Machjo

My idea was along the lines of a user-pays system. Seeing that the smoker, for example, is more likely to benefit from lung-cancer treatment than a non-smoker, it's only fair that he should contribute more to it. The same could apply with having fines for adultery for example, with the proceeds going towards services to deal with court costs for divorces, therapy for those who suffer mental breakdowns from marital breakups, to help children from broken marriages, etc. Same concept, user pays. The same extends to gas taxes for road use, etc. If we reform the tax system to more accurately reflect actual government costs, then people are given the choice to consiously modify their behaviour so as to not put an additional unnecessary burden on government services, such as road use, drug use, etc. If taxes do not accurately reflect real costs (e.g. income tax is quite arbitrary and has little effect on how people decide to behave since they'll pay the same tax anyway, whereas a more user-pay system influences their decisions by giving them the option to pay taxes or not based on their behaviour). So has murder. So should we through our hands up in the air in defeat and legalize that too? And on the principle of user pay, who should pick up the tab for research into STD's, the social costs of broken marriages and their effect on children, etc.?

Perhaps. Ieadlly though, we'd like revenue increases and spending reductions to go hand in hand. One solution I see is to go to a more user-pay tax base, such as a resource tax. A gas-tax is well-known example of such a tax. It could increase government revenue (or not, depending of course on how much income taxes and value added taxes etc are reduced to compensate), but the increased cost of gas would likely reduce road use, thus reducing government costs on highway construction and maintenance. This way, revenue increases and spending reductions could go hand in hand. Now of course if car use suddenly plummets, it might cause a drop in government revenue, but then again, costs go down on infrastructure costs too. That's the beauty of a user-pay system. Costs and revenue go more or less hand in hand.

You do have a point there. As for weaker drugs like nicotine, alcohol and marijuana, though the government ought to try to eliminate their use, I do agree that it's hypocritical to treat one differently from the other without good cause. As for prostitution, as if prostitutes aren't being exploited enough, the government should jump in and get its piece of the pie too? Again, if we tax them in the hopes of discouraging prostitution, I suppose it's a valid argument, with the revenue from this going towards helping prostitutes et out of the business, or Johns get their lives back in order. Same with drugs by the way. Sure the government could tax alcohol, cigarettes,etc. but always with the motive of discouraging its use and not as a handy revenue stream on the backs of addicts. Increased revenue ought to be seen as but a spin-off bonus in this case, but not as the primary objective. We should also consider that that revenue all goes towards lung cancer treatment, liver disease, etc. etc. etc. Same would apply with cannabis. Whether it's revenue from drugs or prostitution, the costs involved, whether health or social, will certainly outweigh the revenue steam generated, so that's a false revenue stream in that while it appears to benefit the budget, the costs that go with it bring it to naught anyway. Same with gambling revenue too. We ought to be looking at real benefits and not simply superficial ones. Revenue increases hand in hand with added costs are of no real value.

Canada Post is another problematic one. If privatized, would it become a monopoly? If so then like the TTC, it ought to either remain government-owned or become a consumers' co-op. If it's not likely to become amonopoly and could face natural competition, then sure I'd be in favour of privatizing it. However, either way, I'd say stop subsidizing it and allow the market price to prevail, which might mean more expensive for more isolated areas. If you choose to live there, you pay the price.

And as for selling off government enterprises, while the TTC is debatable ( though I'm leaning towards either government-run or converted to a consumers' co-op owing to its monopolistic aspect, and would not think putting up a natural monopoly on the stock market to be a bright idea), I do agree with selling off the LCBO. Regardless of the profits involved, it's not up to government to be selling harmful substances to the people whose welfare it's supposed to look out for. At the very least, privatize it.

Now this I can agree with. If the local community is so worth preserving from an economic standpoint, then certainly its profits and local salaries will reflect that, being higher than the average in Canada and therefore worth the extra cost in stamps. If not, then let's let that town diminish and retain the locals for jobs in other towns. Why should urbanites subsidize the rural riverside views of isolated homes. You choose to live there, you pay for it.

