idealisttotheend

People keep arguing in the health care debate (and in this forum) that governments cannot afford the dollars to fix the system. Okay fine. But if governments can't afford it then who can afford it. Corporations apparently. Governments get their money from people through taxes, corporations through profits from the same gosh darned people who would be paying the extra taxes. This is unless you are arguing that the rich people will pay more which doesn't seem to be an argument of my friends on the right in the debate or on this forum. Threrefore the question is ultimately one of control, who will control the system governments through taxes or corporations through profits.

Good post MS. I agree, the Repubs no longer have any connection to Joe and Jane USA or even small or medium companies. Just the people who pay their campaign bills from their large corporate towers with other people's money and it is definately bordering on fascism I completely agree. The media is taking on the ethics of market efficiency and not journalistic integrity or diversity and you cannot have a healthy democracy under those conditions. Canada held out till Mulroney but our conservatives are going the same way along with out media.

TLG, you may want to ask DAC to inform you on free will. Mankind is free to act as he sees fit without the Lord's interference whilst he is on Earth and he is responsible for his actions. He must answer to God only after he dies (so the story goes). Your philosophy is the worst kind of moral relativism (not a typo) that I've ever seen and proves that the relativism/objectivism argument is like any other in that the extremes on both sides so closely resemble each other they are indiscernable.

A lot of people on this thread have responded with us and them arguments. A lot of people who are smart enough to know better have taken the part of ideologues ("TalkNumb" and "Augustus" to name two) making dire warning against Islamism etc. A lot of people on this thread have implored "us" to defend "our" values against "them." Here are "our" new values: CBC link The Canadian equivilant would be to have the PM appoint the premiers instead of having provincial elections. This is only a beginning, Putin is not a democrat to begin with, nor Russia a shining example of democracy. These are "our" values shall we defend them?

Suicide was illegal until the mid 70s. Religious prohibitions on are for the same reason it was illegal, it is meant to be discouraged for the good of society. I agree with you that a more modern approach is to see people who commit suicide as sick people and the net effect of religious condemnation of suicide (who go to Hell) can be a second blow to families affected by it.

August, can you answer this case, can you face the reality of the wage economy? Consider this case: A society requires it's members to contribute to it in order to earn standing within in it and determine that members allocation of scarce resources. That society runs out of productive occupations due to efficencies gained through various means. Making locks gives some members a chance to contribute where before they had none and determines how many resources they ought to recieve. Is lock making thus moral?

Sorry, sorry. They negotiated (since 1975 and with Joe Clark also failing), negotiations failed, Trudeau imposed the NEP along with a tax on gas (as part of his post-political-death post-Marguret stategy of imposing or threatening unilateral action in order to get bilateral action. The was knattering and gnashing of teeth (Lougheed cut production Trudeau didn't budge) and then Lougheed agreed to a modified version of the NEP. The feds gave in on gas and got the royalty rates they wanted. Lougheed said that making an agreement with Trudeau was the worst move of his political career as it did not play well in Alberta after oil prices did not rise as expected. There is a famous picture of the two toasting their agreement with champagne. Those are definately the facts (I sincerely hope ). And since no one answered my question, the NEP was hardest on the Americans since it was sort of nationalization extra light of the oil industry. Reagan brought it up with Trudeau since the American oil companies brought it up with him. A lot of Canadians stood to benefit if they wanted to be owners of the oil rather than drillers of it, but then we don't really want that do we? We'd rather pay higher taxes, send oil profits to Texas and then blame the federal government for the oil bad times. Source: U of C Link

Lougheed signed the NEP, it was a negotiated agreement between Alberta and the feds. Prove it. Or do you suscrbibe to urban myths on a regular basis? The Alberta government's take actually kept going up under NEP. Whose interest was the NEP really most hostile to? Earlier in the thread, it was clearly stated that the National Oil Policy of Diefenbaker pretty much destroyed the petrochemical industry in Quebec. There are the facts.

