Machjo

OK, if a person can prove that he needs to drive to work to survive, since he can find no other work, and his salary is pushing him below the poverty line owing to the rise in the gas tax, then I could see some kind of credit being given to him like the GST tax credit some people get. These would be reserved for exceptional circumstances though. For those who can afford to find work near home or to move near work, then let them do so and compensate by reducing spending on infrastructures, thus allowing the government to lower overall taxes eventually as the transportation infrastructure becomes increasingly efficient owing to more people living near work.

In general, I agree with your assessment. However, there can be varying extremes of nationalism. For example, let's suppose someone believes Canada to be morally superior to the US owing to our national health care system, would that not fit in, at least to a certain degree, with the definition of 'a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another'? Sure it would be a mild form of nationalism, but it would still fit the definition, would it not?

Patriotism and nationalism are very different concepts. In fact, patriotism is an important element in the fight against nationalism. Essentially, here's how I define the two terms: nationalism: a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another. patriotism: a love for one's country.

The market would adjust. If housing becomes too expensive in town, that makes it profitable for a company to build more housing in town. With more people moving out of town and into the suburbs, and also preferring to shop near home, the suburbs would start to develop their own central business districts independently of the downtown core. As downtown businesses start to suffer, they'd start moving into the suburbs. So inner city housing prices would go up while suburban housing prices would go down. Inner city commercial real estate would go down while suburban commercial real estate would go up. Local governments would react to this through new zoning rules. As a result, much inner city commercial real estate would be converted into residential, while some suburban residential real estate would be converted into commercial. As this process continues, housing prices would gradually readjust to the demand. As a result, any such increase in housing costs would be temporary. Add to that that with a more efficiently restructured urban environment, and more people able to walk or cycle to work, governments would spend less on roads, leading to overall tax reductions. So in the end, with reduced government spending on roads, and thus less taxes overall, we'd all come out on top. So then why not let the farmer pay for the roads he's using and then add the price into the product? If that happened, the farmer living near town would have an advantage over the farmer living farther afield. And the urban dweller living near a farm would have an advantage over the others.This would obviously shift real estate values, with urban agricultural lands increasing in value while commercial, residential and other real estate in small towns would go up too. Again, it would be promoting a healthier mix in the cities, forcing each of us through our actions to be more responsible in how we use urban infrastructure, thus making it more efficient. How can we do that when we don't know the real cost of it? My apologies if I have a humanitarian streak. I don't see things n black and white none-the-less. Certainly there is a ceiling below which a person might need help. That does not change the fact that for the rest of us, we need to create a system that encourages more personal responsibility in the use of urban infrastructure, health care, etc. And where did you get that statistic? The majority of us are taxpayers. Again, you seem to be looking at things in black and white, either all taxes must be based on income or all user pay. I believe a balance could be reached whereby we could still keep a minimal income tax to help the poor, education, and other services that benefit all more equally. But for everything else, it ought to be either privatized or at least shifted towards a more user-pay system. Fine. Then a simple solution is for the government to put cut spending to the bone and let people organize themselves to build their own roads and privatize healthcare too. I'm undecided as to whether I prefer privatized healthcare over medicare. But I am decided that if it's going to be medicare, then the taxes for it ought to be more user-pay. Then you misunderstood my logic. It was based on irresponsible choices such as smoking, drinking, eating junk food, buying a house far, far away from work, etc. Choosing to keep a child with down syndrome is simply a compassionate act. She did not choose for that child to have down syndrome. A person chooses to drink, smoke, buy a house far from work, etc. A person does not choose to have a baby with down syndrome. You do recognize the difference between choice vs things beyond our control, do you not? Again, I'd have no issue with my income taxes going towards helping a child with down syndrome, or educating the population, etc. My issue is with self-inflicted problems. For those, either we privatize altogether or we make the tax more user pay, but certainly those things should not be paid for through income taxes. If you're referring to helping the poor and most destitute, fine. If you insist on an all or nothing approach, then I'd choose to abandon the poor and go totally user pay. My reason for this is that it would promote more efficient structures owing to individual decisions aimed at avoiding taxes. This increased efficiency of government services and urban infrastructure would save us all money, leaving each individual with more money to give to charity of his own free will as he pleases. Right now, we have less money to give to charity since it's all going towards subsidizing people's hummer-driving habits.