Considering that the very existance of government is based, at least in part, on moral grounds (the belief in the need for a society to organize itself for its welfare, protection, betterment, etc.), if you believe morality is irrelevant, then I take it you're an anarchist too.

If they're in jail, they can't sell it and hurt others by it anymore. Considering that they may be responsible for destroying lives, the death penalty may be appropriate in more extreme cases, especially with harder drugs. Not at all. To destroy a person's life by selling him Opium and such is paramount to murder. Even when you are no longer in contgrol of your body owing to your addiction? And who foots the bill to help you once addicted? And no moral responsibility?

There's no doubt that from the point of view of short-term benefits for those of us who don't buy lottery tickets, it certainly provides government with more revenue that can be used to pay off debt and provide services etc. without the need for tax increases. From an ethical standpoint though, it's a whole other story. I'm sure we could lower taxes considerable if the government got into the sale of various drugs, narcotics, etc. The ready supply of addicts would be a great source of governmetn revenue. But is that really the path we'd like to take? I'm certainly not saying lotteries are as bad as narcotics, but the idea in this context is the same except on a more moderate scale. The extremity aside, the comparison is a valid one. Do we want government revenue at all costs, or do we want government to show some kind of moral integrity?

So if the government disengaged from gambling, the world would stop turning?

Agreed. Whatever we believe concerning the legalization of nicotine, alcoholic, and gambling products, at the very least the government itself should not be engaging in it. If it's to exist, it ought to remain in the private sector. the government has no business selling anything that is harmful to the population in any way shape or form.

You're chances of losing outweigh your chances of winning. It's a false hope and exploitative of the poor. But it's not the government selling the climber his climbing equipment either. I think you missed the point that it's the government itself that is engaging in this activity, and not just some private company. I think it's reasonable for us to expect higher standards of the government seeing that it represents all of us. Certainly I could agree with requiring climbers to buy compulsory climbing insurance that would cover search and rescue costs or, if we can't control this (after all, with or without insurance, a person could decide to just go out and what could governemnt do about it except after the fact?), then introduce a tax on climbing equipment that would go towards search and rescue services. The same could apply to private gambling. While we can debate whether it ought to be legal, we can certainly agree at least that a gambling tax should be introduced to cover the social costs of gambling addictions, minor or extreme, caused by this industry, such as through gambling addiction rehabilitation centres, etc. But for the government itself to engage in such an exploitative industry? Just like alcohol. It might as well open up a tobacco company while it's at it. yes, that void is government revenue, and the government certainly fills it well. At the very least, we'd expect the government to privatize any industry relating to gambling or alcohol, etc.

The government should not even appear to be hurting or exploiting anyone, let alone actually do it. On that ground, just as tobacco crown corporations ought to be banned, same should apply to any government-run alcohol industry or gambling industry. I know some debate whether lotteries are 'gambling'. Some consider it 'like gambling' but on a smaller scale. Others say it's 'gambling lite'. No matter how we look at it, the government should not be engaged in anything that even looks like gambling. Essentially, lotteries are gambling by definition. Small-scale gambling, granted, but the harm is the same as extreme gambling, just on a smaller scale. And again, it's the most vulnerable members of society and not the rich who are likely to buy these tickets. Both socialists and capitalists should be able to agree with this at least. Socialists shold oppose it because it's exploitation of the most vulnerable memebrs of the community. And capitalists should oppose it just because we should aim at smaller government. And social conservatives should oppose it for obvious reasons. We'd think quite a few groups should be able to agree on this.

When we consider that the rich usually don't buy lottery tickets, and that it's mainly the poor who are buying them, mainly out of desperation and the faint hope of winning on the backs of other poor ticket-buyers, is it morally acceptable for the government to be exploiting them in this manner? While I'm aware of a debate concerning individual responsibility in gambling in the private sector, here we're not talking about the freedom to gamble or the right of a company to open up a casino. We're talking about the government itself engaging in gambling as a crown corporation, when the purpose of government is to look out for the interests of the people, especially the most vulnerable. Again, while we can debate the merits and demerits of gambling, or of our responsibility to help the poor, I'd hope we could at least agree that the government should at least not exploit the poor in this manner.