I heard on the CBC that it was partly a financial issue, the Liberals have an adequet war chest and the other three are hurting. I think you are also right though that they don't expect a different result. I think it's pretty much a choice between the status quo and the Liberals gaining ground. I suppose our resident Quebecers will know much better than I, but it looks like it will be a cold day in hell before the Conservatives make a breakthrough in Quebec necessary to a majority for them. In fact I think it is considerably more likely that that the Liberals or the NDP as a junior coalition partner will take ground in the West at the Conservatives expense than the Conservatives taking ground in Quebec or even metropolitian Ontario. I don't think a majority is possible for the Conservatives at present but a Liberal one may be. So they don't want an election because they know that the only different result they are likely to get is a Liberal majority. Maybe it is this realization that has Harper in hiding and looking so shell shocked. Layton has to try to find a way to be seen as electable, something other than an opportunity for vote splitting by the centre (remember '88) and deal with the progressive threat of the the Greens and he doesn't want an election. Only Ducceppe has Zen, he has no expectations to meet, the beauty and tragedy of the Bloc I guess. I think you are absolutely right about that. I don't think it's constitutional though is it? Aren't matters of confidence a perogerative of the PM on the government side?

Well said Eureka.

SmilingMoose: From Tredeau's Memiors , (sparse but containing a spirited defence of the NEP)..... This was part of Diefenbaker's National oil policy (mainly requiring new leases to be given only to Canadians) which was in turn part of his broader Northern and Resources agenda. As to what Albertans though of the NOP: Here is a great internet link from an Albertan MLA (conservative no less). Opinion Canada Those who wish to perpetuate the "Alberta as a victim myth" necessarily don't bring this up very often.

I will try to find sources, please hang on.

I once saw an argument that the first person who brings up Hitler and the Nazis in an argument automatically loses the argument. I don't think it is true in all cases but I wonder about this one. What is the actual correlation between a nation of Germans under a charismatic leader with a large conventional army, and a highly fragmented fundamentalist terrorist movement? What is the price for us not understanding the difference, especially in trying to repsond militarily by attacking nations instead of cells and politically blaming an entire religion? Not only can you approach terrorism dispassionately, our political leaders must do so. What is the passionate result that you want TN? The passionate result of people who see children attacked on TV is to attack people who look like the attackers. The attacked will thus respond passionately to the counter attack and on and on you go. Furthermore as someone who quotes from economic textbooks, are you now saying that reason is insufficient to deal with a problem like terrorism, that there is no pragmatic approach but only an ideological one? Please quote the post where this occured and someone claimed the act was "alright." The dispassionate response to Hitler would be to deal with him earlier and appeasment was a passionate desire to avoid another world war. Then we ought to defend those good values. We ought not defend ourselves or our actions in the name of those values. America's actions from Guatemala in 54 to Pinnochet to the Shah of Iran have been taken in the name of freedom and democracy but are clearly not consistent with the actual values of freedom and democracy. Europe recently got out of the colonizing buisness and we all know the white man's burden was really taking "our" "values" to the "uncivilized" because those values were better even though colonization itself is an example of a weak value system. If you defend the "west" and all it's actions instead of only the actions consistent with the values you feel are good, you cease to talk in terms of values and instead talk in terms of slogans. "They" say "allah akbuar -- blessed are the martyrs," "we" say "defend freedom and democracy" and the blood begins to flow as there cannot be any common ground. The wise on both sides move out of large cities and away from military installations and power plants. If you defend only the actions consistent with those good values, you find actions on both sides that you can defend and actions on both sides that you cannot. There have been media reports (I think I saw one on BBC though I can't find it at the moment) that some of the terrorists themselves didn't know that they would be killing children and objected vigorously when they found out. There was therefore discord even among the thirty people who went to kill people to make their political point. That is why it must be obvious that as soon as you define these things in terms of the "west" versus the "Arabs" or "Muslims" you have already lost the only battle that counts and forgotten the one value most worth defending... that people cannot be held accountable for the actions of other people simply because those other people are of the same race or religion. In any case can we agree that killing chilren is always wrong? if we can than we must point our that no one has refuted BDs assertion that the Russians have killed children in Chechnya, the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Israelies in the occupied territories. It is hard, therefore, to argue that the West is on the side of the angels or not to see what a 'passionate' response to the killing of children breeds.

