Machjo

I thin he was referring to the interest the government pays back to the investors. The poor are less likely to ba able to afford to buy Canada Savings Bonds. So if we go into debt to help the poor, we're then going to have to give that money back to the rich later. And there's no guarantee that we can tax the rich if they're living abroad.

And if the argument is democracy, then don't unilingual speakers of Inuinnaqtun and Inuktitut have the right to use their languages in Vancouver just like the French-speaker? Or are some citizens more equal than others?

I'd all be in favour of making the appeal process more efficient. Yo seem to be confusing removing a service with making the delivery of the service more efficient. And as for centralization, in fact a more decentralized system can be more efficient in some cases as it alows fr more rapid and locally-suitable responses to problems. I'd be in favour of applying the death penalty in some cases as long as the evidence is strong. And again, if there is an efficient yet humane way of carrying it out, I'd be all for it. If not humane, no. But again, there's a difference between sacrificing a humane form of execution and making a humane form of execution more efficient. Labou unions are highly inefficient and even counter-productive. They go on strike to get more money, yet the very act of going on strike impoverishes the company, making it incapable of giving in to the demands. Essentially, a labour union is even counter-productive in that way. To achieve the same objective, would it not be preferable to disband labour unions and instead just give workers voting rights on the board of directors? THis way, whenever there's a dispute, the BOD can make a quick decision with representation from the workers rather than halt production through astrike or lock out that hurts both sides in the dispute. Why does our culture have to be so confrontational all the time? Can we not use a more collaborative approach to dispute settlement? What about defamation laws? Do they not promote self-censorship? Yet I support them as they make it the government's duty to protect our reputation from defamation. But again, if there are more efficient ways than now to do so, I'd be for it. Again, you're confusing making a service more efficient and dispensing with it altogether. Making elections non-partisan wold certainly save us money in not having to fund political parties anymore. Still democratic, but more efficient. In fact, more efficient and democratic at the same time. Now going back to official bilingualism, I'd certainly be in favour of giving hiring preference to the bilingual staff member, as that increases servicces for unilinguals on both sides. We could even define bilingualism in local contexts. For example, anEnglish-Mandarin speakers could be given hiring priority in Vancouver over a French-English speaker. Much more democratic in terms of local services, don't you think? Yet we wouldn't do that and hire the French-English speaker instead. Ho would that be more democratic? Also, how is it democratic that a public servant should get free language training at tax-payers' expense while private sector employees don't get the same privilege? Isn't democracy about equal opportunity and access to services? If so, then if public sevants get free language training, all citizens should. Needless to say, that could strain the budget. So in an all-or-nothing paradimg of equal opportunity for all citizens, then I'd rather nothing. We hire the most qualified for the job, and so bilinguals would normally get priority. beyond that, however, we use the resources we have to their maximum effectiveness. In this respect,by no longer giving public servants this special privilege anymore, we'd be promoting more equality and democracy while at the same time making government administration more efficient. Dremocracy and efficiency don't necessarily have to conflict with one another.

Your idea of workers co-ops I like too. That could be integrated with the idea of the government investing in ethical investment funds. Bying stocks in co-ops could be a way to help them indirectly while still being able to control inflation later by selling off those shares when the economy picks up again, thus taking that money back out of the economy as a counter-inflationary measure. We need a ong-term plan. Right now the problem is diflation and demand-deficient unemployment. Later, it will be inflation. We need a plan that can kill those two birds with one and the same stone. Buying shares in companies with printed money now and then selling them off and taking the money back out of the economy later could be a way of solving a problem now while laying the groundwork to fight the opposite problem later.

Counter-deflaionary printing might devaluethe dollar, but in a recession that could be a good thing anyway. The disadvantage, of course, is that the increase in exports and decline in imports could also risk inflationary pressures. If, however, we print just enough to halt deflation (the definition of counter-deflationary printing) and no more, then that is handleable. Sure the dollar might devalue a little but not too much. And with such little printing, we coud esily, once we start to get out of recession, to then just start reducing government spending to take that money out of circulation again, thus essentially moderating booms and busts in the economy.

