay anything if we had a gas tax. Of course I would. The difference though is that with an income tax, I pay as much no matter what I do. With a gas tax, it depends on what I buy. If I buy locally, I make less use of highways and so pay less (though still pay my part for the road use I have contributed to), while if you decide to buy from across the country, you'll pay much more gas tax as you should since you're contributing to traffic at airports and whatnot. Did I miss something here?

I'd like to know your understanding of the differences between patriotism and nationalism, and the impact each has on society. As for me personally, I tend to define them as follows: patriotism: a love for one's country nationalism: a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another Based on these definitions, I tend to see patriotism as being more benign, and also more flexible in its applicability. A country is not necessarily a political entity, but rather any piece of land and the people inhabiting it, which could be defined differently by each person. Some people might limit its application to only within the borders of their own political state, while others might apply it more generally to the large tract of land called earth. So it does allow for a wide interpretation. Also, since it merely involves love for that land and its people, it's also void of any political or ideological connotation. As for nationalism, I see it as being more likely to be defined along the lines of a political state, along with perceived racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, ideological, and other attributes in the mind of the believer, who believes in this national ideology as the ideal for which to strive, and the ideal to promote abroad. It could be either a left-leaning or right-leaning nationalism, but either way, it will be based on a belief that the ways of a particular nation are superior to those of others. Another possible distinction between nationalism and patriotism is as defined by George Orwell: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html I think he puts it better than I do.

What in my posts make you think that. If anything, I would have though that they revealed an awareness that food is not produced in stores, but rather farther afield, and that brining people and food closer together would reduce the distance between them. Unless I misunderstood something?

I agree to some degree. I'd tend to view nationalism as being more political as it tries to define a particular group as an entity separate from others but with a clear organizational structure within itself, such as a political state. I tend to view patriotism as being devoid of this political context in that it simply is a love of a place and the people living there. In that sense, patriotism is not linked to any particular ideology, be it left or right, whereas nationalism likely is, though that could be a right or left leaning nationalism, depending on the person. To go back to the example of Hasegawa Teru: at first, even though she herself was a member of leftist organizations in Japan, she was more than willing to work with the right-leaning Nationalist Party (aka Kuomintang), since her sense of patriotism could simply see that what her country was doing to China was wrong and so she could put aside ideological limitations for the sake of a just cause, and thus was willing to work with a right-leaning party if it served that just cause. A nationalist could not easily have done that, since his focus would have been the aggrandizement of the nation, which in her case would have been Japan. Now here I could see a nationalist finding himself in a tough spot. For example, a left-leaning nationalist who should have perceived the Japanese national ideal to be left-leaning would likely have found himself in a tough spot. His sense of nationalism would make it difficult for him to fight on the Chinese side, yet his understanding of it being left leaning would also have made it difficult to fight on the Japanese side. He'd likely find himself in a bind. A patriot is more likely to look beyond that. Another example is George Orwell. Though he was left-leaning himself, this still didn't stop him from being just as critical of the left as he was of the right whenever he saw the left deviate from justice.

This is ridiculous. A history teacher of mine had a copy of Mein Kampf in his dest... in class! And irony of all ironies, this same teacher was a jew! So why did he have a copy of Mein Kampf? To better understand Hitler's mind and motives. Legitimate enough I'd say. But it's nice to see that Chapters has learnt from the best when it comes to censorship. Goebels sure knew how to keep undesirable titles out of bookshops.

Some may have noticed too that in my definitions, I referred to patriotism in relation to COUNTRY, and nationalism in relation to NATION. Country is not necessarily a political term. It simply refers to any particularly defined peace of land and the people living on it. Nation suggests a a group of people, wherever they may live, linked by race, ethnicity, language, or some other national characteristic. So based on those definitions, a partios loves all among whom he lives. And since country is can be loosely defined as any tract of land, it can even ecompass Earth. Nation cannot do that since by definition it is exclusive.

I could add to that that he'd fight for justice precisely because he loves his nation. He loves it so much that he'd willingly sacrifice his nation for a memory of a just nation, rather than save his nation in shame by sacrificing its justice. He'd love his nation too much to allow it to continue existing through injustice. This is the only way I can explain why Hasegawa Teru sided with the Chinese over her own people. It certainly was not out of self-interest. Here are a few other words of hers from her book 'En Ĉinio Batalanta' (In China Fighting): "For us Esperantists, nationality is not absolute. It means only difference of language, custom, culture, skin colour, etc. We look upon ourselves as brothers in one great family, "mankind." For us this is no theory, it is a feeling. Externally, we are joined by a common language; internally, by a common feeling. We may love our own nation. But this love is not such as cannot coexist with love and respect for other nations." --HASEGAWA Teru En Ĉinio Batalanta Though this is referring specifically to the Esperanto community, I think it can also apply more generally to a healthy sense of patriotism.

Another question here: how do you define 'defending your nation'? A good example is the story of Hasegawa Teru (aka Green May). She had married a Chinese prior to the Japanese war of aggression against China. After her marriage, she'd settled in China, and then the war broke out. At first, she offered to help the Kuomintang against the Japanese, but they turned her down since they couldn't trust 'the enemy'. Later, she offered to help the Communist Party, and it chose to accept her in their ranks. She was offered a radio station allowing her to broadcast the truth of what was going on in China to her Japanese brethren in Japan over the radio waves in fluent Japanese. The Japanese Imperial Army counter-attacked through radio transmissions of their own portraying her to be a traitor to the nation. On one occasion, when she met Zhou Enlai, he told her she was a true patriot, fighting not for Japan itself, but rather for its spirit (i.e. all that was good in the Japanese national character).So though she may have been a traitor to her nation, she was among the few Japanese who remained faithful to the spirit of her nation. This too I believe can serve as a means of distinguishing the difference between patriotism and nationalism. A patriot does not fight for any nation, but rather simply for justice. And this faithfulness to justice stems precisely from his sense of patriotism. Because he loves his country so, he'd be willing to sacrifice it in exchange for a memory of a just nation. The nationalist, however, would never turn against his nation no matter how wrong it may be, no matter that he must turn against justice in the process. He'd rather sacrifice all justice for the nation to survive and thrive than to have but a memory of a nation sacrificed for justice. So I disagree that a patriot would fight for his or any other nation. A patriot would fight for justice.