Prior to 1973 Ontario subsidised the Alberta oil industry by paying prices more than 100% over market prices for Albertan oil, nearly 2 dollars a barrel when the market price was well under one dollar. This program was put in place by Diefenbaker to build a domestic oil industry in Canada and ws obviously to Alberta's deep benefit. Was this: trampling a minority? illegitamate? threatening to the fabric of confederation? When are we going to get over the fact that the federal government cannot be expected to give subsidies in all instances and then pilloried for charging them in all instances. The intellectually rigorous among us will realize that a national economy requires giving at some times and taking at others. Trudeau stubbornly still saw Canada as a national entity in 1980. Through this lense the NEP makes sense (though not perfect sense). 20% interest rates, high inflation and a national deficit were not in Alberta's interests any more than they were in Ontario's. Furthermore do we have some sort of problem with owning our own oil in this counrty or must we sell it to the American multinationals with ridiculously low royalties attached? Are we afraid to be successful or rich in this country or shall we concern ourselves with having various parts climb to the top of their particular molehill and make faces at the other parts while chanting "finders keepers, losers weapers?"

And so we have the answer to what benefit you recieved. You hoped that you could do something, you held on to that hope throughtout the conversation. Furthermore, if you are anything like me, even though your experience told you that you would likely not going to help her you didn't have the heart to just hang up on her. Heart would translate into an emotional needs. Therefore a utilitarian ethic decrees that your emotional need were to try to help her even if you couldn't and you met this need. A "humans are always selfish" utilitarian could argue sucessfully that you gained more (or in this case possibly lost less ) than you would have if you had not taken the time because of that emotional need to hope to help her. You garnered no 'practical' benefit from this 'transaction' (too many libertarian economic articles for me ) but you did gain (or not lose) emotionally. You may indeed have acted pragmatically from a utilitarian perspective. Why is Politico A's pragmatic goal to rip you off? Might his pragmatic goal be to selflessly serve the populace to meet his emotional needs in the form of public duty or a sense of Right? Is it possible that this is his goal? Might this not be the basis for a morality to compare him favourably to one that just wants the greatest amount of money? Is wanting to feel good about oneself a pragmatic goal. Consider this case: A society requires it's members to contribute to it in order to earn standing within in it and determine that members allocation of scarce resources. That society runs out of productive occupations due to efficencies gained through various means. Making locks gives some members a chance to contribute where before they had none and determines how many resources they ought to recieve. Is lock making thus moral?