Administrative efficiency must be taken into account too.

OK, I misexpressed myself there. I do agree that the exigencies in Quebec are too high, but the principle still remains valid. As for municipalities, that I can fully agree with. The locals are payng the taxes and so they should decide. Same should apply in Quebec for that matter, another example of Quebec going too far. On your comment about dictatorship, there are limits. To take an extreme example, do we say that the government should have the duty to communicate with us in any languge of our choice? I've experimented with Conlanging before. What if I created my own language? Would the government then have a duty to learn it for the sake of equality? There are limits to democracy, and communication is such an important part of a society that a clear language policy, at least one for internal government administration, is a wise move. If I should go to a job interview for the federal government in Kitchener Ontario speaking Inuktitut, should I be accommodated in the nameof democracy?

Now I oppose Official Bilingualism too, at least in its current form, but will venture to add that while Quebec goes too far in its language laws, the principle of one official language only still stands in terms of economic efficiency as it saves in translation and interpretation costs. Though I would limit it to internatl government administratio only. As for communication between government employees and citizens, the employee shoud still be free to address the client in any language they share in common and agree to use. A'd also say that this should limit itself to government administration and should not impose itself on the private sector. In fact, imposing it on the private sector can raise costs owing to unnecessary translation and interpretation costs, especially in predominantly English-speaking towns or neighbourhoods.

Indeed it does, at least in its current form. However, it does nto discriminate against English Canadians in favour of French Canadians, or vice versa. It discriminates in favour of officially bilingual Canadians against officially unilingual or alingual ones. If either English or French were easy to learn, forecing everyone to learn it would be quite reasonable. The problem though is that neither language is particularly easy to learn except for bilingual mother-tongue speakers and academic elites, or others who were lucky enough to have the chance to learn it. Again, this is not a French-vs-English issue, but one of the common people vs elites on both sides. Trudeau was not a typical Quebecer; he was very much of the elite class.

I don't know if I agree with everything you're saying here, but will simply state that federal Official Bilingualism as it currently stands is at least in part a reaction to the Quiet Revolution, an attempt on the part of the Federal Government to bribe Quebec into confederation. I do believe though that we are totally out of line when generalize and try to blame all francophones for this. Heck, even many Quebecers oppose Official Bilingualism. I just don't think that fomenting inter-ethnic animosity is the way to go forward with this. Instead, we need to focus on the merits and demerits of the policy itself, and not try to put the blame on this or that ethnic group.

The current Conservative Party is far from Libertarian. It wanted to enter Iraq originally (though so did Ignatieff), and has proven itself to be quite militarist in its ideology. The only thing holding it back is its minority status in Parliament.

We can add to that that Trudeau has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Quebecers whenever they think of the Liberal Party. His error was in assuming that all Canadians would learn English and French just as easily as he had. With Official Bilingualism, at least in its current form, just as unilingual Anglophones are blocked from higher opportunities within the public service, so are uilingual Francophones. and unilinguals form the majority on both sides. So it's to be of no surprise that Trudeau would have alienated many through his support for Official Bilingualism. And even among bilinguals, those who support more equal rights for their unilingual compatriots will likely dislike it too. I fall into that latter category myself. So it really shoud come as no surprise, except t Leafless of course, that Trudeau woudl have alienated many Quebecers just as much as other Canadians.

Ah, forbot about that point. I was too focussed on how the Catholic vote would be supporting liberals. It would seem to me that with such statements, catholics would be supporting the Conservatives or even the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, not the liberals. So how do we get support for the Liberal Party from a statement like that?

