Machjo

What is the use of democracy anyway if people are oting eenie meenie minie moe andcan't even bother to do a little background research on their candidate. In that case, elections are totally random anyway and we might as well just have a dictatorship. At least it would provide stability.

Seriously now. Would it be that difficult for a polling station to put up a poster describing each candidate's views including his party affiliation? If voters can't even be bothered to read a poster on the wall, then they deserve Dr. Greenthumb.

Interesting that someone should defend keeping party names on ballots. In my opinion, this is what allows some right idiots to get to power. People voting for them based strictly on party affiliation, either because it has a pretty logo or pretty colours or because grandpapa voted that party or because the party leader is sexy, etc.

Your thoughts on this?

Even if we give the benefit of the doubt concerning the benefit of political parties in the political system, certainly it would be wise to not overdo it. Removing party names from ballots would at least weaken party allegiances somewhat. And if there really is some valid reason for the existence of parties, then I'm sure they could survive that, no?

I'd have to disagree. I'd say the older the party, the more history it has, the more likely it is to have dunces voting for it. It may be that the first generation in their family voted candidate, and it just so happened that the candidate they'd vote for was of that party. The following generations began voting party the same way many Canadians cheer on the Habs at a party game, as part of history and tradition. On that front, the Liberal Party is likely the greatest beneficiary from this kind of tradition voting, the NDP after that, and the Conservatives, a relatively newer party, following that (though granted many likely just transfered their traditional voting habits from the Progressive Conservatives). I'm sure they all benefit from the dunce vote, though I'd guess that the older the party tradition, the greater the benefit. That's one reason I'm opposed to party politics. With parties, a complete idiot in the right party could be guaranteed a win while a genius standing as an independent or member of a fringe party will normally be crushed. If you remove party names from the ballots, it could even out the odds at least a little. To take last election as an example, both the Liberal and Conservative Candidates were complete idiots. The NDP candidate, well, I couldn't even reach her for comment, so I'm not going to vote for someone I know so little about. The Green Party candidate was a little more intelligent than the others, though not much better. I really wanted to vote none of the above. I finally cast a blank ballot at the last minute. Thinking back on it, I'm not sure if maybe I'd been too harsh on the Green candidate and should have voted for him anyway as the lessor of a bunch of idiots. Comparatively speaking, he still stood far ahead of the Liberal and conservative candidates intellectually. Especially the Conservative candidate was nothing more than a party hack who could do nothing more than eulogize his leader.

Why is it that every thread boils down to cliches about capitalism, democracy and socialism. Such terms have become meaningless. On a technical level, what precise solutions would you present to clean up the economy, rather than just throwing about clished generalizations?

What we really need are more independent candidates keeping the parties, all the parties, in check.

This would certainly change things. I already cringe when I see a party name under a candidate's name on my ballot, so much so that it makes me look to see if there's an independent candidate, even if I like the candidate in question with the party name under his. If you removed party names from ballots, I wouldn't be as averse to voting for party members. Some people might even already be boycotting elections just for this; it really wouldn't surprise me. If you removed party names from ballots, more of these thinkers would come back to vote, whereas those who vote party X as a knee-jerk reaction would stop voting. In other words, we'd have more thinkers voting and more dunces staying home.

Harper in a nutshell:

We must realize Canadian politics are much more partisan and polarized than UK politics. Each party feels it must save face by not showing itself to be weak, to stand on 'principle' at all costs, etc. Canadian politics are totally polarized. Some solutions I could see would be: 1. remove party names from ballots. That's probably the most important of all symbolically so as to emphasize that we are voting in not parties, but MPs. As such, these MPs are free to associate with any or not party, and so are free to build coalitions. As long as party names appear on ballots, parties will always argue that we'd voted not for MPs but for parties, and as such party loyalty must remain, along with the problems this creates. So definitely the most important step symbolically is to remove party names from ballots. 2. De-officialize political parties. They ought to get no legal recognition whatsoever beyond that of any other incorporated not-for-profit organization. That too would help make Parliament non-Partisan. It's already reached the point a few years ago where when I see a party name under the candidate's name on my ballot, I cringe.

Perhaps corporatism is the way to go?

9,984,670 square kilometres of land. Have we ever given anything of remotely equal value? Yeah, on my tax dollars. What? Catholics have no money of their own?

Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_gold_dinar

I'm all for freer trade with the EU, even if it does continue to sell Gavage-based foie gras.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing a libertarian minarchist or perhaps even anarchist philosophy whereby the government simply cease printing money altogether?

I'm not quite following you here. So I'll just respond to what I think you're trying to say and you can correct me later. Essentially I'm saying that government intervention in the economy to, for example, try to pull the economy out of recession ought to be used sparingly and not abused. It's like medication. If you take it only when you're sick, it will prove far more effective than if you;re addicted to it already. Beyond extreme cases, then the government ought to let the market adjust as much as possible and simply create the democratic framework around which it could happen. For example, by eliminating the minimum wage and introducing co-determination legislation, then workers could negotiate salaries with their workers on their own without the need for so much government intervention, and in times of recession could even choose to negotiate salary reductions so as to save their jobs rather than be legislated out of the market by minimum wage laws. Again, direct intervention by the government to explicitely manipulate the economy ought to be used sparingly.