The argument against the state is that it is a coericive influence. Okay, I disagree, but accept it momentarily. Hard drugs, by the above definition, are coercive because once one takes them they cause you to need more through physical means, addiction. Therefore one cannot voluntarily take them unless one knows how dangerous and addcictive they are when one starts. If one knows (truly understands) and takes them anyway then they are insane or suicidal or more likely just young and stupid. In all the previous cases the person cannot be held responsible for their actions. Therefore hard drug use cannot be voluntary by the same logci that the the state's edicts are not voluntary. It's a seperate thread I guess but there it is. Noble, but you still haven't explained how to defend yourself against the small percentage of violent individuals. Nor have you solved Chamberlain's problem. Your example: must have come from an economist or near-economist. It assumes that Bob will act "rationally," specifically, in the manner the author feels is rational. In fact, why did Bob kill Jack in the first place? If he walks into a store and is refused service and is starving, do you really think that he'll politely leave? No, he'll put a bullet in the owner's head and take what he wants. Unless of course the shop owner does so first, (so the libertarian argument goes). This is survival of the fittest and chaotic. Other problems: if you threaten someone with death (by starvation or otherwise) they cannot voluntarily submit to a court. This is a principle of natural law and is not semantics but also practical. They will resent and stew and rage over the settlement for as long as they are subject to it and wait for an opportunity to revenge themselves on their 'oppressors.' Think Germany after WW1. You have to spend more resources on preventing this than you could earn 9 times out of 10 Bob doesn't have anything that the family of Jack wants. Well adjusted and gainfully employed people generally don't commit murders, they don't need to. This activity is most often relegated to the poorly adjusted and ne'er do wells who don't have the money or employable skills necessary for any sort of meaningful restitiution. I would bet Bob would run into the forest to join the violent criminals. Humans are, after all, social in nature and stick to those they identify as their own kind. Intellectual arguments against the state are well and good but the disenfrachised quickly form themselves into groups in order to survive. This is going to be a problem because the violent criminals in the forest are likely the ones that will get together and come into "town" to take what they want and prey on the weak. Happens every day as it, street gangs are a growth industry in this country and organized crime is doing well. without a state what is going ot stop Bob from just going 100km in any direction and starting again? Are private individuals going to have the resources to track all the murders and if they do is the most effecient way to keep tabs on them putting up pictures?!? (just like your problems with technology, your arguments are for systems that work well when settlements were small and everyone knows everyone else like a small town, it would never work in even Saskatoon with a mere 200,000 people where everyone can't know everyone else or keep track of the 100s of criminals they ought notdo buisness with) libertarianism assumes people act as individuals, your example assumes they will act as a collective in dening Bob service, if only one provides food and the means to earn it the game is over and Bob is not punished. Furthermore, Bob's "incentive" to "submit" is based on his exclusion from the collective, ought he not be able to survive as an individual under a libertarian philisophy? Tell me, when did I volunteer to have anything to do with Equifax. How is it less coericive than a government? The police force is not accountable? What about the review commissions, investigative journalists, other police forces, courts, political bodies, citizens groups. In fact police forces are held to some of the highest standards in our societies and rightly so. Do they do stupid things absolutely, but the fact that you know some of the stupid things they do is proof of their accountability. Fair and just are subjective terms. If you give a court an 'incentive', you are giving it an incentive to hand down what you think are fair and just punishments. Any reasonable person would tell you that it is the lack of "incentive" that guarentees impartiality. Indeed I am not. I would say the Canadian government brutalized no one during the war (besides possibly Japanese interns) and acted to prevent brutalization of it's citizens and it's allies citizens. Since you and I disagree I think the source of moral legitamacy necessary to resolve our disagreement is the majority will of the society. Given the number of democracies in the world today, many would agree with me. I realize democracies are fallible but so are all things and fallacies can be corrected. All your atrocities listed were stopped by democratic governments of one stripe or another. That citizen had/has a responsibility to engage in the democratic process to convince others of the wisdom of his position to the fullest extent of his ability. That citizen has/had a responsibility to ensure a constitution was put in to protect hm from the states excesses. If he fails on either count he must accept that he lost and try to win on the next issue. No, actually I would like to draw your attention to the big picture. Look at the world in 1939 as a collection of individual states with no "concentration of power in a single institution with a monopoly over violence...." There was no effective world "state" so there was a "libertarianism" of sorts between the different states who engaged in contracts and trade and such voluntarily. There was no coersive influence to make them do anything. What happened? Isn't it exactly like your earlier example of Bob and Jack except on the macro? Bob (Germany) killed Jack (French soldiers) so Jack's family (France) demanded reparations from Bob which Bob paid to try and stay part of the group (have people do buisness with) and have not commit violence against it. Bob gets pissed off that he has to pay reparations, joins up with some violent criminals who are also pissed off and attacks Jack's family. Repeat ad infinitium (as you point out later in your post about the never ending European wars) until... The US steps in, gives everyone money so they build themselves up (which they didn't earn by the way). No one compensates anyone else. The US has the most effective military force by a long shot so an effective near monopoly on violence (unless France was really going to nuke the Russians). The the EU (a type of state) is formed along with several organizations like NATO and GATT. When is the last time Bob and Jack's family fought? That is a very 'interesting' statement to say the least. Do you advocate for ICBM ownership by individual citizens. See that crazy guy on the street downtown, you want him to have one? What about your local chapter of the Hell's angels? Would you sleep at night knowing your neighbour just divorced his wife lost his job and has an ICBM at his disposal. If the political elites are not accountable and don't care about you than it is your responsibility to change that through democratic means. From a non-partisan perspective: because the state is not perfect does not make it incapable. Expecting the state to prevent all terrorist incidents is rather difficult even with a totaliarian state. From a partisan perpective: Airline security is private, the market decided these security jobs (baggage checking etc.) should be paid at 6-7 dollars and hour. The market said cockpit security doors were unnecessary in the US. The market was wrong. The private sector sold Mr. McVeigh the truck and fertializer to make the bomb. The best way to prevent this is to keep controls on fertilizer and other explosive purchases which is anatema to a no regultion libertarian mindset.