One way I could see of stimulating the economy without causing unnecessary debt would be the following (though it should be used only as a counter-deflationary measure): 1. Print just enough money to stop the deflation (any more than that woud be harmful) and put that money into ethical funds. This would have a few advantages: a. It would put more money in the economy by increasing demand for funds, thus providing businesses with the funds they need. b. It would ensure that the money goes towards promoting ethical industries. c. Once the economy picks up (which is when we're most at risk of inflation) the government could then start to sell those shares and take that money back out of the economy. This would kill two birds with one stone by putting money into the economy in a recession while being able to pull it back out of the economy in tmes of inflation, thus helping to stabilize the conomy. d. It would allow us to increase spending without having to borrow. In fact, if we have debt, we could even pay down the debt with this printed money. 2. We sell those shares once the economy picks up again tohelp control inflation. Now if that money is used to pay off the debt instead, then this option is removed, in which case we would simply have to reduce government spending later to control inflation. A big disadvantage os such a policy is that it could only be used once we fallinto deflation (which usually occurs some time after a recession has already started) and can only allow for the printing of just enough money to counter the inflation, no more. So its use is limited, but it does have the advantage of ensuring that any recession will be moderate.

Additionally, you can't tell the difference between pneumo- and numo- in the spoken language.

" I can't stand that both Canada & the US don't give a damm about testing immigrant's English skills while they go thru the immigration process." For your information, the US federal government (and since immigration is a strictly federal issue in the US to the best of my knowledge, only federal policy matters here) has no official language. Now please don't misunderstand me here. I believe it would be a good idea for the US to adopt an official language at the federal level, as this would legitimate such language tests for immigrants to the US. And considering the costs of translation and various language services, it could certainly save their country money. But they'd have to have an official language before they could legitimately start to introduce such tests. As for Canada, let's not forget French.

Are you sure that quote is even right? Unless US Catholics are far more partisan? Though I don't profess the Catholic Faith, I've been to Catholic mass many times before and never once heard a priest discuss politics. So if there's some kind of planning like that in Canada, it's certainly not being done during mass.

I've sometimes wondered about the value of voting when parties have essentially highjacked the system. I've considered voting independent if a good one comes alon, but we don't even have independents. Let's go non-partisan, and that might push partisanship out of the way to develop a political will.

Or better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

As for LINC, if they're paying, I'd already said I was willing to reconsider it if you had read my post. As for making the recommendation to the UN, you still haven't answered my question. Do you support making all the world's languages at the UN official so as to not 'marginalize a language'? If so, where will we get the funds when the UN General Assembly alone spends an estimated 12 million dollars a year on translation and interpretation just for two languages (this is just for General Assembly meetings, not other UN work)? And if not, then why do you support matginalizing all but 6 world languages? Would it not be more fair to develop an easy one that all can agree to rather than impose difficult languages on the rst, thus giving native speakers of those 6 a privileged position? Just go to the UN website and see if you could get anything from it if you knew none of those 6. You're taking your 'White' for granted there it seems. Don't forget, la langue de Voltaire elle aussi est parmi ces langues privilélgié. Et selon statistique dont j'ai vude l'europe et du Canada indiques clairement que pour la pluspart des gens, apprendre une langue seconde n'est pas un cadeau, et cela ne se limite pas aux occidentaux. Alors tu prend aussi pour acquis ta capacité d'apprendre les langues facilement. La plupart de la population humaine la manque, et tu le serait bien si tu aurrait voyager un peut dans le monde, ou même juste eu lu quelques statistiques.

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic medium school, did my first communion and confirmation... and then adopted a different Faith. But any, getting back on topic, I've never come across what you're saying here. I've attended Catholic mas many times before and never once did I ever hear any mention of politics. I'd even met a Catholic anarchist once. And within the libertarian movement itself you'll find both right-wing and left-wing libertarians. So that's just all gibberish.

