Machjo

One thing I have a hard time understanding is why some Conservatives oppose the free market when it comes to language and culture?

They don't work in all cases.

The redundancies are not limited to language. Even within the same language, it might make sense to fund CBC Radio in English in isolated communities without radio broadcasting, but not in large cities already spoilt for choice. Also, a profoundly Deaf person will never learn to understand spoken English or French no matter how much you fund them. Physiological reality must kick in in this case, plus it could create employment opportunities for a community that generally can't easily access employment in the private sector.

Given how little difference there actually is between public and private media in Canada today, how would you reduce the redundancies between the two? I could see a few possible solutions: 1. Cut public media funding altogether. 2. Shift funding from English and French to sign languages, indigenous languages, and the languages of other more disadvantaged linguistic communities. 3. Shift funding towards radio broadcasting in more remote areas of the country where private radio broadcasting is nonexistent. 4. A combination of the above. 5. Another option.

How to regulate the online advertizing of sexual services. I think we can draw a parallel between purchasing sexual services and consuming alcohol. Given the harm alcohol can cause, one can make a rational case for its prohibition in principle, presumably if the prohibition were reasonably enforceable. The experience of the 1920's showed that it was unenforceable and merely pushed alcohol underground. The next best option in that case is legalization and regulation. Though alcohol consumption is legal today, at least now we see signs on pub walls informing women of the harm alcohol can cause fetuses. Since I'm an alcoholic and have been a teetotaler for many years now, I do not know what kind of advertizing exists on alcohol bottles, but including the AA website would make sense. None of such educational advertizing would be possible under prohibition since the Government can't regulate what is not supposed to exist. The purchase of sex is even more harmful to society and ought to be a fineable offence in principle, but again only if the law can be adequately enforced. I do not know how effectively the new laws relating to the purchasing of sex have been enforced, but I can say that the online advertizing of its sale have not been enforced at all. Though the reason is not clear to me, I would guess either police incompetence, lack of manpower, or more likely a legal loophole (one can legally advertise one's own services and the sites on which providers advertize are located beyond Canada's jurisdictional boundaries). To prohibit sex workers from advertizing their services online would likely be struck down for potentially endangering the safety of sex workers, yet to not do so allows them to advertize on foreign unregulated websites resulting in the government being unable to do anything to inform anyone in the industry of their options. One possible solution I could see would be the following: Sex workers would be allowed to advertise only on sites that submit to Canadian sexual advertizing guidelines (to which foreign websites could voluntarily choose to submit), violation resulting in a fine; and advertizers being allowed to post such ads on the condition that they submit to the Government's sexual advertizing guidelines requiring pages on which these ads are posted to also advertize STD information, government-funded skills training programs, crisis help lines, mental health services, 12-step groups, and other remedies for both providers and clients with the aim of guiding participants out of the industry, and requiring such ads to appear first and take at least as much space as the sex ads. Another possibility that I can see would be to make offering to pay for sex a fineable offence but not accepting an offer of sex for money. This would essentially protect those who are not in the industry from being propositioned by would-be clients.

I accept unrestricted immigration because I believe in only one God of the universe who created all of mankind and not a separate God for each nation. To me, national boundaries are manmade lines drawn on God's green earth.

To clarify, when you pay uniformly, that is a proportional tax. A regressive tax is when the percentage decreases as you go up in income, progressive when it increases. If it's always the same percentage, that is proportional.

A Democratic Coalition? What would be your thoughts on a bipartisan coalition (let's call it the Democratic Coalition comprising a Liberal Conservative Party and a Social Democratic Party for now). In ridings in which the Coalition's position is not very secure, the local Coalition riding association would run only one candidate from the party with the greatest chance of winning. In more secure ridings, a candidate from each of the two parties would run. The Liberal Conservative Party would present two platforms during any election, one a governing platform, the other an opposition platform. Its governing platform would be based on the assumption that it formed government. This platform would focus on reducing the size and scope of the government but would never promise tax reductions or no tax increase, that being conditional on a balanced budget. Its opposition platform, taking into account that it would be in opposition, would focus on ensuring that any social democratic government live up to its spirit. For example, it would push to ensure any tax increase exempt the poorest, that media funding shift from English and French to vouchers or sign languages, indigenous languages, or the languages of other disadvantaged communities, that infrastructure funding shift from cars to transit, the unemployed getting skills training getting priority over building a new museum, etc. Always looking out for the most disadvantaged members of society. The Social Democratic Party would also have a governing and an opposition platform. Its governing platform would be to raise taxes or other revenue, expenditure always being conditional on the budget. Its opposition platform being to ensure that the liberal conservative government also live up to the spirit of liberal conservativism, such as ensuring expenditure cuts focus on the least disadvantaged (such as cutting English and French CBC revenue before sign-language revenue for example, assuming it is not planning to cut all funding), ensuring that aid to the poor and unemployed be cut last, first on the chopping block being sports funds, media, and other non-essentials. Though these two parties could be very far apart ideologically, they might be able to find enough commonality in such a coalition to ensure amicable relations.