You might have a point here. What about increased healthcare costs for marijuana-induced lung cancers? And how does marijuana affect the operation of a motor-vehicle? Then we have the issue of quality of life? Certainly we have a moral responsibility to protect people from addiction. I'm not saying we shouldn't legalize it. I'm undecided on that front, though you do bring up a point. But legalized or not, it certainly would need to be regulated in some way. Por example, seeing it would likely increase hospital costs and costs to addiction clinics, we'd likely need to counterbalance that with high taxes on the marijuana. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of legalizing it, since that woudl also imply the right to advertize it and make it more accessible to a larger segment of the population. We have enough problems with nicotine on that front as it is. We can't look at money only. This would be government revenue on the backs of addicts! Similar to Lotto 6/49. It's usually the poor desperate to win some money who mostly buy those tickets. Same idea, it's essentially the government exploiting the least fortunate members of the population. I can understand a debate about whether the government ought to help the poor, and by how much. But I'd like to think we'd have unanimity on the idea that it's not up to the government to exploit the most vulnerable. Some drugs are so addictive that they will push a person to spend all their money on the drug even while they're starving, are freezing, and have no shelter! Some will steal or even kill for their drugs. Do we not have an obligation to help these addicts and prevent others from accessing these drugs? Personally, I'd be all for the death penalty for anyone dealing drugs, let alone the government getting into the business. The government's already into gambling with Lotto 6/49, and now we'll let it get into the drug industry?

What was his true level of fluency in each language? it may have been high, but if so, then it was not so common. Claude Piron, a one-time UN interpreter from English, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Mandarin Chinese into French, and now a professor of psychology at the University of Geneva, has quoted some research showing that the idea of the multilingual European is pure myth. Most bilingual Europeans speak their first language plus a neighbouring language, and only about 5 to 6 percent of continental Europeans are truly functional in English. When we say most Europeans 'know' English, we're talking about being able to ask for directions to the bathroom more or less. Hardly an ideal scenario for European integration. Ulrich Matthias, in his book La Nova Latino por la Eklesio kau Ekumenismo, points out that according to one study, only about 6% of Germans are truly functional in English, and Germany is a Germanic country don't forget. We mustn't confound the educated classes and language specialists with the general population. You're right. Robert Phillipson has interesting points on that in his book Linguistic Imperialism. Again, in most cases that multi-lingualism involves the language of the school and local languages, hardly an ideal scenario for pan-African integration. You've never been to Quebec, have you. When I lived in La Malbaie-Pointe-au-Pic, the only ones who really knew English were the local professional English teachers and a few tourism professionals working at the Casino de Charlevoix. The average Joe on the street couldn't function in English in the streets of Quebec City either, nor in Roberval. I even had to serve as an English_French interpretor in some meetings in Montreal since some did not know French while others did not know English. Sure, most Montrealers are French-English bilingual, but that's not universal. How much less outside of Montreal. Let's stick to facts, statistics and real life observations on the ground rather than spew out popular myth. I happen to love language issues and so often test the locals. In the province of Quebec, I'd sometimes speak English in the street just to test the locals. Same in Ottawa in English, and I can say that the vast majority of English-speakers in Ottawa can't function in French, even after years of training with the public service. I've met plenty of such federal public servants who've received such training. As for English-Canadians learning just English, it's true to a certain degree, but that still does not change the fact that most people in the world fail to learn English too. It goes both ways. This is where the Hungarian Model is one worth emulating. Since each school is free to teach the second language of its choice, students are free to choose an easier language if they wish. English and French are useless if they're beyond one's ability to learn them after all. We might as well let them choose their second language and learn it well than impose a language on them that will likely lead, as per statistics, to failure and monolingualism. As a result of this freedom, many students in Hungary now choose Esperanto as their second language to fulfil graduation requirements. Italy, Poland, Croatia, England, the US, Australia, and a school in Halifax among others do allow Esperanto in school. It may be limited when it comes to business (though some do use it for business too), but even if just to make penfriends and enrich his life, learning an easier language well will prove much more fulfilling spiritually and culturally than failing to learn one beyond mechanical test-taking purposes. Again, Professors Elizabetta Formaggio from the University of Rome, Helmar Frank from the University of Paderborn, Penny Ur, author of various teacher training books, all disagree with your assertion, based on hard research. In fact, on an hourly basis, older children learn more than younger children, and owing to inefficient use of time, it's generally advised that they not start learning a second-language in school until the age of ten if it's a national or ethnic language, or eight if it's a planned language. Also, a number of multilinguals and language experts, including claude Piron, Francois Grin, etc. support the idea of shifting towards easier langauges, based on their own personal experience in the field. Again, language policy, especially school language policies, ought not be based on urban myths, ideology and politics but rather hard research and facts. As for the myth that children learn more quickly, we forget that unlike in a classroom environment, they are exposed to the language about 12 hours a day and everyone is their teachers, not to mention natural motivation to communitate what they need. None of this is easily reproducible in a classroom environment.