I was simply taking examples here. But even supposing that the government comprised nothing more than Parliament Hill, the same principle would apply. Would you want the government to be replacing its old seats and renovating parts in desperate need of repair right when costs are high or in the midst of a recession. It's not the size of the government that matters here, but how it spends its money to take the larger picture into account.

And even Friedman contradicted himself. At one point he was proposing a voucher programme for schools, arguing that the government should invest on the demand rather than the supply side of education (though Sweden has adopted a voucher porgramme too, I doubt very much that it agrees with Friedman on most points). But how does the government introduce a voucher programme without any kind of regulation whatsoever? It must: 1. determine the value of the voucher. 2. Define the criteria that must be met to participate in the voucher programme. 3. Determine the administrative system that would manage the voucher programme. So while I can agree with Freidman's idea of demand-side as opposed to supply-side government funding, which is extensively used in Sweden and has proven to be quite effective, I reject the idea that such funding ies equal to no government regulation whatsoever.

And how exactly does the government not influence the economy while still spending money on a police force, the military, etc. Whether it intends to or not, a government will influence the economy. So that becomes a moot point. And that brings us to the next question which is 'how' it influences the economy.Would it be preferable for the government to be spending on new police cars in the midst of an economic boom in the car industry where car prices are over-inflated already, where the car indusry is competing for workers as it faces a worker shortage, as the price of the resources needed to build the cars is rising owing to demand for these resources outstripping supply; or would it be preferable for the government to get a better deal on the cars when the car industry is in the midst of an economic recession? Personally I'd rather wait for a recession and get 10% off or so on the cars than buy them when the economy is overheating when the price of those police cars is bleated. It would seem to me to just be wise economic policy. At the same time, it saves money on the welfare and EI rolls in recessions since it essentially prevents recessions. It thus kills two birds with one stone: cheaper police cars and job creation simultaneously. Why would you propose we buy those police cars without putting any thought into it? The same applies to military vehicles, etc. etc. etc. I know Sweden has a similar policy. For example, when the clothing industry is in recession, the Swedish military will load up on uniforms for years to come, and then not buy any more except when necessary until the next recession in the clothing industry. The idea that the government can somehow spend on the military, police, courts, the justice system etc. etc. etc. without having any impact on the economy is ludicrous. It's not even worth asking the question of how to avoid any impact, since there will inevitably be an impact. The more important question is how to insure it will be a positive rather than negative impact.

Yes. But Ontario's politicians are spineless.

You can't blame the courts for this;.Their job is to interpret and uphold the Constitution and the law, even if it's unjust. The courts are not above the law, and have no authority to make or alter laws. The're job is strictly to interpret and uphold the law, however unjust it may be. It will hold as long as unscrupulous voters and politicians hide behind the law. In Ontario, the defenders of the separate school system keep reminding us that it's in the Constitution, yet even the MPPs among them keep silent about the fact that if they have the power to at least try to amend the Constitution. But since they secretly support this discrimination knowing that it's discrimination and that it's morally repugnant, they try to wiggle out of it by pretending that they're somehow powerless to promote any amendments to the Constitution. Gutless cowards, really. What? You mean Canada can't defend international law abroad while ignoring it at home without looking like a right hypocrite on the international stage? What a revelation!

If the Mexicans can produce something more efficiently than we can, we'd be stupid not to take advantage of it. What we need to do is improve education and focus on producing what we can do most efficiently and sell that to Mexico. You seem to be short-sited here. I remember living in Montreal long ago and then moving to Toronto at a higher-paying job, only to realize that with the cost of living in Toronto, I was better off in the lower-paying job in Montreal! The same applies here. If Canada should raise stop trade, our salaries might go up, but the cost of goods and cervices would likely go up further along with a decline in the CAD. I'd rather earn less and be able to afford things than earn 'more' and not be able to! Looking at income alone is short-sighted at best. We must look at the overall impact, not just salaries. If salaries go up 10% but costs go up 50%, would you not rather go back to the lower salary?

Then instead of bailing out big business, could the Federal Government not have foreseen this real need and put the money into building this bridge while we were in deflation for a short time last year rather than now that we are out of recession? It's all about timing. The government should not be increasing spending in good times, but in bad times. If it intended to fix this bridge, it should have given the money for it while we were in the depths of recession last year, not now. Now is too late for that, and I must assume the bridge could wait another few years until the next recession to get a good fixing. If it really is in such a bad shape, why did the government fail to think of it then instead of creating a bunch of make-work jobs? Now is too late for that until the next recession. Now we have inflation, debt, and interest rates to deal with.

So let me get this straight. You think the government should increase spending in good times and then just increase it more in bad times? That to me is a classic case of lop-sided Keynesianism. Ideally you want the government to restrain itself in good times so as to be on a strong footing in bad times. Seeing that the government itself has proven not responsible enough to do this, then perhaps laws are needed to restrict it somewhat.