Machjo

Partially agreed. Corruption can occur in government jsut as easily as in the private sector, or sometimes maybe even more easily owing to its access to various legislative powers.

I don't mind paying taxes for essentials. No one died from a lack of games though. So the private sector could take care of that. As for local taxes supporting it, though I wouldn't agree with that either, it would still be a preferable second-option. I suppose I should have clarified that.

Sorry for the typo in the title.

Certain industries are naturally monopolistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) owing to their being able to function more efficiently as monopolies than otherwise. The problem of course is, efficiency aside, such an industry, if allowed to monopolize in a single company, also riskks becoming too powerful and thus able to exploit its monopoly status unjustly. For a capitalist, this forces him into a catch-22. On the one hand, most capitalists are strongly in favour of competition, but allowing a company to monopolize would obviously eliminate all competition. On the other hand, the only way to avoid monopolization is for the government to intervene, which is anathema to the thinking of many capitalists. As a result of the complexities of this problem and the fact that a simple free market doesn't work well with such industries, some kind of government intervention is required. Various countries have various restrictions. In some cases, a company is legally allowed to own up to a certain maximum percentage of that industry, and if it surpasses it, will be legally forced to sell off a part of itself. Other countries might have other alternative or additional restrictions. This can lead to other problems though too, such as preventing companies in that industry to become as efficient as possible seeing that a monopoly status is in fact natrually the most efficient system within that industry. So how do we exploit the efficiencies of a natural monopoly while preventing the possible corruption that could accompany it? Some have suggested government ownership of a monopoly. This way, it can stillmonopolize and exploit that natural advantage while still being under government control to prevent corruption. The problem though is that government, while efficient and redistributing wealth or creating opportunities for wealth creation, is generally not the most efficient creator of wealth itself, thus brigning to nought the efficiencies gained through monopolization. One solution I could see to exploit the advantages of monopoly while avoiding the disadvantages would be to exempt consumers' co-ops from anti-monopoly laws, on the grounds that since they are owned by their consumers, they cannot exploit them unfailry, since the consumers themselves get to elect the board of directors. Your thoughts on this? Some

Even ignoring the environmental side of this, there is still the issue of resource depletion.

iyo. Agreed.

Simple free trade would give poorer countries an edge over us owing to their cost advantage. So instead of giving them money, how about we simply remove trade barriers against them? Also, let's consider that our current international language situation transfers wealth from poorer countries to English-speaking countries. According to the Grin Report published in 2005, the EU subsidizes the UK economy from 17 to 18 thousand million euros annually through the English-language industry alone (in spite of the UK being the wealthiest country in the EU), including textbook and dictionary publishing, IELTS tests and courses, hiring British teachers abroad, 'linguistic tourism' to the UK, university tuition there to learn English, etc. And that does not include the more subtle advantages such as being able to negotiate contracts more easily in their native language, etc. The same study suggested the EU (including the UK and Ireland) could save up to 25 thousand million dollars annually if it switched to Esperanto owing to the language's ease of learning! Perhaps restructuring the world's language order could be a way not for wealthier countries to give money to poorer countries, but to just put an end to the transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich in the first place. Looking at it that way, it's not our charity that these countries need, but justice. We need to restructure the world language order to no longer advantage wealthier countries unfairly.

On the contrary, our highway and suburban environments are in full growth.