Just when you thought soverignty wasn't dead. CBC Regional Link The way I read this poll, only 16% of Quebecers are hard seperatists and another 17% are soft seperatists. That only make 33% and the fact that people's opinions haven't changed doesn't seem very good for the PQ. That just seems to mean that people's views are entrenched and that it isn't really a movement anymore as much as an institution. No one rallys to the cause of an institution and the winning conditions seem so very far away.

Byelections are no longer possible, looks like the election results are here to stay. CBC Regional Link No opinion just thought I'd close it off.

This may well apply to Iraq (the US commanders apparently let people loot to "blow off some steam") but not to Afghanistan or Somalia. Part of Afghanistan's 'charm' is that is said to be ungovernable. The Taliban was probably the most "effective" state it has had in a long time and recall that opium production dropped during it's reign (making it a friend of the Americans for a time). Surely opium production is not a positive result nor terrortist camps. Thinking again of the Americans... if you asked them, in their "war" on terror, whether they most feared governed or "ungoverned" areas they would surely tell you it is the ungoverned areas they most feared. It is in these areas that terrorists come to train, build weapons etc. Even states that are vehemently opposed to America have an interest in keeping activities like this out so as they are not held "responsible" by the Americans if they are found, (for example, Iran). Hugo, you are an idealist like most people on this board. You seem to feel that left to our own devices humans will flourish and prosper and no one will take advantage of anyone else (if anyone tries the dispute will be mediated by private individuals). I agree that this may well be true in up to 98% of the cases. But you have a thief's dilema. There will always be individuals or (more likely) groups of individuals who cannot get what they want/feel they deserve through cooperative means and resort to violence. It is in everyone's interest that this not occur (including the people commiting the violence) but who ever first employs violence will have an advantage very hard to turn down. No one has yet solved the problem of how to protect the peaceful from being dominated by the violent except through certain forms of monoplies on violence like the state. Ghandi, for example, would have lost without the free press and the free press was protected by the democratic wishes of Britian's people through their state. The fact that it was the same state that guarenteed the free prees as Ghandi was fighting, is no contradiction but leads to the truth of the matter. The violent monopoly must have a guiding ethos and that ethos is best set through a large and dominant organization in order to be comprehenisve. Otherwise again, we will see occasionally violent competition between different ethos at the best of times and violent confrontations simply between "warlords" at the worst of times. I have been reading the problem with corporations thread (and agree that that thread and this one should probably be moved out of federal politics) and the discusison is very similar. Basically the idealist over there is arguing that contract law can be effective when it cannot be formerly enforced. I would agree that 98% of the time this is true. But 2% of the time a party to a contract may have enough power to dominate unethically another party either through coerision due to size (control over large amounts of a necessary resource or what have you) or through violent means. Therefore the best solution is that the majority of disputes are settled between individuals but when they cannot be the state is there, more of a form of insurance aginst grossly unethical behavior by a more powerful entity and to give people futher incentive to solve their disputes among themselves rather than resort to violenece or coerision. First off, the vast majority of people who went to war did so voluntarily. Canada's efforts in the wars were supported by a large majority of people outside of Quebec. People who claimed to be pacifists were given some regard and not forced to go to war only to do civilian work that was left undone by people going off to war. Prohibitions against cowardly behaviour in the army were widely supported by Canadians who saw such behaviour as both immoral and needing to be guarded against in order to ensure victory. Secondly, a government cannot be accused of "brutal slavery" if those "slaves" are the ones who put it in power to start with, (unless you wish to argue that humans are masochistic by nature). The Canadian government's actions were supported by the majority of Canadians and if you took a poll today I think you would find they still are. The government in power was elected by the people who could have chosen to elect a government that wanted nothing to do with the war if they chose to. The conscription issue shows that the state took great pains to balance the needs of it various composite groups by putting off mandatory conscription until late in WW2 to appease the french catholics even though a majority of Canadains supported conscription. Therefore the state moderated the demands of it's various constituents. Thirdly your agrument has put you in a very unenviable position. You now have to argue with Chamberlain. How else were the agressors to be stopped then by what the government did? If you disagree with the Canadian government's actions do you expect that Bismark or Hitler would have been kinder? More freedom loving? That after they took over the world you would have been happier and more prosperious. 1939 illustrates my point about violence exactly. No one wanted a war, they'd seen the carnage of WWI and the sheer insanity of it. After WWI they tried to put in place measures to restrict the armies of states and mollify their power through the League of Nations. Everyone wanted to cooperate and get along, no one wanted to fight... except Hitler. The world allowed him to rearm because no one really had the heart to stop him. Then they tried to appease him, up to the point of allowing him to take parts of other countries. But the appetite grows with eating and it was clear he wasn't going to stop until he'd either subjegated all of Europe or someone gave him his war. So he got his war, no one wanted it but it was a necessary. So in your idealistic anarchy you have the same situation. Almost all of the individuals (globally: states) want peace and prosperity. They want to sign and honour contracts, they want to follow agreed upon laws volutarily. But Hitler comes along, he want more than he has, his ego demands that he and his chosen ideology dominate. He converts people to follow him because they need an ideology and anarchy doesn't give them a strong enough one. He organizes his followers into some sort of society (a state if you will). Soon he is in position to easily dominate the entire anarchy with his army. You cannot appease him. The more success he has by threatening violence the more he will do so. As individuals, each defending his or her own interests, you will lose to the common interest of Hitler's many, Hitler's organization, Hitler's state. Therefore, you will have to either organize yourself to fight him, be dominated by his organization/state... or you can refuse to do either and die. There are no other choices and Chamberlain proved that. As politicians go, we all wish Chamberlain could run the world but we inevitably need Churchill. Your problem here, IMO, is not with the state but with technology . It is technology that allows so many more people to be killed by one man. And this is a very serious problem but again, it is not the state in question that is the problem, but the technologies of mass destruction. Modern states are themselves technologies (of organization). And they are the ones that have indeed allowed the necessary focusing of resources to create nuclear weapons, nerve gasses and good old machine guns. But they have also lead to "productive" technologies like mass production, GMO crops etc. Furthermore many would argue we need the state to protect us from terrorists (in America often anarchists though I'm not suggesting for a second you would ever commit violennce) because one or two individuals can cause so much damage with the technologies we have now. Therefore I think in order for your anarchy to work you would have to eliminate technology so as not allow one or two individuals to hold millions hostage with one hydrogen bomb. If you could eliminate technology than my 2% violence principle may be harder to apply. The right to bear arms (as a check on the state) made oodles of sense in the era of non repeating rifles but no sense in the era of ICBMs and nerve gas.