Hard to say. The argument in favour of a voucher system is that it encourages schools to be more responsive to student needs. Whether true or not is debateable I suppose, but it might be worth getting our hands on any research that might be available on how it's affected the Swedish system. I know that since its implementation, it pretty well has support beyond any party limitations. Even the Social Democrats are'nt putting up much a fuss about it anymore. I'm guessing that it would be more efficient owing to the incentive to be more responsive to student needs, but I do agree with you that to be sure of that, further research would be needed. I'd be in favour of such research so as to allow us to discuss the issue more rationally too. Until then, I suppose it's not likely to go far as a political issue. The other ideas with regards to language policy I think have stronger cases. There is plenty of economic research with regards to the economic impact of various language policies. Perhaps the most thorough of such projects is that of the language economist Francois Grin from the University of Geneve published in 2005, outlining how the difference between European language policies could involve a difference in savings to both the private and public sectors ranging in the billions of euros annually.

The mantra of just cutting spending is too simplistic. Some suggestions have been brought up, but obviously not convincing ones otherwise there would have been little debate over it. My question is, can anyone come up with suggestions on spending cuts that most could agree to across the political spectrum, something that could gain non-partisan support? To do so, it would need to be backed up either by hard logic that any simpleton can understand or, alternatively, with research backing. Among some examples that may or may not fit that category would be: At the Federal level: Internally: replace Official Bilingualism with Regional Bilingualism. Both Conservatives and the Bloc would likely support it. That alone would be a significant portion of the population. This would save the federal government at least some money. Externally: Consult with other countries to try to adopt a more efficient language policy for organizations such as the UN, etc. so as to reduce translation and interpretation costs there. At the provincial level: Switch to a school voucher system which would increase school efficiency, as per the Swedish model. This would not necessarily reduce government spoending as such, but at least make it do more. These are just some examples of how we could either reduce spending or at least get mroe for our money. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples beyond these limited examples, but I think we need concrete examples and not just a sweeping claim that we just need sweeping cuts. Grant each school the freedom to teach the second-language of its choice, and each pupil to be tested in the second-language of his choice, as per the Hungarian model. Few succeed in learning their second official language anyway, so we might as well let schools exploit local advantage and circumstances to increase the rate of success, and allow pupils to exploit their natural language advantage in the same way. This, again, would not necessarily reduce government spending, but would, like the voucher system, help us get more for this money, and with more bilinguals, would help Canada build more trade relations worlwide and more efficiently, thus increasing government revenue.