On the environmental front: Cease funding for highway construction projects and suburban expansion. Make taxes more user-pay to make people more aware of the costs of their actions. For example, cigarette taxes are useful in making smokers aware of the costs of lung cancer. We have already expanded the idea to alcohol in relation to alcoholism, liver disease, car accidents, etc. through alcohol taxes. We could extend this to a gas tax to pay for road maintainance costs, and reduce income taxes to compensate. I believe a more user-pay taxation system would make people more responsible consumers, and thus reduce government costs naturally as people try to avoid paying these user-pay taxes by acting more responsibly, resulting in less traffic and therefore less government spending needed for road maintenance, etc. Since income taxes would decline and people would be free to choose to move closer to work, use public tranport, walk or cycle to work, etc., this would grant us enough flexibility to adjust to the changes, thus making the transition less painless, possibly even resuling in an overal drop in taxes for those who are willing to make the effort to reduce use of public infrastructure, while penalising those who choose to drive to work by hummer across town every day, thus hogging our roads, contributing to asthma in the city centres by contributing to polluttion, etc. On the language front: Cut federal spending on English and French language courses for public servants, and adopt the principle of regional bilingualism. This would save much money on language costs there. This would hurt language teachers, but considering that language teachers are generally more highly educated than the average Canadian, they sould be able to find work quickly enough. Add to that that provincial ministries of education could adopt the Hungarian second-language education system to give pupils a choice of second-language to learn. this way, rather than forcing them to learn a language they can't learn, schools would be free to teach pupils a second-language they can learn. After all, learning a second-language only to fail to learn it is a complete waste of money. Additionally, on the international front, Canada could express support for the UN adopting, revising, or creating a universal auxiliary language to be used at the UN, to replace the current system of 6 official languages and exorbitant translation and interpretation costs. Let's remember that Canada too is footing part of the bill for these translation and interpretation costs. And again, the ones likely to suffer most from this are highly trained and educated translators and interpretors who should be able to find work elsewhere with little difficulty. On the education front: Going to a school voucher system, perhaps based on the Swedish model, could encourage schools to use their resources more efficiently too.

In another thread, there was a suggestion that the government needs to reduce spending, but offered no suggestions as to where precicely spending ought to be cut. Certainly if specific cuts are likely to hurt the most vulnerable, political resistance to the cuts is likely to be high. So I've decided to start this thread to come up with suggestions on how to reduce government spending, whether local, provincial/territorial, or federal, in ways that might be politically palatable, or at least not too painful for the most vulnerable. I'll start with my ideas below.

Ironically enough, we might be able to 'pay' our climate debt not by raising spending, but by reducing spending. For example, introduce a five-year moratorium on any further highway construction and suburban expansion projects. This would involve an end to highway expansion and thus savings. It would also put an end to road expansion in new suburban expansion projects, again translating into savings. This would naturally lead to a free market demand for higher density housing, resulting in a larger tax base supporting a smaller urban infrastructure, again resulting in savings. Also, convert to a more user-pay tax base, such as a gas tax and reduce income tax. This too would encourage people to make less use of our transportation infrastructure, resulting again in less government spending on road repairs, etc.

Agreed. Either spending must decline or revenue must go up, and we know what that means. Something's got to give. The question though is how to reduce spending while making the transition as painless as possible. I'll be creating a separate thread on that in a few minutes, since that really is a topic in its own right. Those are the two responsible options. Then there's the inflationary third option too, that some simpletons would happily go for. Again, I'll be creating a thread in a few minutes on ways to cut spending while causing the least pain possible.

OK, you might have a point about national museums, but even then insteaad of taxes, why not just raise the entrance fee to ensure that those who benefit most from it foot the bill. That way, the family that has not time to visit Ottawa owing to other responsibilities doesn't foot the bill for the other family that does have time to visit Ottawa. What would be wrong with making it user-pays as much aspossible? Would that not be more just? Except at the ballot box. Agreed.

Necessarily? What about the Torontonian who'd rather just go out and play sports himself but has little to no interest in paying to watch others getting payd to have fun on the field? Will he be exempt from those taxes? or what about the Torontonian who's just going to take longer to get through the traffic to get to work? Will he be compensated? All the cities you named are medium-to-big cities. Of course such major events must be held in larger urban environments. Seeing though that the locals are the most affected, no provincial or federal funding ought to go to it. If a local town wants it, it pays for it with local taxes then. I agree we can never redistribute wealth exactly 100% to the penny. But I'm surfe you can agree that sports and arts spending through the school system is likely to come much closer to that ideal than focussed spending on arenas and such. Leave that kind of large scale spending to the private sector.

