Machjo

Many support free trade on the grounds that it helps underdeveloped countries. Others support tariffs in order to try to pressure foreign enterprises to raise labour standards in their countries, even if they don't have the money to do it, not to mention that this penalises individual businesses that do maintain high standards. So I came up with the idea of company free trade agreements, whereby any foreign company that meets Canadian labour, environmental, and other standards to the extent permitted by its government could apply for a free-trade permit with Canada. This company woudn't need to fear any kind of tariff imposed by the Canadian government against it, or quotas either, even if Canada should impose sancitons against its government. Companies that meet the highest ethical standards to the extent permitted by their government would be exempt. What would be your thoughts on such a solution?

Sorry. I should have clarified myself more; I was brief owing to time constraints last night. My point was not about official bilingualism, but Official Bilingualism. With Official Bilingualism permeating so much of of the Federal government and the private sector (packaging, labelling, sometimes advertising, civil servant language training, etc.), that it fails to focus on ensuring bilingualism where it counts, where lives are at stake, owing to so many less important distractions. In that sense, we could rewrite the Official Languages Act to be more focussed, thus preventing it from being distracted by less important bilingualsim issues so as to ensure bilingualism in the Coast Guard and elsewhere where it is absolutely crucial for safety reasons. After all, safety ought always to take priority over teaching English and French to some civil servant sitting in an office and who seldom needs his second language anyway.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/est-que...shtml#commenter

Right now we have public education, which we can equate with common defense. Within this context, you're not educating just your own kid, but the neighbour's too. On the other hand, the total privatization and deregulation of education, would equate with personal defense of one's property, whereby you'd be teaching your own kid with no guarantee that the kids in the rest of the community would receive eny education. The parallel is the same. Without a common defense, you might succeed in defending your own corner of Canada, but the rest of the country would go to waste. With no common responsibility for the community, you might be able to ensure your own kids get an education, but couldn't guarantee that the country doesn't reach third world status within a generation. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're suggesting that we need to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism, then I can agree with you. However, when the government increases military spending as part of a recession stimulous package, is that what the military is for, job creation? Isn't that socialist too?

The same applies to education. Let me reword your sentence if I may: "Go ahead, educated your own kids only. How well will your property value and community development fare against increased local illiteracy, unemployment, crimes and slums? Or general poverty?" Just as having each person defend his own land would still allow the enemy to control pretty well everything else (as is the case in Afghanistan, we can'd deny that NATO does essentially control most uninhabited land), so having each person educate only his own family would likewise allow ignorance to conquer the rest of the country. Isn't it the same? Yet we insist that to defend the country, we need a modern army, but for everything else, we should just let free markets raign and somehow other people's misfortunes will not affect us.

Isn't that what environmental legislationis for? Wouldn't a carbon tax or other such policies help solve that problem?

Seeing that it would not diminish their choice of schools any more than what they have now, it would not hurt them. Let's say that converting to a voucher system gave them no more choice than they have now, which would be the only local school in town, then nothing would change for them other than the application process and their children would just keep going to the same school. Yet even they may benefit indirectly because children living more or less half way between two schools in two nearby towns would have choice, and so the school that wants their business would have to work harder to improve its service, and that would benefit all the other kids who don't have a choice. So all woudl still benefit indirectly or, at worse, some might not benefit but still not lose. No one loses here but maybe some teachers.

Seeing that it would not diminish their choice of schools any more than what they have now, it would not hurt them. Let's say that converting to a voucher system gave them no more choice than they have now, which would be the only local school in town, then nothing would change for them other than the application process and their children would just keep going to the same school. Yet even they may benefit indirectly because children living more or less half way between two schools in two nearby towns would have choice, and so the school that wants their business would have to work harder to improve its service, and that would benefit all the other kids who don't have a choice. So all woudl still benefit indirectly or, at worse, some might not benefit but still not lose. No one loses here but maybe some teachers.

Hey guys, we're in recession and Canada needs a stimulous package. Conservatives are angry as hell over Harper's acquiescing to his stimulous package, and so he needs to make it up by revving up military spending and the only way he can do that is by fear mongering Cold-War-style. Give the man a break.