Just a few quick replies to this thread: 1. I don't think indiscriminate spending cuts are the answer. Any spending cut ought to be well planned, since some spending in key areas may be necessary and beneficial. 2. Someone brought up the fact that after the Chretien Liberals came to power, there was not much fat left to cut. I agree in part, but still think it's worth taking a look at whether they may have overlooked a few spots. After all, every penny counts. 3. As for selling off government property, it is debatable that that would lead to long-term spending cuts, since those are one-off events. Add to that that I'm sure it would be on a case by case basis based on hard evidence. More importantly, regardless of whether it's private or public sector, is whether it's receiving subsidies from the government. My main purpose in starting this thread was not to start an ideological spat, but rather on whether anyone could come up with specific areas where we could cut spending, and provide logical arguments as to why, either based on logical argumentation or research findings, not ideological leanings. Also, this thread was never intended to suggest that revenue increases may be necessary. That question, though a valid one, would be for another thread, where we could discuss possible sources of revenue increases. Contineu on, folks, and please be civilized about it.

While I can agree with the government creating jobs, job-creation must never, ever be the primary objective of any job, but always merely an added bonus, with the service provided by that job being the primary objective. A make-work job is just expensive welfare.

There is such a thing as 'relatively' or 'comparatively' painless. For example, putting an end to further highway construction and suburban expansion is not going to kill anyone. Or cutting language training programmes for public servants and redesignating certain parts of the country as monolingual English or French-speaking may cost language teachers, translators, and interpretors their jobs, but seeing that those same persons are highly qualified professionals, as painful as it might be for them, they could find work again with relative ease compared to an unskilled worker, not to mention that their higher salaries while working could cushion them from the worst of the unemployment. So on the one hand, you are right that no spending cut is totally painless, but targeted spending cuts could be relatively painless compared to alternative spending cuts. The same could apply if Canada applies pressure on the UN to reduce the number of official languages used there. The ones to lose their jobs would be highly qualified individuals for the most part, and so they would not be unemployed for long before finding new jobs in the private sector while saving government money without having to sacrifice any core programme, thus leaving the most vulnerable members of the population relatively untouched by such spending cuts.

Nothing very special about that video that I could see. As for Palin generally speaking, she does seem to have a friendly personality. But I would never vote for her until she should undergo an ideological revolution in her mind.

Well, first off, it wouldn't be a question of no one else not being allowed in, but rather that they would be at a disadvantage when it comes to economies of scale or other naltural market advantage. Add to that that the consumer does have control as a voter for the board of directors. In theory, he could even vote against expansion of the company itself. If that company became a monopoly, it would mean nearly everyone in town would have to own a share, and therefore they'd all have a vote. Essentially, the community would be deciding how it's to be run. Again, that would be difficult when the board of directors is essentially voted in by the community. And of course while anti-monopoly laws would no longer apply, other laws would still apply as per any other company, so it still couldn't engage in any kind of illegal activity. The flip side to that is what to do when you're sick and tired of government bureaucracy preventing a good company from expanding so as to be allowed to become more efficient? If you don't like it, you don't join the co-op and don't buy the product, or start a company of your own to compete against it. No law would be stopping you. In some ways they'd have even more oversight in that the consumers themselves would vote in the board of directors.

True. But if we had only one gas company or one telephone company, it could be excessively powerful too. So, do we encourage competition between phone companies even if it does make them less efficient and more expensive and combersome, not to mention a large government bureaucracy to regulate them? Or do we allow them to monopolize and exploit their advantage unfairly? To me, neither option is very appealing. I could see a scenario though whereby consumers' co-ops would be exempted from anti-monopoly laws, so that they can beenfit from the advantages of natrual monopolization while still being controlled by their consumers to avoid excessive powers. That said, I think I'd still want some kind of control against monopolization, or at least controls applying to monopolies, for any other kind of monopoly.

But I honestly don't see how exempting a consumers' co-op from anti-competition laws would be harmful. After all, since a consumers' co-op is owned and controlled by its consumers, how could it exploit the consumers that own it even if it did become a monopoly? I'd be curious as to your thoughts on whether consumers' co-ops ought to be exempt from anti-competition laws and be allowed to become a monopoly? After all, worst case scenario, if it somehow found a way to exploit others unfairly for the benefit of its consumers, that's something any company could do regardless whether it's a monopoly, and the government could always restrain it too as a last resort. Personally, I'd feel quite comfortable with a consumers' co-op becoming a monopoly.