Where's option 3: 'let the courts decide'? As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the government in power to decide whom to select as defence minister. I just judge the government's performance as a whole. As far as specific ministers are concerned, certainly if any law has been broken, it's not up to us to go on a witch hunt. That's why we have a division of powers. Then if anyone has an issue with it, it's up to him to present the available evidence to the appropriate authorities and let the courts decide.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15484 This might interest you too, essentially just a spinoff from this thread.

By the way, I've also lived 9 months in a small Quebec town about 1 1/2 hours north of Quebec city, with a population of less than 20,000, and have lived in Montreal too. So I'm well aware of the unfair advantage big cities get over smaller ones when it comes to government funding for arts, sports, etc. Perhaps you ought to do a little more travelling.

I've lived most of my life iin Canada in Victoria, BC. Also, this thread is not about Ottawa's museums, art galleries, arts centres, etc., but about the Pan Am games. needless to say, I'm not going ot get all off topic and start pointing out what goes on in Ottawa on a thread regarding the Pan Am games. So going back to topic, yes I do oppose government spending on the Pan Am games, as I do government spending on all thearts venues in Ottawa. I'm not sure what part of my previous post was too hard for you to understand, but I thought it was clear enough from that post that I don't appreciate all the benefits Ottawa gets for being the Capital. And yes, I'd be all in favour of cutting government arts funding n ottawa, as I am about government funding for the Pan Am games in Toronto. If you see any contradiction in my position, pelase point it out 'cause I'd love to know about it.

And that's the whole point. The money for that all goes to Toronto, thus benefitting (or hindering, depending on point of view) Torontonians disprotortionately to other Canadians. Add to that that it's essentially subsidizing the entertainment of those who will watch the Pan Am games while those who are not interested in them still have to foot part of the bill. By redistributing that money to schools, then local schools, be they urban or rural, would all benefit equally in funding to improve their arts and sports education for all, and not just a few in urban centres. And before you accuse me of city bashing, I'm an urbanite myself living in Ottawa, and so also benefit more than other Canadians from Canadian arts funding. While I can just go downtown and select from a bunch of museums, the Arts Centre, etc., others around Canada are footing the bill, at least in part, for my entertainment. Would it not be more fair to redistribute that funding through school system through arts education to ensure all benefit equally, and then leave arts centres, theatres, arenas, etc. to the private sector completely? In otehr words, provide children with the skills, and then let them do what they want with them.

And the Pan Am games get no government funding whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly? If so, then I'm all for it. I highly doubt it though. I wouldn't mind seeing a confirmation of whether there is any government funding or not, including hidden funding such as renting out venues at below market rate, etc.

I was trying to be pragmatic in this thred. I agree with reduced government spending, but don't know if it's politically feasible. If not, then I'd figure the proposal in this thread would be a second-best alternative. By redirecting that money to the Ministry of Education, which is required to distribute the funding to schools on a per student ratio, then we could be sure that all children in a given province would benefit equally from spending in arts or sports education, etc., which is not at all the case when the money is spent on arenas, theatres, etc., where the money goes in a focussed way to a particular location, benefitting (or hindering) the locals of that area disproportionately to other areas even though everyon contributes as much to it in taxes.

I think you're confusing the idea of government leaving it to the free market on the one hand, and the government actively banning it on the other. Did someone propose banning it and I just overlooked it?

