Machjo

By the way, it would help for us to be familiar with the parties already out there to avoid reinventing the wheel and just creating more or less of a duplicate of another party under a different name, thus doing nothing more than splitting the centrist vote between the Green Party, blue Liberals, the Progressive Canadian Party, and this new party of yours.

Again, I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel. By the sounds of i, you're looking for some kind of red tory or blue liberal party. Seeing that the Progressive Canadian Party is the direct successor to the Progressive Conservative Party (established by Progressive Conservatives who'd refused to join in Canadian Alliance, and who consider their new party to be the direct descendant of the Progressive Conservative Party), the Green Party itself is really more or less red tory on the ideological front, but with a moderate environmental streak (the NDP is greener than the Green Party policy-wise), and that the Liberal Party under Ignatieff ha shifted to the blue liberal spectrum, we thus have 3 parties right there that could serve as that centrist party. Do we really need a fourth?

Another possibility would simply be to require a 2/3 superajority to circumvent this law, with no simple majority being sufficient for anything. If it really is an emergency, and a genune one, a 2/3 majority would be easy to achieve.

Another solution I could see woud be a clause allowing the government to rescind this law for a period of no more than one year on a simple majority vote, and permanently on a supermajority vote of let's say 2/3 majority. The fact that the government is not likely to be able to get a supermajority vote would force the government to vote to rescind the law every year if that's its intention. On the surface this might make the law useless, but in fact it could have a symbolic value. Obviously any government that should vote to rescind this law for a year would be quesitoned on it, forcing it to have a good reason for doing it, and eve then not abuse it and stay at least somewhat within budget. The psychological effect of having to rescind it each year would serve as a reminder to politicians.

Not necessarily. It would have prevented Harper from spending that money without first increasing taxes, or alternatively to reduce taxes without first spending money. The issue here is not a right-left issue, or how much the government spends, but rather to ensure it spends within its means. If it wants to increase spending, then it must increase taxes first. Harper did exactly the opposite on both fronts. He reduced taxes and increased spending. So again, as for my goal, it's not to impose either capitalism or socialisem. That would be a separate issue. Rather, it's to impose fiscally responsible government either way. If socialist, fine, but raise taxes first. If capitalist, fine, but reduce spending before you reduce taxes. In other words, balance the budget first and then you can spend to your heart's content. This would mean of course that parties would have to be more honest. If the conservatives want to cut taxes, they'll have to cut spending too. If the NDP wants to increase spending, taxes must go up too.

This would be very different from California's. It would only prohibit tax reductions and spending increases under certain conditions. Tax increases and spending reductions would be unaffected by this law. In that sense, it's nothing like California's system.

Then that's why we aim at yearly budget surpluses in good times, so that in bad times we can tap into the surplus.

By leave them alone, I did not mean isolationism but rather international relations on an equal footing, whereby they would have maintained self-governance and traded with Europe. They certainly would have been thirsty for our knowledge, but woudl have adapted it to their culture.

I haven't looked at the Progressive Canadian Party website for awhile, so I decided to take another quick glance at it. To my surprise, it's policies are very similar to those of the Green Party. Now I realise I shouldn't be too surprised by this considering that many current members of the GPC are former members of the Progressive party of Canada. I don't see why the Greens and the Progressive Canadian Party chouldn't create centre-right coalition, perhaps called the Centre Democratic Coalition.

Now it sounds like in the OP, the poster was looking for a progressive conservative party. If that's what he's looking for, then why not just look to the successor of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Progressive Canadian party: http://progressivecanadian.ca/ Or, if he's looking for a more major party, then among the big 5, the Green Party would likely come closest as a red tory party, albeit with an environmental streak to it. Or among the big 4, then it would be a toss up between the CPC and LPC I suppose.

And so this would force government to think ahead and ensure large budget surplusses in good times to prepare for the following recession. Well, the BOB belongs to the government, so it is essentially a part of the government. The problem with inflation though is that it hurts those who have no money to hedge against the inflation the most, thus acting as a kind of regressive income tax, which is not particularly fair to the poor who work hard for their money just to then see it wither away. Either that or tax increases. That's my whole point. Make people aware of the real costs of government by putting an end to printing or borrowing our way to 'prosperity'. It would help make people more aware that we get nothing for nothing. If we want more services, then taxes go up. We want low taxes, then government spending must drop. It would make it clear to everyone that it is either or, and we must make our choice. That might work too. But it would have to be an automatic tax increase whether the government likes it or not, whether it's popular or not.