And that's the problem. The system should not make such assumptions. Sure it might be fair for me to pay some income tax to help the poor, but the poor also have a responsibility to use that money responsibly to help give them a hand up. If I'm paying my taxes and choosing to live healthy, live near work, etc., while a person on social assistance decides he needs a car, I see an issue there. Now, if there is some special reason he needs a car, fair enough, maybe persons with disabilities or other special circumstances could get some kind of government tax credit to compensate for the higher cost of gas and certain goods. However, while it might be reasonable for some of my income tax to help the poor, or education, or other things everyone should benefit from equally, things that not all benefit from equally should be taxed not on income but rather a more user-pay system. Roads are one such example. Not everyone benefit equally from roads, so those who benefit more from them should pay more for them too. There needs to be some social responsibility built into the tax system. Why would I not be as healthy for taking the bus? And what if I walk or cycle to work? I don't quite understand what you're saying here. In the case of roads, yes, all benefit, but certainly not equally. The hummer driver living in the suburbs and working in town is certainly benefiting a lot more than the asthmatic city dweller (who likely seldom uses his car except on the odd occasion to go camping) living near a major highway into town used mainly by suburbanites.

Not quite. Many Quebecers are very republican.

Good point to a degree. But what about the non-smoker who dies of lung cancer owing to the smoking spouse? Or what about the urban asthmatic suffering from the exhaust fumes to which the suburbanites are more than willing to contribute to the urban environment? I'm a man. As for women living longer than men, I'm willing to put up with some transfer to them on the grounds that they do provide the next generation. Now you could argue that just because a woman is a woman it doesn't mean she'll have any children. Or just because a man is a man, it doesn't mean he can't adopt a child. You do raise a valid point here and I'd need to think about it more. If it is a serious issue, then I suppose we could go towards mandatory personal retirement savings with each keeping his own money. One argument in favour of women living longer than men though is that it's not owing to any lifestyle choice. It's not their fault they live longer. There's a difference between that and a smoker/drinker/driver, etc.

Well, if we think of it as a user-pay system, then that means government is keeping city housing prices artificially low. So please, cut the subsidies and let me deal with the fallout on my own. Remember, my income taxes would be lower too to compensate. And even if my housing becomes unaffordable, then I'd be forced to make a decision between moving out to cheaper housing in the suburbs and pay more gas tax or pay more rent or mortgage and stay in town. Either way though, at least I wouldn't e benefiting unfairly from other people's lifestyle choices nor would they be benefitting unfairly from mine. So in other words, the income taxes farmers pay are subsidizing the food of inner-city dwellers so they can live near shopping, theatres, etc.? How fair is that? So in other words, cut that subsidy, and food prices in the inner city would increase. Farmers would pay less income taxes though, and so would city dwellers, so that would compensate to some degree. If they play their cards right and focus on local markets, they might find costs drop. If they stick to exotic and out-of-season foods, they might find costs increase. But that is their choice after all. Or some farmers might decided that it's profitable to move closer to town even if the real estate is more expensive. Or some city dwellers might consider finding work in smaller towns. Essentially, this would encourage people of their own initiative to promote more efficient urban infrastructures and lifestyles. When John is subsidizing Jill's lifestyle, how can she be aware of how much she's costing him. In fact, since John is not always aware of where his money goes, he himself might not be aware he's subsidizing Jill's lifestyle and just wondering why he gets so little out of his tax dollars. My point exactly. This would encourage these rural communities to either move closer to the cities, or to encourage more city dwellers to move to the town and set up businesses there. Why should I subsidize someone else's choice to live out where transport is so inefficient? Do I have the right to move out to the middle of nowhere and then insist that the government build one long road for me into town so I can get to work? I totally disagree here. One simple solution to what you're talking about here is to calculate the eligibility along a mathematical curve, so that an unemployed person getting a job does not get cut off assistance automatically but rather receives assistance in proportion to his need. So if he can be partially self-sufficient, he still receives assistance, just to a slightly lesser degree, and calculated to still benefit him more than if he stops working. That, by the way, is already in place in Ontario. If you subsidize public transit directly, then it gives a false impression of the real cost of public transit. If you give assistance directly to the people in need and they have to pay market price for the bus ticket, then they have a clearer idea of its real costs. If we subsidize public transit directly, we're encouraging people to move out into the suburbs to enjoy the quiet life on the backs of the urbanites who are unfairly subsidizing it but not benefiting from it in any way. If we give the assistance directly to the person in need, then we can be sure that the really needy still have enough money to pay for their bus pass to find work, yet still not subsidizing the middle class that might be counting on bus subsidies to enjoy the suburban lifestyle. I'm pro-immigration myself, with a few restrictions. However, I don't believe we can survive on immigration alone. Imagine if every country relied on immigration. What country would be providing the births?

