Machjo

To be honest, I'm not entirely against Canada leaving NATO as long as we're realistic about it. In other words, Canada would need to adopt policies to so integrate our economies and cultures as to essentially make any US attack on Canada an attack on its own economy, families, and culture. You also bring up a valid point about Canada being unable to defend against the US even within NATO. This raises the question of whether NATO effectively protects Canada anyway. In theory, no one country within an alliance should be more powerful than the combined strength of the others. With that in mind, it might in fact make sense for Canada to leave NATO but to aim to integrate the North American economies and people as a far more effective defense strategy in our case.

Canada is surrounded by the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans, Alaska, Greenland, the continental US, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon (of France). There are basically three ways for a country to deter another country: militarily (by having a more powerful military force), economically (by making themselves economically interdependent so that to attack it would hurt the attacker's economy itself), and culturally (by allowing freer movement, international marriages, etc. so that an attack on that country would be an attack on the attacking country's own families). If Canada leaves NATO, it clearly could not defend itself against the US militarily, so it would need to adopt one or both of the other policies. For example, Canada could adopt a policy of unilateral free trade with the US while still negotiating common product standards with it and maybe even allowing US citizens to study, work, and do business in Canada visa-free. Such a policy would encourage extreme economic and cultural integration between the two states so as to make it difficult for the US to attack Canada without hurting itself in the process. It's either that or Canada bankrupts itself through military spending.

Though I do favour the end-demand model, my reason for favouring it is not at all based on feminist theory. In fact, I find the feminist rationale for the end-demand model difficult to understand. From my understanding, the feminist rationale is that prostitution consists of a man oppressing a woman. If we understand prostitution in that way, then a man buying sex from another man and a woman buying sex from a man or another woman are not engaging in prostitution since the feminist definition of prostitution implicitly excludes such activities from the very definition of prostitution. In other words, paying for sex constitutes prostitution only when a man buys the sexual services of a woman. The rational extension of this into any law would logically lead to making it a criminal offence for a man to buy sex but not for a woman to do so; or if we considered any prostitution as consisting of the male oppression of women, then making it a criminal offence for a man to buy or sell sex but not for a woman to do so. I don't see how such an understanding of prostitution can support the idea of making it a criminal offence for a person to buy sex since, if we consider prostitution as consisting of a man oppressing a woman, then a man who sells sex to a woman is in fact oppressing that woman and so prosecuting that woman would just victimize her again. As a result, while I do support the end-demand model, I think the feminist rationale fails to support it. To ensure more congruence between the end-demand model and its supporting rationale, I'd formulate it as prostitution necessarily including a buyer abusing a provider and in some cases a seller abusing a buyer reciprocally. Since buying sex always constitutes abuse, it makes sense to make that a criminal offence. Since providing sexual services does not always do so, it might make more sense to regulate that. Such a redefinition would thus provide a more congruent rationale for making it a criminal offence for a person to buy sex and to regulate the sale of sexual services so as to deter a seller from abusing any potential buyer. Otherwise, as long as we continue to define prostitution as the male oppression of women, people will continue to argue based on that rationale that we should legalize a man buying another man's or for a woman buying another's sexual services; and since the constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex without valid reason, any person buying another's services. As a result, the rationale that prostitution is the male oppression of women falls apart before the end-demand model that makes it a criminal offence even for a woman to buy another's sexual services.

https://www.thecut.com/article/compulsive-sexual-behavior-mental-disorder.html Will this provide scientific support for if not the prohibition then at least the strict regulation of prostitution maybe similarly to how Singapore and other states regulate gambling for example?

I could even see a referendum on the government adopting a seventy-year plan for unilateral free trade. If the majority vote in favour, then this would pressure the government to adopt a policy to gradually lower tariffs and subsidies (maybe by X% every Y years for example) with the aim of eliminating them all within seventy years. This would give businesses plenty of time to adapt.

There is not much Canada can do right now. I'd say the best option for Canada would be to adopt unilateral free trade. It would hurt Canada in the short-to-medium term as markets adapt, but it would benefit Canada in the long term, and our governments should be looking to the long term even if it means short-term pain. We could always increase funding for trades and professional education for those who become unemployed as a result of unilateral free trade. But the solution is not to freeze our economy in time but to make it develop however painful that may be while still helping those who would suffer the most from the transition.

Doesn't Canada always reserve the right to withdraw its signature to an agreement it no longer agrees with rather than playing a two-faced game?

Part of his argument for tariffs against Canadian steel was that some of the material came from China. You realize don't you that if Canada adopted unilateral free trade, Canadian businesses would be free to buy all kinds of materials, machinery, etc. from around the world tariff-free. i can guarantee you that if Canada adopted unilateral free trade, the US would raise tariffs against Canada. yet Canada would still benefit due to access to lower-cost items from around the world.

If Canada adopted unilateral free trade, our per capita GDP would be much higher than that of the US within a generation unless the US follows suit. But hey, that would be your choice.