I'd come across the following interesting article concerning co-determination laws in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination I've long been opposed to minimum wages on the grounds that during recessions they risk hurting the very people they are intended to benefit. They essentially risk pushing unskilled workers into unemployment; and besides, it's proven effective in Sweden (though Sweden is also highly unionized to say the least). Without a minimum wage though, there is also the risk of employers exploiting workers even in good economic times. One solution to that is to turn to labour unions. The problem with labour unions though is that they tend to be confrontational and so, by striking, hurt everyone, themselves, their workers, company managers, and the population at large by essentially grinding economic activity to a halt. After all, a nation's wealth is based on the production of products and services, and labour action is based on the halting of the production of such products and services. An alternative to a labour union could be co-determination as it functions in Germany. The fact that workers get a vote on a company's board of directors. Unlike arbitrary minimum wage laws, it could allow workers to determine their own wages as happens in Sweden, in accordance to the best interests of the workers themselves. And unlike labour union action, agreements can be negotiated peacefully without interrupting economic development. What would be your ideas on introducing co-determination in Canada? I'm sure labour Canadian labour unions in Canada would oppose such an idea as it would undemine their value, making them redundant. But waht woudl others think of this?

What I'm saying though is that we should never reject or adopt an idea just to be different. We should always adopt or reject an idea on its merits in serving the population. Imagine for a moment that Canada had everything in common with the US except universal compulsory education for all children. Would we reject the idea then just to ensure we had something different? Seeing that our geography is different from that of the US, that alone dictates different solutions to some problems, so I don't think we need to worry about becoming identical to the US. However, to have that as our primary goal, or to have that as an argument for or against an idea, woudl essentially make us dependent on the US in that we'd have to ensure they don't adopt good ideas so that we can adopt them.

Perhaps, but to have as our goalt to simply be different from another country is not a very well thought out goal. Our goal ought never to be to try to be the same as or different from another country. Our goal ought to be to adopt good ideas, regardless of where they come from. If that makes us different, so be it. If that makes us the same, so be it. But we should never have as our highest goal to just be different from another nation at all costs.

That's not what you said though. You said: "The smart move for Canada is to remain different from America." Should that be a goal in its own right, then we ought to reject all ideas adopted by the US no matter how good just to be different.

No. The smart move would be for us to adopt good ideas no matter the source. Otherwise, if we took your idea to an extreme, then we should revert to driving on the opposite side of the road again, and should abandon voting for candidates in elections because the US does it too.

Heck, I did. I did run into quite a few personality conflicts, the main reason I didn't last long; but I wont' deny that I enjoyed the experience. It was like being paid to play war games all day. What makes you think I never considered it. I think my having started this vey thread pointing out the parallels between militarism and socialism shows quite clearly that I'm well aware of the economic burden the military places on society. Whatever its purpose is, it's still socialist. I wouldn't go that far. I should also point out that I'm not necessarily using the word socialist here in a negative sense (even I agree that some degree of socialistic economic policy is needed in a society, such as providing education to those who can't afford it, etc.). My main point in starting this thread was in the irony of those who oppose every possible kind of socialism to whatever degree often being the most fanatically in favour of considerable increaes in military spending without seeing the parallel. And though I agree with the need for a military force to some degree, I also agree that there must be limits placed on it. Militarists seem to disagree with this. I think what you're describing there is not a socialist state but a socialistic state, suggesting a state that borrows those socialist ideas that serve the people, but not accepting socialism so dogmatically. In that sense, such a state could be capitalistic and socialistic simultaneously but to varying degrees, choosing pragmatically according to whatever works to achieve its ideal objective of serving the betterment of the people. I can agree to that to some degree. Extreme, pure, dogmatic socialism is a burden that grinds society to a halt. Yet my point was that militarism in that sense is the same. If the government increases military spending, it has the same effect as when it increases other types of spending that don't invest in the people. It's but a burden on the society. At least education spending is an investment in the people. And this is where I'm often dumbfounded when a person will support massive hikes to military spending yet oppose any increase in education spending on the grounds that it will mean higehr taxes taking investment away from business. Won't increased military spending have the same effect, minus providing a better educated workforce that business can benefit from? It just seems that supporters of militarism who dogmaticlaly oppose anything remotely socialistic essentially believes in a contradiction, showing a total lack of consistency in his economic beliefs.

?

You're probably right, and I thought the same. Though in theory it might appear desirable in promoting a common culture, it would be politically explosive, leading to such deadlock nothing would ever get done.