From http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm ANTI-SEMITISM BY POLITICAL ZIONISM Although Zionists and others dispute it, the undeniable fact is that revolutionary secular and apostate elements in the Jewish community in Europe contributed greatly to hostility towards Jews after World War I. This aroused hatred of Jews in general among many non-Jews. While a prisoner in 1924 in the fortress of Lansberg on the River Lech, Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf. When he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he was assisted by Goebbels, Roseberg and Streicher. From them came the declarations, “The Jews of Germany caused the defeat of Germany in the 1914-1918 war; the Jews of Germany were responsible for the terrible conditions in Germany that followed the war; the Jews of Germany are foreigners and they wish to remain foreigners; they have no loyalty to the country of their birth; they are not human; they are filthy dogs; they have no right to intrude into Germany’s affairs; there are too many Jews in Germany. As far as Zionism is concerned, the founder of Zionism and apostate, Theodor Herzl, sought to intensify hatred of the Jew in order to enhance the cause of political Zionism. Here are some of his “pearls”: “It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16) Additional words from the vivid imagination of this dreamer, from p. 68 of Part I of his Diary. So anti-Semitism, which is a deeply imbedded force in the subconscious mind of the masses, will not harm the Jews. I actually find it to be advantageous to building the Jewish character, education by the masses that will lead to assimilation. This education can only happen through suffering, and the Jews will adapt. Hateful views of Jews as being subhuman did not have to be invented by Nazi theorists such as Hitler, Goebbels, Rosenberg and Streicher. This ideology was simply adapted from statements of political Zionists such as those found in the writings of the Zionist Yehezkel Kaufman in 1933. In 1920 there were statements hostile to Jews expressed at Heidelberg University. These statements, arguing that Jews of Germany had caused the turmoil that followed the war; that the Jews of Germany had nothing in common with Germans, and that Germans had the right to prevent the Jews of Germany from intruding into the affairs of their volk were not made by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, but by Nahum Goldmann, who went in to become the President of the World Zionist Organization and head of the World Jewish Congress, and, indisputably, the most influential political Zionist in the world, second only to the Prime Minister of the State of Israel. In 1921, Germans in Germany were told that: “We Jews are aliens… a foreign people in your midst and we… wish to stay that way. A Jew can never be a loyal German; whoever calls the foreign land his Fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people“. Who spoke these vile words? It was Jacob Klatzkin, the second of two political Zionist ideologists in Germany at the time, where the Jews of Germany were enjoying full political and civil rights. It was he who had advocated undermining Jewish communities as the one certain way of acquiring a state. “They had no qualms concerning tearing down the existing Jewish communities.” Who spoke in a public address at a political Zionist meeting in Berlin and declared that “Germany… has too many Jews”? Was it Hitler or Goebbels? No, it was Chaim Weizman, later to become the first President of the State of Israel. This address was published in 1920, and, thus, four years before Hitler had even written Mein Kampf. How many Zionist Jews know of this vicious treachery uttered by these senior political Zionist leaders, these apostates from the Jewish People? At the Nuremberg Trials of Major War Criminals, Nazi propagandist, Julius Streicher testified: “I did no more than echo what the leading Zionists had been saying”, it is clear that he had told the truth. In addition to Hitler, Rosenberg, Goebbels and Streicher, many other Nazi leaders used statements from Zionists to validate their charges against the Jews of Germany. Such are the efforts of Zionist leaders to this very day to maintain a high degree of anti-semitism in order to enable them, in feigned horror, to then point to anti-semitism to support their idolatrous and anti-Jewish cause. In 1963, Moshe Sharett, then Chairman of the Jewish Agency, told the 38th Annual Congress of the Scandinavian Youth Federation that the freedom enjoyed by the majority of Jews imperiled Zionism, and at the 26th World Zionist Congress, the delegates were told that the Jew is endangered by the easing of anti-Semitism in the United States “We are endangered by freedom” he declared.

Thank you for clarifying that first sentence. At first I thought this was a Jew-bashing thread. We need to realize that the Jewish Faith and Zionism are two different causes entirely: the one is a religion, a spiritual path; the other a political ideology In fact, there have even been deadly encounters between Jews and Zionists in the past, and many Jews openly denounce the state of Israel. The actions of the Zionist state of Israel must not be confounded with the Jewish Faith.