As for cutting government subsidies to public transit, I'm all for that. A gas tax accompanied by a reduction in income taxes would give me all the money I need to pay for the more expensive bus pass. And if I'm unemployed, then just give me more social assistance to compensate. This would encourage me to find work near home if possible and also to buy local foods if at all possible, thus reducing wear and tear on the roads. As for your cut, well, if you're living far from work, then that's a lifestyle choice you've made. Two options I could see there are: 1. You pay more taxes owing to the gas tax to compensate, or 2. You buy a car with better shock absorbers and you ask the government to stop building and maintaining so many roads out where so few people use them. Why should I subsidize the roads to your place just so you can enjoy the country?

Not necessarily. And even if true, it still doesn't change the fact that my colleague could also move closer to work to benefit from the lower housing costs, so why should I be subsidizing his road use? Again, not necessarily. Let's say we work in a small town but he lives in the city? Not a likely scenario, granted, but it could happen. In such a case, I'd be close to the agricultural food supply, while he'd be purchasing food that's been transported a long distance. Now for the sake of argument, let's say we both live in the same town. It still doesn't change the fact that I might be growing food in my backyard, or make an effort to buy more locally grown products, while he prefers to buy his food out of season, or exotic foods, etc. Certainly he's making more use of roads than I am. If taxes should be shifted from income to gas, at least to a reasonable degree, then that would automatically be factored in since the cost of transport would be added to the cost of the food product. How does income tax reflect this lifestyle choice? Couldn't we solve that problem by simply increasing social assistance contributions to reflect the increased costs caused by such a tax shift? This way, on the one hand, the worker could afford the extra cost of the bus pass, etc. if he genuinely cannot find work near home; while on the other hand still giving him an incentive to work close to home if possible. This would not necessarily involve an increase in overall taxes since the social assistance recipient would be paying some of that money back to the government in gas taxes anyway. What it would do though is ensure that we are not subsidizing the commutes of well-paid workers. After all, if you subsidize bus passes and pay for road construction exclusively from income taxes, the middle-class worker who lives next to work could very well be subsidizing the lifestyle of another middle class worker who chooses to live far from work. Simply increasing social assistance contributions would solve the problem you're referring to while avoiding the problem I'm referring to. Bingo, problem solved, with the poor man still able to find work farther afield if necessary while the rich man is not getting his roads and bus passes subsidized by other taxpayers. Why not deal with the root cause of problems through taxation rather than just the symptoms? I agree that we could never be exact on that, but we could still solve the more obvious ones easily enough. Obviously junk food is harmful, so a simple direct tax on it would be a reasonable means towards reducing my income taxes. A tax on equipment for dangerous sports (such as parachutes, mountaineering equipment, etc.) would be reasonable too to pay for search and rescue operations, etc. As for sexually transmitted diseases, that's a little more difficult to tax, granted, but it could be partially solved though fines for proven cases of adultery. Certainly I wouldn't expect the police to spy, but when adultery is committed in a public space or in some other manner that can make the police cognizant of it without having to resort to espionage (which would mean the adultery would have to be committed quite indiscreetly, and thus most likely involving a fling or prostitution, the most likely sources of STD transmission), that could be one way of making those most likely to spread STDs to pay for their treatment. No, this would not be very exact since without espionage adultery would be committed discreetly without penalty. I also acknowledge that this might hurt the poor more than the rich since a rich adulterer is more likely to be able to find a place to commit adultery with discretion, whereas the poor are more likely to do so in a more public manner. However, this could be compensated for to some degree at least by waving the fine for those below a certain wealth ceiling. This would limit its effect drastically by limiting the fine essentially to middle and upper class adulterers who are stupid enough to do it in public, but it would still be better than nothing in terms of a user pay system, and would also send a symbolic message to the public that adultery costs money in terms of broken families, child services, health care for STDs mental health care for victims of broken families, etc. etc. etc. Cases of adultery proven in court cases, such as divorce cases, for example, could also not be exempt from the fine for adultery. In this case, seeing that the rich are more likely to have mistresses, they would likely be a source that would have to pay the fine, and so still lead to a reasonably user-pay system. And as for pregnancies, that's a whole different ballgame. The birth of a child is an investment in society in that that child will eventually become a taxpayer. So why would we want to penalize a person for having a child? Yes it may cost more in taxes, but like I said, in this case it's in fact an investment.