Considering that many in Canada are increasingly concerned with the lack of a common Canadian identity, and that a, if not the, major source of that identity comes through education, it would seem to make sense that a Federal Ministry of Education to replace provincial ones would make sense. A major problem I could see with this though is that it would lead to a whole new Kulturkampf. Just as Bismark and the Pope had realised that he who controlled educaiton controlled the future evolution of Prussian culture, so Queebcers will be just as aware of the same, and so would never agree to this. One possible solution could be to have three Ministries of education, one for Quebec, one for Nunavut, and one federal one. But then I can also see some Canadians feeling that it would not be fair for Quebec and Nunavut to have a say in Parliament over education in the rest of Canada while the rest of Canada has no say in education in Quebec and Nunavut. Honestly, though I could see advantages to this, I can also see many problems with it so it woudl probablybe preferable, in spite of everything, to just leave it a sa provincial matter. But still, some here might have other ideas on it that I haven't thought of so I'm throwing it out there anyway.

Sorry, my bad. I meant according to common Canadian perceptions, true or false.

Also, no matter what we do, we'll always have divergent ideas. THough my father is British and mother French Canadian, I speak 3 languages, hold non-Christian religious beliefs, and have a much more cosmopolitan view of the world. No amount of tinkering with trying to create a common identity could change that.

Canada never has had social cohesion. The idea that it ever had such a cohesion is a myth. Even today, if you took an average Quebecer from Roberval and airdroopped in in Alberta, he'd be hardpressed to order a meal in a restaurant without a dectionary or a picture menu. Even today, at least 8% of the populaiton of Nunavut assesses itself to know neither English nor French. And that's just on the language front. Then on the religious front, Most Algonquin believed in Medewiwin, and the French settlers toappear later believed in the Catholic Faith. After the Plains of Abraham, we then had Protestantism. Considering that the Reverend John Medows Rodwell felt compelled to translate the Qur'an in 1861 along with critical notes so as to discredit Islam among converts of his time, I think it's reasonable to suppose that the fear of the spread of Islam withon our society is nothing new either. And of course today with the advent of public libraries and the internet, it's easier than ever to access religious information from around the world, thus increasing the chances of cross-conversion. Only closing our borders off completely, not only to immigration but even publications and the internet, could stem the tide of conversion to religions of the world. In the end, the solution is not to try to look to the past to try to recreate an imagined common Canadian identity that has never existed, but rather to the future to try to create a new identity all might be able to accept. Alternatively, we could reinforce the past by bringing back English traditions in English Canada, French traditions in French Canada, and all separate and create new countries. Either way though, the creation of a common national identity in one Canada or common identities in new nations formed out of the current Canada would involve looking to the future, to uncharted territory, not to an imagined mythical past.

That would still fit in with the principle of capping how much the school can spend on transport. If it can do it using public transport or some other relatively inexpensive means of trasport, then good for them. Lack of benefit does not eqaul harm though. While this would benefit urban centres, it would not hurt rural centres (all they'd notice is a change of administrative procedures). So if it benefits one group but doesn't hurt others, so be it. If the government should introduce laws that benefit rural communities but neither benefit nor hurt urban communties, I'm sure most urbanites woudl support it too.

I'd say it has less to do with philosophy as such and more to do with mass psychology (i.e. how people react irrationally by assuming that if they adopt an idea that another country has adopted, that that means that they will go down the slippery slope of adopting all of the neighbouring country's ideas).

Agreed. Disagreed. The thread was about how US capitalism affects internal Canadian politics, not about our relationship with the US.

I've noticed that Europeans seem to be much less dogmatic about capitalism and socialism than Canada. To take an example, Sweden has among the highest tax rates in the world, yet its government owns a smaller percentage of the country's GDP than the US government does of its! It also has proven open to school vouchers, more private sector involvement than Canada in health care, has no legal minimum wage, etc. Overall, it seems Sweden is much more open to experimentation between capitalism and socialism than is Canada. We find the same with France and it's two-tier system, also common across Europe, and other European countries using school vouchers or at least discussing them, etc. I get the impression that in Canada, this kind of experimentation is not possible owing to extreme capitalsim in the US. If for example, we should suggest introducing two-tier healthcare in Canada, the image that comes to most Canadians' minds is not the universal two-tier systms that are common in Europe, but the mostly private for-profit system in the US. If we should talk of school vouchers, most Canadians would not be thinking of Swedish or other European-style vouchers, but rather the proposals made by the Republican Party in the US for much less restrictive vouchers. It would seem that the proximity of the US along with its extreme capitalist system causes irrational fears in Canada against any kind of third-way experimentaiton between capitalism and socialism, which simply stunts any kind of brainstorm of new ideas to improve democracy in Canada.