Sorry if you interpreted my comment as partisan. I absolutely agree that the Liberals have been dishing out the personal attack ads too in the last few decades. to be fair to Trudeau though, he did tone it down a bit last election and that probably won him many votes. i think voters are getting tired of the contact attack ads. Harper was terrible for that in his elections. He may have had good policies, but he did come across as person in elections.

Honestly, I would not want the next election to revolve around this allegation. I'd rather an election discussing policy and competence for a change.

I think I understand now. You're looking at it from the political angle, by applying pressure on the other side. I would disagree with that. If a country has always had high tariffs against another, then while the other has something to gain to convince it to lower tariffs, it has nothing to lose by failing to convince it because they don't trade much with each other to begin with. If a country has been engaging in unilateral free trade with another for many years already, the other gets to enjoy the benefits of this and may take them for granted but could fear that the unilateral free trader decides to raise tariffs which could then disrupt an economy that is used to it. As a result, the unilateral free trader probably poses a greater threat to the other should it raise tariffs on the other country that has become habituated to it than the tariffing country threatening to just not lower its tariffs to which the other country is used to already anyway.

So I take it you would agree with the Act being proposed in the OP then?

Ha, I just realized I'm in the wrong thread on the subject of free trade. This was about the international-harmonization. Sorry. So on that note, yes I agree that if we're not going to be following through, then why join it?

Now that I think about it, maybe even a national referendum on unilateral free trade within seventy years. That would remove any excuse concerning unpredictability. Plenty of forewarning there.

Also a good point. I guess I'm trying to find a balance between economic efficiency and compassion. The two would not need to be mutually exclusive either. For example, if we adopted unilateral free trade to take effect within seventy years, we could still continue to negotiate free trade agreements with other states in the mean time. Should a future government wish to quicken the pace, it could do so, but at least we'd have started the clock ticking, which is better than what we have now. At least it would provide a light at the end of the tunnel, something to aim for.

You do bring up a good point there. One could argue that precisely since dairy is not necessary for survival (and so consumers who can't afford it could choose to just not consume milk as their personal sacrifice for the industry), we could start off by cutting subsidies (and why subsidize an unhealthy industry anyway?) but not tariffs initially, then declare the application of unilateral free trade within the next seventy years. This would give dairy farmers seventy years to plan their exit from the industry. In the meantime, we can continue to follow the present policy of negotiating free-trade agreements that could reduce the tariffs gradually over time. Such a policy would remove any excuse for protection.

Why? No person needs to consumer milk to maintain his health, so even national-security arguments fall flat on that one.

Beyond economic considerations, we need to consider emotional ones too. I think the main reason Canada reacted so angrily against Trump's tariffs has less to do with the mere fact that he raised tariffs against Canada but that he did so in contravention of an agreement his own government had signed with Canada. Should Canada unilaterally drop tariffs and subsidies and should any future trade agreement merely address common packaging, labeling, and other standards, then any future US administration's raising tariffs against Canada would not provoke such an angry reaction since we'd recognize it would just be the US raising tariffs against its own consumers and so nothing to do with us. That said though, should Canada unilaterally drop tariffs and subsidies, US voters might vote more sympathetically for US politicians who favour unilaterally reciprocating towards Canada without the need to include tariff and subsidy rules into any trade agreement between us.

Just to be clear though, I don't believe that unilateral free trade eliminates the need for free-trade agreements. What it does do is to broaden the scope of the agreements. Since Canada would already have unilaterally dropped all tariffs and subsidies, any negotiation would focus on reaching an agreement to eliminate unintentional trade barriers by agreeing to common labeling, packaging, sanitary, phytosanitary, and other technical standards. the plus side is that negotiations would not get bogged down by squabbles over tariffs and subsidies and could quickly move on to more important matters.

OK, I confess. He's on my payroll.

But is it not just taxing its own consumers? Also, how would the theory apply in practice to jurisdictions like Hong Kong and Singapore with a higher per capita GDP than Canada's if unilateral free trade actually hurts them rather than benefits them? Are you saying that they could be even wealthier than they are now if they went back to reciprocal trade with retaliatory tariffs? Also, what about the UK's historical unilateral free trade around 200 years ago? It was among the wealthiest countries on earth at the time.

So what is your view of the theory of comparative advantage? From my understanding, even if Canada unilaterally dropped all tariffs and the USA raised tariffs across the board by 10%, the market would eventually adjust since Americans would not want to buy CAD and so push the CAD down to compensate.

So however much responsibility Russia must accept for its illegal annexation of Crimea, do you think Canada and other Western countries that were cheering on revolutionaries in the streets of Kiev and condemning the Ukrainian government's legitimate use of lethal force under the circumstances to re-impose law and order, to be equally responsible for having provoked Russia to this action?

I'll just add. If revolutionaries were burning cars and occupying and burning government ministry buildings in Ottawa, I can guarantee you that Canada would have done the exact same thing the Ukrainian government had done in re-impose law and order through the use of lethal force. That governments were criticizing the Ukrainian government for the use of force against active revolutionaries taking over government headquarters made those governments look like fools. Any government with some sense would understand the gravity of the situation once revolutionaries start burning police cars and government ministry headquarters in the capital. We were fools to condemn the Ukrainian government in such a situation.