Let's take a hypothetical situation here, and I'd like to read your thoughts on this: My colleague and I earn the same income and so pay as much in income taxes. However, my colleague drives to work every day whereas I walk to work, so he's using the roads much more than I am, yet I'm still paying just as much in income tax, essentially subsidizing his lifestyle! Would it not be more fair to lower our income taxes and introduce a gas tax instead so that he will pay proportionately more for the roads he uses? This same colleague is on a Mc-diet, eating McDonald's and KFC, etc. on a regular basis, while I eat healthy. Why should I pay as much to wards public health care as he does? By doing so, am I not essentially subsidizing his unhealthy lifestyle at my expense? Would it not be more fair to tax unhealthy foods and lower income taxes to counterbalance that tax increase, so that he will pay proportionately more for healthcare in consideration of the fact that he's willingly increasing the chances of burdening the system via his unhealthy habits? I don't see why this should be such a strange concept. After all, the same principle is applied to taxes on tobacco and alcohol products, whereby those who drink, smoke, etc. pay more taxes towards healthcare than the rest of us, as it ought to be. Why is this concept not extended to other vices? What incentive does the government provide me to use roads less or to care for my health if I know that no matter what I do, I'll still have to pay as much tax anyway? I'm not against income taxes per se, and am certainly willing to pay some tax to help the less fortunate members of society. However, I still believe that some kind of incentive must be built into the tax system to promote more personal responsibility. To rely excessively on income tax to the exclusion of other taxes removes this incentive by ensuring that responsible taxpayers will pay just as much in taxes as less responsible ones earning the same income. How fair is that that one person could be hogging the roads and healthcare while the more socially conscious colleague is subsidizing it? It's only natural that the less socially aware colleague will simply think, 'hey, the government is paying for the roads and healthcare anyway, so might as well use those roads and enjoy my KFC', with little thought for the fact that his actions are burdening my income taxes. Where is the justice in that, and how should we restructure the tax system to more accurately reflect how much one benefits from government services? And why is the right, in general at least, so opposed to such 'user-pay' tax systems, and are more in favour of everyone paying the same?

Technology itself is but a tool that can be used either for good or evil.

Interestingly enough, according to this, social engineering is not all bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)

I can agree with this to a certain degree in principle, but it is overly simplistic. Let's say I decide to drill a hole 100 metres under my neighbour's property to build a few more rooms there, do I have a right to do so? I could claim that he only purchased the surface down to his basement, and the rest is public property. Or waht if I decide to build a massive solar panel in my backyard that hides my neighbour's access to sunlight. if he's a farmer, that could cause a few problems for him. If that panel is built on my own private property, it si my right, yes? Now what if I decide to buy property upstream from town to open up a factory that will pollute all the drinking water downstream? Seeing that it is my private property, I can dump what I want in there, no? After all, it's not my fault the river decided to take the refuse away? Now, let's say you buy a house next to a beautiful public park. Do I have a right to insist that the government privatize it sot that I can buy it and build a nice big repulsively smelly animal farm. We all know what chicken coops can smell like. Your idea is overly simplistic and seems to suggest that all public property is wrong and that private property is absolute. That's an extreme view. I'm all for private property, but with restrictions imposed on it by society to protect the general public from the greed of private property owners.

Except for the first few sentences, your post doesn't make sense to me. If we define 'social engineering' as any act by a central authority to modify society, then simple road construction is essentially social engineering, as is the establishment of democracy. So if by definition social engineering is either socialist or fascist, and at least based on my current understanding of the term social engineering, democracy itself is a form of social engineering as it is 'an act on the part of a central authority to modify society' (and the democratic process itself does indeed modify society for good or bad), then democracy itself is either socialist or fascist. The only way then to avoid 'social engineering' would be to oppose government altogether, seeing that every policy of the government's does in fact modify social processes. Road construction ought to cease too, no?

So I'm curious then; is restricting immigration 'social engineering'? If so, why? If not, why not? When a government (i.e. central authority) decides to build a roadway in a particular location, if we consider that the construction of that road will affect the behavious of the population in terms of where they will go and where they will build houses, etc, or when a local government determines where we can buikld what, is that social engineering or not? If so, why? If not, why not? And what would be a libertarian view of immigration, vs. a socialist view vs a conservative view vs a fascist view, etc.?