Thanks for the article. An interesting read indeed. I'd be curious though on your thoughts on the proposal in the OP. As far as I can tell, if such a law were in place, the government would find itself having to make some tough decisions. Harper has reduced taxes while increasing spending. With such a law in place, he'd have been forced to make very different decisions, either to reduce spending, increase taxes, or both, thus making it fdifficult for him to create a false impression of how affordable the current government is. So what are your thoughts on the OP?

I'd like your opinions on this. Let's say we introduced the following law to force government to be honest with the public as to the real costs of government: 1. Spending on the part of each level of government must restricted to within its budget within one year of the passing of this law. 2. The federal government would be prohibited from creating any new money as long as either the Bank of Canada rate is above 0% and the national inflation rate is not below 0%. 3. No level of government would be allowed to either reduce taxes or increase spending as long as it carries any debt, the Bank of Canada rate is above 0%, and the rate of inflation within its jurisdiction is not below 0%. The way I see it, such a law woud force any socialist government to raise taxes before it could even consider spending increases, and would force any conservative government to reduce spending before it could even consider any tax reductions. In both cases, it would force the governemnt to be honest with the public about the real costs of its decisions. What would be your thoughts on such a proposal?

Fair enough. I admit I ws being a little tongue in cheek in the last few posts just to make a point, that to close our borders off to immigration now that we're here is a little disingenuous to say the least. I also believe that considering that the First Nations have little to no space for the development of their own languages and cultures even on their own soil, which has been considerably Europeanized, I think it's only fair that their languages be granted some kind of official status within our education system. After all, when in Rome, right?

Thanks. Well, I guess 400 years ain't exactly FOB now is it. Then again, FOB does certainly taste better than the rotten stuff that's been in the fridge for awhile.

So what are you proposing, that we ship people back? Yes, I'd asy it's a little late for that. People who are born here have a right to be here.

I'm not sure what an FOB is, but if you're referring to the First Nations, FYI there were no government beneifts for First Nations back then, and it's not up to you to decide that because I choose to not build a big strip mall on my land that you thus have a right to confiscate it. Maybe I'd just need the time to do it. Had we left the First nations alone, they'd likely be quite advanced today, trading with England and France as equals rather than becoming England and France.

The point I was making was that a degree alone does not guarantee good character. And the idea that experience alone suffices is ridiculous. Without a doubt Goebbels had more government experience than the rest. So, do you still wnat to go with the one with the most experience and formal accademic education? When it comes to running a country, the examples above prove that character is more important than skill. No matter how unskilled a politician Tolstoy might be, his literature clearly indicates he would never approve of the 'Final solution' at least. Goebbel, on the other hand, actually did prove to be highly skilled. Does that win him applause? In the end, we really ought to vote for our politicians based on character, not just academic skill that can be used equally for good or evil.

It's a little late now to cut back on immigration. We should have done that a few centuries ago.

Jesus Christ, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, 'Abbas Effendi, and many other such greats surpassed the 'educated' of their time and had no university degree, and Goebbels (the Nazi Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda) had a doctorate degree. Which would you rather have as head of state?

A feather in terms of political power, but not necessarily in terms of moral power.

Seeing that the UNSC ought to be dissolved altogether, why would Canada want even a temporary membership?

I was reading today that the Canadian government is still trying to get a UNSC seat by 2010, or was that 2012, I can't remember. Either way though, why would we want Canada to have such a priviledged position. I believe all nations should be equal at the UN, so why is Canada asking to be more equal than others? I resent the fact that the US, Chinese, et al. have this privileged position. Do we really want to attract the same kind of resentment towards Canada?

Then maybe this could be a good thing. Do we really want such a keener going out and expressing his hatred through an automatic rifle? I remember a friend tell me how her neighbour's son had joined the military saying that he was looking forward to 'kill myself a raghead'! I'm sure you remember Somalia years back when a Canadian soldier killed a man stealing some food. An international force would likley keep such bigtos out for th every reasons you mentioned above, thus attracting those who don't mind going off to Zambia to serve under a Bolivian General, for a number of reasons: 1. If he is training in Zambia, it would not be under Zambian authority but UN authority, with Zambia doing nothing more than lend the land to the UN. 2. The Bolivian general would be Bolivian by birth perhaps, or by citizenship, but would be under UN, not Bolivian government, authority. I thought these points would have been obvious.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1 http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political...occupation.html It doesn't appear that the UN ever explicitely declared that the Iraq War was illegal. Rather, the laws in place suggest it. For example, if I steal a chocolate bar, the government need not pass a motion stating that my act is criminal. The fact that the law states that theft is criminal and that I am committing theft make my act illegal without the government needing to pass some special motion stating that my specific act is illegal.