Or they all run as independents to free up new ideas.

Media vouchers might be an option worth considering too possibly.

But if the NDP, Liberal Party, or Green Party is going to spend my money on redundancies for those who don't need it, then I'd be better off they just reduced my taxes or at least made them charity deductible so that I could direct my charitable contribution to society in a more rational manner.

I'm not denying that. I think part of the reason for this is the Conservative Party's ideologically driven and fanatical drive to lower taxes at all costs. that still does not give the other parties a free pass though. I don't want to vote for the best of bad options, but the best of good options.

I also see a few other problems, including the NDP's lack of respect for the science and laws of economics. It wants to raise the minimum wage, which can only legislate the unskilled out of the workforce. The Green Party proposes to circumvent this problem by introducing a guaranteed income. Though clever in its ability to circumvent the problem that a minimum wage presents us with, it faces its own problems. For example, though a guaranteed wage might benefit a hard worker who is just down on his luck so as to reassure him as he decides, should he fail to find employment, to venture into business for example, it could only hurt the drug addict by feeding his addiction. One solution might be to issue each resident with a Government debit card that can be used only in participating shops in Canada to buy healthy food, shelter and clothing. Applying it to all Canadians from the poorest to the richest could remove stigma around it. To prevent people from collecting it while abroad, it could be set up so that this debit card could be used only from within Canada and must be used at least once a week to buy food or something else for that week's payment to go through. We'd also have to determine the right amount to prevent destitution while still motivating someone to go out and find work. The onus would be on the Green Party to sell me on a well thought out plan, though it has potential. German-style codetermination laws could allow workers to sit on the board of directors of major companies Also, we can't look only at giving the poor more money, but also at reducing the cost of goods and services to them. For example, allowing monolingual packaging and labeling in the dominant language of a province could save some companies some money in overhead costs that they could then pass on to consumers while also giving consumers more choice. Another problem has to do with playing favourites between industries without a valid public policy rationale. For example, the NDP wants to increase funding for the promotion of the Canadian tourism industry. This investment will either fail if Americans are just not interested in visiting Canada, or succeed at the cost of other industries by putting upward pressure on the Canadian dollar. What makes tourism a more worthwhile industry than the automotive, agricultural, or any other industry? Unless the NDP can make a public policy case for it, it should fund the advertizing of all of Canada's industries or none at all. If all of them, then why not just make a company's advertizing budget tax deductible? Alternatively, why not just lower corporate taxes and let the businesses decide whether advertizing is their best investment? Of course the Conservative Party is equally guilty of playing favourites between industries. To universally lower corporate taxes is one thing, but to give a tax credit that only the oil industry can claim unfairly benefits that industry at the expense of other industries. Either the credit applies to all industries equally, or none at all. I think the Libertarian Party holds to this principle too. If the goal is to help the unemployed, then why not just do so directly by increasing funding for trades and professional education for the unemployed for any trade or profession that is in short supply? An increasingly qualified workforce would naturally attract more businesses. Establishing a common labour market with other states could increase labour mobility. Promoting common educational standards for various trades and professions between member states in the common labour market could increase the value of diplomas, degrees, and other certifications internationally. Linguistic deregulating of the market could give indigenous, Chinese, and other Canadians more access to jobs that are now reserved for English-French bilinguals. Advertising the travel industry is just beating around the bush of the problem. Plus, though I support cap and trade in principle as a more user-pay tax, why would I then want to actively promote an industry that consumes much oil so as to push oil prices up even higher? Some might argue that the NDP is likely to provide the most funding for the least advantaged, but I look at it this way: If I must choose between: 1. Paying ten dollars more in taxes with five dollars going to help the least advantaged and five dollars towards the special interests of the middle class that doesn't need my help, or 2. Pay ten dollars less in tax the entirety of which I could direct towards the least advantaged, which is the most just option? As an example of a public policy objective, I could see the Government promoting the sign-language media industry. Whereas the CBC is completely redundant due to the private sector providing plenty of English and French media, sign-language media is likely not sustainable in the private sector alone yet a case can be made for making public media more accessible to the Deaf, any profit from the export of such media being just an added bonus above and beyond its public policy objectives. Another added bonus would be the creation of jobs for the Deaf to produce Deaf media rather than just throwing unproductive money at the Deaf. The Liberal Party has promised increased funding for education on reserves. I applaud that as a short-term solution, but not as a long term one. The Libertarian Party proposes just giving much land back to indigenous peoples so that they can exploit their own resources. One problem I see with both the Conservative and Libertarian Parties is their fanatical drive to reduce taxes at all cost. One good thing with the Libertarian Party is that while it might win seats, it is not likely to form a Government, thus forcing it to work together with other parties and so moderate its policies somewhat. One good thing with the NDP is its lack of fear if raising taxes if necessary. The Conservative Party also wants to expand the army reserves even though Canada is really not seriously threatened by anyone. Maybe, maybe Russia, but then the case would be for expanding regular forces, not the reserves. I'm leaning towards the Libertarian Party at present (maybe Conservative in its absence), but other parties might win my vote if their rhetoric of helping the least advantaged should come to mirror their policy proposals.