You are correct; that was my intention. To be fair though, my wording was clumsy and so his understanding was reasonable. My apologies for the laziness in my wording. That was in fact my intention. It seems the phrase 'social engineering' is really a meaningless phrase thrown out as rhetoric. Or if it does have a meaning, it simply means 'a policy with which I do not agree'. It can't get much more ambiguous than that. Essentially, it's just a sign of ideological laziness. Instead, for example, of having to argue the point that freeer immigration is unwise owing to reasons X, Y and Z, it's much eazier to just spew out a meaningless phrase like 'it's social engineering', with no apparent need for explanation on the part of the accuser. This just drags the debate down, with one accusing the other of social engineering, and the other accusing the one of rich wing fascism, for example, with neither side needing to defend his argument logically. the one has no apparent need to define social engineering, and the other has no need to define fascism. They satisfy themselves with intellctual and ideological laziness and emotionalism.

Just to take an example, I can't imagine a small town in BC being able to afford French immersion, either financially or resource-wise. To expand this nationwide would simply be unsustainable, and therefore ought to be limited to private schools paid for by the parents. As for policy that applies across the board, one has to be developed that can benefit small towns as much as larger cities. The only way I can see that happening is in fact to give each school the freedom to teach the second language of its choice according to the resources at its disposal, and to allow each pupil to be tested in the language of his choice again according to whatever language he may have had the chance to learn. Otherwise, we are simply relegating many Canadians to monolingualism by forcing them to learn a language other than the one they could most easily have acquired, owing to lack of qualified resources, etc.

I admit that the title of the thread is somewhat deceiving. I should have said 'language education policy'. I myself had the opportunity to go to a French-medium elementary school in Ottawa until I'd moved to Victoria BC, after which I continued my elementary school studies there in a French-medium school until high school when I'd switched over to an English-medium school owing to the excessive distance of the elementary school from the suburb where I lived. I later had the opportunity to work in the province of Quebec. Add to that that my mother is French-speaking and French is one of my mother-tongues. That being said, I cannot deny that part of this opportunity was owing quite simply to luck. Had I not lived in a bilingual region of Canada such as Ottawa or at least an urban environment such as Victoria, I probably would never have had that opportunity. You are looking at it from the standpoint of what can benefit you and your children if you are lucky enough to live near such a school. This is hardly how government policy ought to be developed. It ought to focus on what is best for the whole community and not just for those who have the chance to go to such well-funded schools.

And that's unfortunate that the nationalist left can no longer discuss the issue rationally with the internationalist left without becoming either insulting, threatening, or outright violent. I'm not saying you personally, but just generally with my interactions in forums such as Rabble.ca for example. It really is a shame since we normally associate nationalism with the right, and yet it's now permeated the left too.

And that's why nationalism is so blinding. They can see only their own short term interests, oblivious to the fact that other countries respond to our policies. Clearly a protectionist policy on our part promotes a protectionist one on theirs too, resulting in us preserving our jobs against them, and them preserving their jobs against us. In the end, it costs just as many jobs as it protects.

So if John beats Brad, we should not only distance ourselves from John but also from his kind-hearted brother Bill because he happens to be John's brother? As if it's not bad enough to not turn the other cheek to to John, we should also show our contempt to Bill because of his blood relation. Brilliant. Or how about we treat persons as individuals and recognize that just because a person happens to live in a n oppressive country, that does not automatically mean he supports his government's policies any more than a Canadian necessarily agrees with his government's policies.

Oh, and let's not confound patriotism with nationalism. One can be quite patriotic and yet show no race of nationalism, while others, not realizing the difference between the two, will call themselves patriotic when what they really mean is that they're nationalists.

Okay, I hadn't realized that. So I guess the Canadian left is not the only one turning increasingly to nationalism; in fact, it sounds like the French left has gone even further down the road of nationalism.

Then how do you explain, for example, the rhetoric that health care is part of Canadian tradition or the Canadian identity? That is a clear sign of nationalism in its own right. A non-nationalist left would be arguing for health care purely on its own merits and demerits and not based on some sentiment of national identity, which by definition is an attempt at pulling at nationalist heart strings. Many on the left have indeed turned to nationalism. I agree that generally speaking, the left is more internationalist than the right. But in Canada at least, it appears they've both turned to nationalism as the driving force behind their movements, couching their arguments in tradition, national identity, national pride, etc.