Machjo

Mention was made above of paying for transport. On that front, I'd definitely put a cap on spending on transport to school, as spending for this could get out of hand, especially if parents start deciding to send their child to some school at the other end of town for some religious or other reason. THis could cause costs to skyrocket. Also, seeing that many Canadian cities are suffering from suburban sprawl as is, do we really want to subsidize such sprawl even more? If we should place a cap on the amount of money the school could spend on transport, then we would be forcing parents to either pay for transport out of pocket if they live too far from the school, or they'd have to move closer to the school. One other alternative would be to register the child at a school near the parent's place of work, so that they could both travcel together. This would pressure parents to take responsibility for urban infrastructural efficiency. I'm in favour fo a green tax shift too by the way.

Granted in some areas the voucer programme would offer no advantage to parents, mainly in more isolated rural areas. For those parents, it would be nothing more than an administrative change. For those in high-density areas, it would be of benefit. Looking at it that way, some would benefit, and none would suffer. So I don't see how this could be an issue.

That's true. But I think regardless of the situation in Sweden, it would be easy enough if we were to implement it in Ontario, to require all public schools to participate in the voucher programme while granting private schools the option. One possibility could be that a private school would have to apply to participate in the voucher programme. This would mean that if it's not interested, it would be free to just ignore it and carry on as usual.

I understand what you're saying about bailouts, and fully agree. If an industry is outdated, let it fall. As for the human costs, we can always retrain the workers for new industries, but there's no point in maintaining the horse and buggy industry just to preserve jobs.

I saw nothing in the article stating that private schools are obligated to participate in the voucher programme though; so I guess any school that disagrees with the rules would be free to opt out, and any parent willing to choose not to use their voucher woudl be free to pay out of pocket. I'd see no problem with that. Though I suppose some already established private elite schools might feel a little threatened by this new model, as it would force them into having to decide whether to stay as is or conform to the rules of the voucher programme, and as we know, change can be scary. You do have some points here. We should remember too that Sweden is much more socialist than Canada overall, with much higher taxes and a high quality social safety net. With that, Swedish teachers would not fear losing their jobs because even if they did, they know they could count on their government to provide them with the retraining needed to get back into the job market while being generously supported throughout the course. Not so in Canada, at least not nearly to the same degree, so of course Canadian teachers' unions will be more focussed on just preserving their jobs. This is probably one reason Sweden is much more open to experimenting with new ideas. With Canada being much more capitalist than Sweden overall, the NDP and unions aver oversensitive to anything that suggests further liberalization of markets, which may explain a fanatical opposition to vouchers in Canada, or any kind of increased private sector involvmeent in health care, etc. In Sweden, people have faith in that if the private sector steps out of line, their government is not afraid to reel it in, and so as a result, they have less fear of giving the private sector a chance to prove itself. As mentioned above, I could agree to it in principle, and would have no issue with seeing my taxes go up to see an increase in the value of the vouchers. However, to avoid disputes in the matter, it would likely be necesasary for the meals to meet the highest ethical, health, and religious guidelines, which would certainly mean limited options, though probably still not that limited (you'd be surprised at the range of healthy meals that can be made according to even vegan standards), with students being free to bring extra food from home to supplement if their parents insist on junk food or other. Also, as for concerns about too rapid a shift to private schools, in the initial stages we could even add aditional restrictions, such as requiring private schools participating in the voucher programme to offer sign language courses or courses in the local indigenous language. After a few years of the voucher programme, once society feels more comfortable with the idea, we could then consider lifting these restrictions. This would allow us to ease into the idea more gradually.

That's why one of the rules in the Swedish system is first come first served. Of course a private school is not forced to participate in the voucher system, but if it chooses to participate, then that's one of the rules it must abide by. Some US 'Republican-style' vouchers systems have much more liberal rules than the Swedish one does. They don't compare. In the Swedish system, a school that chooses not to participate in the voucher system gets no government funding, and those in the voucher programme must accept the first come first served policy in student applications.

Now's the time to plan for it. Inflation may not be inevitable, but certainly possible. Does it not make sense for a responsible government to have a plan just in case? Lok at how we were cought off guard this recession.

And just another point about the military being socialist. My father is retired military and I used to be in the military for a short stint. When I was in the military, the military paid a low wage but provided everything I needed, medical, uniform, socks, even boxer shorts, runners, shorts, t-shirt, food, etc. Our whole day was planned out by superiors for days on end. On slow days we might hang around and play games and still get paid for it, and we seldom needed to find work for ourselves since there was always someone else responsible for keeping us busy. We had little freedom to think for ourselves and had low wages, yet were pampered from head to toe never needing to worry about food, clothing, exercise, etc. all of which was planned and provided for us. As for equality, we all got paid along the same pay scale even if one outperformed the others in any way, until we got promoted, again at a fixed and non-negotiable pay scale. If that's not a socialist structure, you tell me what is. I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with such a structure depending on the organization, and some structures need to be organized like that. But to support such a structure and then pretend to oppose socialism is hard to do while keeping a straight face.

Well, if you've got millions of people each sitting on his land with a rifle defending his turf, then that alone would make Canada a Vietnam even for the US. Remember how the US lost that one?

Here's what I don't get: We consider a government that supports spending increases and tax cuts to be 'conservative'. Wouldn't a true conservative be the exact opposite, supporting spending cuts and possibly tax increases to pay off the debt?

And what about the crusader for lower debt?