Money is still money. If $40 million dollars is not alot, then maybe the government could give me it? It might not be alot in terms of the overall government budget, but it certainly is one area that can be cut without hurting anyone too much, as was the intent in the OP. If a person is not qualified for the job, then hire someone else. Besides, if a local community truly is bilignual, then how is it that they can't find someone who knows the language. Seems like a contradiction there. Thanks for the info. If revenue neutral on all fronts, including the cost of multilingual 911 operators while they're still learning English or French, a guarantee that they will suscceed in learning English or French, etc. then I'm more than willing to reconsider that idea. Where'd you get that info by th way? Hmmm...English 101: 1. Recommend is not the same as demand. Look it up in the dictionary. 2. I never suggested they speak 'White'. In fact, the only time I've ever heard someone tell me to speak White was when a God-damn English muffin did once in Ottawa because I mistakenly thought the square head knew French. To think he live just across the river from Quebec! Bad news is, some freinds of mine have been told to speak White too... one of them while he was in Gatineau! Good news is, I've only ever had that comment used on me once. And since my skin colour seems to matter so much to you, I am white. Not that I see any relevence to the topic though. I speak Chinese and my skin colour hasn't changed in the least. My idea would be that they agree on adopting, modifying, or creating a language that they could all agree on. I speak English, French, and Esperanto fluently, am quite functional in Mandarin Chinese, and can read some basic Arabic and Persian, so I've made my contribution to communication, thank you very much.And you? With that kind of snotty attitude of yours, I can flip your logic right around. Are you suggesting that we expand the official languages of the UN to include all languages? How expensive would that be? And if you're not proposing that, then why would you defend a special privileged status for speakers of English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese? Notice how four of them you would likely identify as 'White', yet not one single African one (unless you include Arabic). Is that what you're defending? By having one language, adopted, revised or created, that all could accept, not only would it save money, but would not only promote equality (oh the horror of losing White privilege, huh?), but more efficient and cost-effective communication too. CIDA does, to my knowledge, fund language training programmes. When I was in China, I'd come across a series of textbooks, PEP (Primary Engish for China), and in the front cover, it had a note thanking 'the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)' for its assistance in the development of the project. The pubisher was Lingomedia. Why else would they be thanking CIDA in the front cover of their book. Hey, English (or white as you put it) is big business, and even the British Council is in on it promoting 'this invisible, God-Given asset' of yours that's 'greater than North Sea Oil' (British Council 1984). Better than nothing. Get real. My dad spent a year studying French paid for by the military, and that's on top of hearing my mom and me speak French to each other on a regular basis throughout my childhood, and he couldn't speak it. You obviously don't know French if you honestly belive that a uniingual English-speaker can learn this language over a one year course. French is a specialization, not just some general knowledge you learn over a year-long course. Waste of money that was. If my dad couldn't learn it after hearing my mom and I speak it throughout my childhood and still now when I visit, I'd love to see the statistics for the success rate on this. You obviously don't know what you're talking about here. I'll grant you this one point. If they are paying for it, then we should give it to them. But how do we know they will learn it? Instead, I'd say stop charging them for the courses, but instead expect them to know the local language before coming. Then we won't need to charge them a fee beyond processing fees. This way, immigrants who know English or French already won't be penalized for those who don't. Wait a minute, let me get this straight. I propose that we stop funding English and French teaching programmes abroad, and you call that Anglophile? And then you suggest that if their educaiton does not include our language, it is somehow inferior? And then you accuse me of being Anglocentric. You do realise that French is my mother tongue, don't you? Why would I want my tax dollars going to promote English. Even though my dad is British, I still identify more with French as I'd gone to French-medium schoo. No, not your silly French immersion, but French-medium. So as far as you're concerned, we should only go after BIG waste and ignore the small fish? I'm sure the big inefficiencies have been cut already. That's why I'm looking at smaller cuts that are not likely to hurt anyone too much. I'm sure we could cut EI, but probably not a wise move right now, wouldn't you think. And next time you suggest I speak 'White' Again, I'll just respond to you in French, you bloody muffin head.