I can see a benefit to the welfare state in peinciple. Pure capitalism has its flaws and a proper welfare state can correct these. For instance, it can create media in a sign language and so create employment for the Deaf in the process. It can provide quality universal compulsory education to ensure children from poor families have a more equal chance to become productive members of society. These are just some examples of the benefits of a proper welfare state. But once it becomes a form of gimme gimme socialism, it's lost all sense of purpose.

I've cast my share of blank ballots.

I remember my first and last local meeting as a new NDP member years ago. I came in thinking we could talk about increasing Government funding to teach poor children abroad how to read and write (when I was still unaware of the poverty that existed on some reserves), but instead I quietly listened in shock as this circle of middle class university students were talking about how the Government should subsidize their bus passes. That's what I call gimme gimme socialism.

Why I might vote Conservative or Libertarian. I'm a socialist at heart in some respects wanting to promote social justice, yet I see little of that in the NDP's campaign priorities. It talks about helping the middle class. I belong to the middle class and don't need help, thank you very much. As a socialist party, shouldn't the NDP be talking about helping the homeless and destitute instead? The NDP and Liberal Party talk about Bilingual judges and the right of high flyers to receive a 7-up in either official language on an international Air Canada flight. Shouldn't they be focusing on the linguistic rights of Deaf and other less advantaged linguistic communities instead, or maybe increasing the availability of Braille? The NDP worry more about the ideological goal of Medicare funding going towards acquiring property and Medicare policy blocking private investment rather than delivering medical services. NDP nationalism worries about Canadian Content rules as if culture stops at the border rather than seeing media as a window on the world and a potential bridge between peoples. Though free trade benefits rich and poor countries, it generally benefits poorer countries more (making it a wonderful equalizer), yet the NDP and Liberal Parties are generally less keen on it than the Libertarian and Conservative Parties. For these and many other reasons, voting for a Libertarian candidate might be preferable. The Libertarian Party seems too keen on lowering taxes too steeply and too quickly (which concerns me as a fiscal conservative who likes to see balanced budgets), but I think it has the right idea on other fronts. By reducing media funding, it would allow me to fund the media of my choice with my own money. By cutting subsidies to the middle class, it would free me to give my money to the charity of my choice to those who really need it. By cutting back on official bilingualism, it would free yet more of my money that I could again give to the charity of my choice to help Deaf and other less advantaged linguistic communities rather than forcing me to subsidize the privileges of those who need help the least. Since I am unaware of a Libertarian candidate in my riding yet, I could consider a Conservative candidate maybe, though I would have to give that one serious thought given the Conservative Party's support for C-51 and the erosion of civil liberties generally. At present, it's up to the NDP and Liberal and Green Parties to win my vote. Until a party directs my taxes towards those who need them the most, it's best to let me take care of that myself.

Ironically enough, though I'd rarely vote Conservative, Scott Reid would likely be my first choice over other parties if he were in my riding in spite of his being a Conservative.

Harper is hardly a Libertarian. He has publicly lambasted them once. Scott Reid is libertarian enough that he has had to vote against his party on a few bills.

There are far more supports for English and French people though.

Then again, Scott Reid is more of a Libertarian than a Conservative.

Actually, Scott Reid's book Lament for a Nation helped to make me more open to Conservatism in principle. Prior to that, I was totally closed to it.

Ah yes, I mean the Conservative Scott Reid. I know little of the Liberal one.

What do you mean?

Scott Reid.