Interesting. Aren't those immigrant languages too, from Europe specifically? How much do you know of pre-European-discovery North American history? Many First Nations people are still working on that. unless you're the government reneging ontreaties. --------

Just a point about all the restrictions placed on the Swedish model: 1. You need to realise that Sweden is a social democratic society after all. 2. The current NDP, Green Party, and Liberal Party in Ontario are totally opposed to vouchers, and even the Progressive Conservative Party was marred in controversy over it. Seeing that the Swedish social democratic party is already more 'capitalist' than even Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party on this front, good luck trying to introduce a no-ceiling voucher in Ontario! Just achieving a Swedish voucher system woudl be quite the accomplishment in Ontario to say the least.

This would mean raising the value of the voucher though, which in turn could mean a tax increase. That said, I could still support it; a brain running on an empty stomach doesn't learn efficiently. One issue I could see with it would be to cater to various philosophical (e.g. vegan, vegetarian), health (e.g. allergies), and religious (e.g. vegetarian, vegan, halal, kosher, etc.). But I could still support the idea in principle.

Considering the exploding US federal debt and its potential consequences for its neighbours, should the Canadian government not be bringint this issue up with its neighbour? Of course I realise the risk of Canada appearing meddlesome in US internal affairs if it doesn't approach the issue with sensitivity. But I believe that talks behind closed doors (assuming this is not happening already) would be appropriate as a plan A. If that should fail to convince the US to curtail its spending, increase taxes, or take other counter-debt measures, then maybe going to the World Bank to discuss some kind of international agreement for nations to try to bring their national debts to within a percentage of their GDP (the US' is currently about 90% of tis GDP) might be an appropriate plan B. Failing that, then maybe taking up the matter at the UN General Assembly, raising the concern of nations having debt burdens beyond a percentage of their GDP affecting their neighbours too. That might be an appropriate plan C. And failing that, then Canada might need to consider measures to brace for a collapse of the US dollar. This would mean taking steps now to pay off our provincial and federal debts, keep inflation down, and keep interest rates down. The only way I can see this happening would be revenue increases, spending reductions, or a combination fo the two. But if the US dollar suddenly cracks, we'd better hope that the Canadian economy be prepared to withstand the impact of the shockwave this would send around the world. Another way to look at it is this: What's the point of a military alliance without a commensurate economic alliance? What's the point of the US helping us militarily while hurting itself and us economically? Shouldn't any kind of alliance be a comprehensive alliance and not just a piecemeal alliance focussing on only a few narrow threats?

Even if paid for out of a person's personal wealth, the government can still regulate it. This is what's done in Singapore and it works well. You can pay out of your own savings orif you can't afford it the tovernment pays, but either way it's still regulated to ensure no unfair exploitation.

Singapore seems to have done a very good job of integrating private and public health care. Though much of it is private, the government still guarantees universal health care and enforces various checks and balances to keep the private sector in check.

If I educate you, you can become a contributing member of the society in which I live. This is not possible if I don't educate you unless you can educate yourself. And if you fail to become educated, you then become a burden on society, be it through crime or panhandling, both of which are harmful to me, either to my safety if you become a criminal, or to my general peace if you become a panhandler. ----- Yes, we are responsible for educating the Chinese and Indians. If the Chinese become more educated, they can develop that much faster socially and so become less of a military threat to the world. The same applies to Afghanistan. Educated Afghans are less likely to join the Taliban. It is in our own best interest to educate our neighbours, whether they are our personal neighbours or national neighbours. Accoplish the most for whom? It's OK if you have no better argument; I won't take it personally.

True. But seeing that even the most socialist of organizations are hierarchical to at least some degree, I interpreted the comments along a relative scale. Relatively speaking, a citizen's force is still less hierarchical than a professional force. And a professional force dedicated to defending the interests of an elite would still be higher up on the social pecking order than one defending the citizenry. On a relative scale, it still holds true.

There's not a single country in the world that is purely capitalist (even Hong Kong has some government intervention in its economy), just as there's not a single purely socialist country (even at the height of communism, China had at least some private sector). Most developed countries have a mixed economy, or the so-called welfare state or third way economy. A purely capitalist system or purely socialist one would not last long.

Does everyone agree? What about extreme libertarians or anarchists? And even among those who agree in principle, can they agree on whom the collective comprises? Some say all Canadians. Many in Quebec say all Quebecers, or at least Francohpne Quebecers. Yet others, such as in the Oka crisis, say our own military was the enemy to stand up against. Yet others may see earth as their homeland and so support a world military to defend their fellow man, not their fellow Canadian alone. So your assertion that all agree is false. So again, the parallel between education and the military stands.

And not all individuals can pay for their own or their children's education.

Well, if I'm not responsible for your education, then why wouldI be responsible for your defense? It is in fact possible to arm myself and defend my own private property and to hell with your defence along with your education.

On that front, you're right, unless it's a citizen's force or a military force benefitting all of society and not just the elites.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I wasn't using the terms in their strictest sense, but rather in the common sense that any government intervention in the economy is 'socialist'. I will add a few comments to yours, however: Seeing that one common goal of many socialists is equality, whereas capitalism is generally defined as minimalist government intervention in the economy, then wouldn't education be socialist by that definition? Now of course the military generally aims at defending a social hierachy, which in that sense is not socialist at all, but more corporatist. But in the sense that it implies a social obligation on each to his compatriots (in this case, in the defense of his compatriots against military aggression), it also implies, in a general sense, that Canada doesn't just comprise individuals, but individuals who belong to a collective, which is socialist in that sense. And on that front, why would we have an obligation to defend our compatriots against aggression but not against lack of education or ignorance? In that sense, the education vs military comparison is valid.