Not to mention that conservatives can even push some right-wingers to the left. For instance, a libertarian might be attracted to all the promises of less government that he hears from conservatives, but knows it's all BS and that they just mean that they'll shift spending from other programmes to the military. They also know that the conservative notion of 'freedom' is BS too, as it just means that they want to shift controls from buraucracy to borders and controls on immigration, 'national security' controls, espionage, etc. Of course there's the Libertarian Party, but it's not likely to win any election soon, and so the Green Party comes along, economically conservative but socially liberal, hmmm... similar enough to the Libertarian Party I guess, or as close as we're likely to get any time in the near future. In this respect, conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot. They want less government, or so they say, but then carry the sacred cows of military spending, more immigration controls, 'national security' controls, etc. As a result, libertarians who'd otherwise possible consider the conservative party end up shifting to the Green Party or Libertarian Party as, ironically enough, more conservative alternatives to the Conservatives.

The North West Territories and Nunavut have it already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_government

The whole idea of proportional representation is based on the party. So how can it be proportional and reduce party power at the same time. On the contrary, it would strengthen party power. If your goal is to weaken party power, then why not go to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy Some of the advantages of non-partisan democracy are quoted here: [edit] Advantages Citizens can not engage in vote pairing, straight-ticket voting, or other tactical voting methods (and need not engage in ticket splitting), resulting in an election outcome that is more likely to reflect the intent of the citizens. Elected officials are not beholden to a party apparatus that got them elected, and are not subjected to party restrictions on how they may vote, nor must they posture for the sake of an opposition party (e.g., to show they are "tough" enough, etc.). Non-partisan officials can therefore more readily represent the actual needs of their constituents. The lack of such requirements may also bring more principled individuals up the ranks, as they do not have to make assertions against their beliefs in order to demonstrate "party unity". All in the community (or at least perhaps those of a certain age, without a criminal record, etc.) are made eligible to vote and can be voted for. Thus, it is believed that a non-partisan system also expands choice in elections beyond the limited range of choices as are otherwise presented to the public, who will at best have a limited role in partisan systems. It is argued that the simple opportunity of being enabled to privately witness and assess the character and initiative of individuals within one's own community (especially where regular town meetings occur at the local level or, in indirect election systems, where non-partisan delegates meet at a national level) provides a better picture of how capable a given individual is of providing future leadership and service. Advocates argue that self-aggrandizement and promise-making inherent within partisan democracies would be minimized in such non-partisan systems (and possibly eliminated entirely in at least the public level for non-electioneering systems). Appeals to limited loyalties and divisiveness surrounding partisan elections (and their social consequences beyond the elections) may be averted, especially in no-electioneering systems. This was one of the rationales advanced in favor of Uganda's previous no-party system. In nonpartisan systems without electioneering, financial dependence on third parties may be averted by those elected, who are unencumbered with such alliances and can make decisions according to their own conscience rather than the party or lobbies that supported them. Such a system is considered by some to be also compatible with technocracy, whereby the solemn atmosphere may tend to elect candidates who may have great abilities and knowledge yet would not otherwise be inclined to participate in a media frenzy or take part in behind-the-scenes power-grabs. Such systems are seen to invite a greater possibility of selection of traditionally-overlooked candidates from less self-promotional or less confrontation-accustomed populations, such as women or certain ethnic minorities. Such systems are seen to avoid divisiveness within the population as a whole, as constituents are not provided an easy outlet for ascribing negative qualities in wholesale to members of another party or parties (e.g., for rejecting their own policy goals). This includes avoidance of indirect appeals by politicians or others to racism or nationalism (such as when one party tends to appeal disproportionately to one group) in order to garner votes or vent antagonisms. The public, whether at the level of society at large, or of neighborhoods and families, are saved from acrimony and constant debates based on party identity rather than discussing the merit of individual ideas (or engaging in other non-political activities). Constituents are not pigeon-holed into thinking of issues according to one "party view". They may also be more willing to implement the policies decided upon democratically in their region, when they are not tempted to resist doing so were they to disfavor an incumbent's party.