What is your point? If it is that we ought to declare Jihad on the Arabs because they're the problem with the world these days, I submit it is a poor one. Islam is coalescing the same way the "free world" has but the majority of Arabs still (and always will) occupy themselves with surviving as best they can and not killing school children. I think the statement "Russia has a much different view of the value of human life" is a dangerous one. It sounds like something one says about the enemy in wartime (and they eat babies too!) but that no one really believes in peacetime. There is no evidence that Russians generally have a lower appreciation for the institution of Life than does anyone else. I agree that Russians are more apt to storm the building but you have to realize that these terrorists are not going to accept a flight to Cuba and some money and then leave. I suspect that they were quite prepared to die, and that Russia is trying to look tough with a "we won't let terrorists get away with this." Putin is an ex-KGB stongman after all. A messy situation on all sides. Anyway this particular situation turned out to be what would likely be termed in military parlance as a (technical term coming) "clusterfuck." However it looks like Russia was trying to negotiate (keeping it's soldiers back as part of that) when the terrorists' explosives went off prematuraly, hostages started running and it all went to hell very quickly. I don't think the Russians can be blamed for being completely incompetant since it was the terrorists who couldn't wire their own explosives...though the TV footage of them entering the school didn't make them look all that 'crisp' or flight of foot. Plus some of them got through Russian lines to try and escape which also doesn't look very good. I do agree the Russian could use some extra training but their whole military is in taters since the fall of communism.

