Machjo

And to those who think the environmental movement is all a scam, what about the basic principle of preserving limited resources, environmental concerns notwithstanding?

Iwouldn't be surprised if alot of Dippers ended up plugging their noses and voting Liberal over the Carbon Tax.

Why not just introduce a voucher system?

I couldn't care less who the leader is. I just want to know who the candidates will be in my riding. I can't vote for party leaders anyway unless they're in my riding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_Japan You tell me, what citizenship do you think they have? All empires have had their share of immigrants. Often, the price of empire has been granting citizenship to subjects, resulting in mass migration to the mother country. THis happened with the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and even the American Empire (Puerto Ricans are still US citizens even though Puerto Rico is not a part of the US).

It's interesting that you bring nature into this. In fact, I'd say that in some respects, the Green party is more conservative than the Conservative party in its recogntion, at least in principle, in the importance of preserving the environment so that we can continue to benefit from the fruits of the land. In some respects, we coud say that the Green Party is a moderate left-leaning capitalist or free-market party in that it tries to achieve left-wing objectives (helping the poor, etc.) via mostly capitalistic means.

Also, how many people might end up unemployed just because of bureaucracy and red tape? Sometimes the very unemployment the government is trying to alleviate is government-caused. In such cases, the solution might be as simple as to remove the obstacles. Just to take one simple example: minimum wage. If the government introduces minimum wage but does not provide universal post-compulsory education, then those who can't afford a higher education find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place: not enough education or training to be employeable at minimum wage, and no money to get the higher education. Tough catch 22 there. I can certainly understand the intention behind minimum wage legislation, but we also need to think about it rationally. Unless that minimum wage legislation goes hand in hand with universal post-compulsory education, it might hurt the vrey people it's intended to help by legally pricing them out of the market, also risking pushing some of them into the black market. We see this with rent controls too. Unless the government is going to ensure a sufficient supply of accommodation in a city, its rent controls can backfire. That had happened in Toronto a few years back. The rent controls killed off any incentive to build more accommodation, yet the populaiton was groing. As a result, either the landlord didn't bother maintaining the place, a key-fee was introduced or some other such fee, or a black market emeged whereby some were willing to offer to pay extra rent illegally. This naturally caused the poorest members of the population to suffer the most,not because they were lazy or through any fault of their own, but rather because the government had killed any incentive to build more homes, resulting in a shortage of supply, increased demand, and the rest was economics 101. That's why the City of Toronto eventually had to lift the rent controls. The city fo Paris, France, and made a similar mistake at one point. We find it with immigration too. Unless the government plans it well, though it may be well intentione,d it could potentially hurt either immigrants or Canadians, no matter its good intentions. One example would be if you make entering Canada esy but staying difficult. Needless to say you'd be pushing up the rate of marriages for citizenship and alot of broken hearts. There are of course plenty of other such examples of how government intervention in the economy or other policy, if not well thought out, can hurt the very people it intends to protect, regarless of its good intentions.

And those women who aren't political activists, but who have given of their time to teach the young? They don't count?

It has to do with teaching community spirit, and that is done in the home and at school, though all members of the community are expected to teach by example too. It's not limited to just political activists.

I can certainly agree that some do use God as an excuse to be ungodly.

Sorry, I was referring to education in the broadest sense, not just in the classroom, but through the mores our society teaches on TV, radio, in the family, etc. THis would involve community invovlement and teaching by example.

And they all come through education. I'm not talking about academic education, but characer and moral education.

And that's education, not just the law.

Also, duty does not have to be impose from the outside. I feel a duty to help others beyond just the taxes I pay. How do you explain that? There is no govenrment telling me that I must give more than my taxes, yet I do. Where do you think that sense of duty comes from if not from the government laws?

This is where education could come in. if we taught peopel as children to appreciate what they have, and to share, they would do so of their own free will. Bill Gates gives much of his money to charity already, beyond his taxes. I think we can trust people to do the right thing if we educate them properly.

This has always bothered me. I'd considered myself moderate left for a long time until I'd taken a political quizz that kept putting me to the libertarian right. Even others in the forum I was in who called themselves conservatives turned out more left than I was! I couldn't figure it out, and I think the reason is what you bring up here. Many on the right want taxes cut just so they can pocket it. For me, I do want more tax cuts, but woudl also like to change laws to level the playing field in the private sector itself. That being the case, how should I classify myself? Compassionate right winger? Left-wing capitalist? Anyway, even I have a hard time figuring out exactly where I stand ideologically but must admit that I've generally warmed more to the moderate left because of the personality I see associated with it. Though admittedly I do not vote for any party, left or right. I vote for candidates based on the issues they present. And I'll often find myself more likely to vote for a candidate whose ideas I disagree with but whose intentions I trust, over one whose ideas I agree with, but whose motives I distrust. To some degree, I feel like a disenfrachised right-winger precisely because of the narrow-mindedness we find among many on the right.

Of course I can accept that some ore more lucky in life than others, without a doubt. Some do have more opportunities. But why not let them give of their money voluntarily rather than rip it out of their hands?

I thought that was the role of fines, not taxes.

Excellent. So taxes could be reduced at that time.

I agree there will alwys be the poor. All I'm saying is that, though I'm by no means dogmatically opposed to socialism and recognize that it does have some strong points, I also believe that we should not ignore capitalism as a means of helping the poor too. Too often we seem to have this dogmatic belief that the only way to help the poor is through socialism. I can agree with that to an extent, where it comes to education, or dealing with the extremes of wealth and poverty. But I think we go way too far when we suggest absolute equality or try to elimiate wealth and poverty altogether. We shouldn't deny that capitalism itself can help the poor too, in some cases more efficiently than socialism. Trade is a perfect example. Through trade, poor countries develop industries. Through tariffs and handouts, they develop dependency. In that respect, capitalism can help the poor more than socialism.

?

I was referring to the poor internationally. Free trade is a hand up, not a hand out.

I wholeheartedly agree on the education side. I was referring to second-language training for civil servants. Honestly, I don't see how such a redefinition will increase costs. After all, it's just a redefinition of a term, not a spendng policy. However, one poster above made reference to increased spending in the bureaucracy, so I was just clarifying to avoid any misunderstanding that my support for this redefinition in no way implies my support for increased funding for second-language instruction for civil servants. In fact, if anything, such a redefinition might even save money as it will make it easier to identify French-speaing candidates for the civil service rather than spend money training non-French speakers. Again, my statement was not meant to suggest that I believed this would increase costs, but simply to clarify to another poste above that my support for this is conditional on its not costing much. But honestly, I don't see how a simple redefition of a term would increase costs.

1. I agree that free trade as it is often currently defined is about helping the rich, not the poor. I was not referring to the details of any particular agreement, but rather the principle. 2. Yes, free trade might hurt the wealtheir nation in favour of the poorer one. That's the beauty of it. We can solve the problem of unemployment by devaluing the currencies of wealthier nations, and that woulc benefit the poorer nations too. I'm all for helping our own, but on an equal playing field. If our government used its money more wisely, there'd be plenty of money for the poor. It's time to cut government spending, as high government spending is a burden not only on the rich, but indirectly on the poor too.

Free trade can be a way of developing third world economies sustainabley by developing their insdustry, something aid alone cannot do so efficiently.