Did Iraq become more peaceful when the Americans weakened the State? When the Baath security apparatus was struck down did people hug each other in the streets or loot the hospitals and power plants? Afghanistan has a highly ineffective state -- is it peaceful? Does it breed "peace camps" of hippies or terrorist camps and lots and lots of drugs? What about Somalia, it has no effective state is it a peaceful place to live? Would you want to live there? Hugo your argument makes no sense. Taking away the organization with the monopoly on violence only makes it a competition for who will dominate via violence. This competition is necessarily violent. If you want peace eliminate the capabability of one human to dominate another through violent means not the state which many would argue is designed to prevent this violence or at least control it in it's democratic forum. Yes some state governments have killed a lot of people but lets not look at the worst examples but the best. In our 140 year history how many Canadian citizens have their government killed? Some criminals throught he death penalty? You can't count the world wars because those people died resisting a state that was worse than our own. What else? In short, how is the Canadian state violent enough to be feared and how can it be compared unfavourably to the "ungovernerable" regions of the world with no or no effective state.

I realize the theglobeandmail.com polls aren't scientific but I couldn't believe this one: Globe Link: Poll Who would you like to win the November presidential elections? George W. Bush 3911 (11%) John Kerry 11261 (32%) Ralph Nader 19962 (57%) n= 35154 Nader can barely mainain 1% in the States but he's got 57% here?!?!? Is it a joke? Is it that Canadians just don't like either of the two mainstream candadates? What to make of it.

My comments, feel free to correct them for those who will inevitably disagree: MLW thread: Are you Anti-Usa or Anti Bush This is a popular thread though it veers off and on topic as we usually do. My own opinion is to go with the common wisdom that Canada tends to get along well with a Democratic president and poorly with a Republican. The right will say that Mulroney and Reagan got along famously and they would be right but I would argue that this was acquiesce by Mulroney to the American agenda (dismantling energy and investment controls and the eventual signing of the FTA) and Mulroney's influence on this country was politically disastrous (economically arguable but politically disastrous). All in all, Bush is not very well liked and like the rest of the world there is a polarization between people who get on the anti-terrorism "war" lazier faire capitalism bandwagon and people who develop a visceral hate for the man. The centre just tends to shrug and accept the inevitability of it all. IMO it doesn't. Catholicism is concentrated in Quebec and while historically it has been a huge issue (Ontario and the rest of Canada were Protestant) the Church isn't even very influential among Quebecois after the secularization of the 1960s. There is a small (generally religious) fundamentalist movement that was loudest under the previous leader of the Canadian Alliance (that just merged to form the conservatives) one Stockwell Day. However after Harper was elected leader it lost a lot of it's voice and in the previous election "morality" issues were seen as a critical weakness of the Conservatives and the party tried to silence their discussion. The reason for that is the majority of Canadians are liberal on social issues such as abortion and such, considerably more liberal than Americans. The green party is liberal in the traditional sense (leaning right on economic issues) but environmental issues are generally associated with the left and the young. Kyoto is an issue here and it tends to break down along right/left lines though there are notable exceptions. Canada has heavier gun control laws and no second amendment. Guns have always been frowned upon by the federal government which resists arming even the customs and parks staff. It is much harder to get a gun in Canada than the US though legal means. I think a bigger issue though is the perception and the reality that Canadian urban areas are considerably safer than American ones so there is no need for citizens to have guns to protect themselves. Furthermore, while this is changing, there has been a lower incidence of gang crime in Canada historically than in America and I think that makes a difference. I'm not sure political traditions have anything more than an ancillary effect on gun crime. Canada, so far, has resisted the worst of the Americanization of it's politics (though the right is associating ever more frequently with the Republican party and has even been called the republican party north by some commentators.) It was funny during our election to see what were derided as "attack ads" which were quite tame compared to American "attack ads" like SBVT. Someone else point out earlier in the thread that one of the things that contributed to Campbell’s demise was an ad making fun of Chretien’s deformatity (he can only speak out of one side of his mouth). This was seen as “American” and unacceptable. Frankly I think there is a lack of American critism in the media. The CBC tries sometimes but then gets attacked as almost un patriotic (anti-American seems much worse than anti-Canadian these days). Even on trade issues where we get screwed, people blame our government instead of yours which never ceases to erode my personal confidence in the political realism, to say nothing of the patriotism, of my countrymen. America is becoming more anti-democratic and Canada is going right along…. but we’re not there yet.

SInce when are anarchists extreme left? Aren't they extreme right?

Interesting comment by Salutin Looks like August was on the same page as the Salutin in his reference to Kane, (maybe his IS Salutin lol )