Cartman

I walk to work. Why should I be forced to pay for all of those roads, traffic lights out there? Where will we get the money for this? I violate no laws in society and can protect myself thank you very much. Why should I have to pay for all those police with fancy cars and equipment out there? Where are we going to get the money for this? I am a vegan fundamentally opposed to the killing of animals. Why do I have to pay ranchers/corporations to slaughter animals (i.e. BSE bailout)? I am a pacifist, why do I have to pay for our military? I have gone to a doctor a handful of times in my entire life and I am willing to pay for each visit. Why should I pay taxes for health care? Where will we get the money for this? Answer: because you are part of a society where people must work together to ensure the betterment of the collective. On this discussion board, people like to call taxation for things like roads, police, clean water etc. as extreme left-wing, special interest, radical, communism (i.e. the Liberal/NDP conspiracy coalition).

All people act, in part, upon self-interest or at least what they perceive is their self-interest. But, this is not to say that people always do what is best for them (crime, unsafe sex, smoking etc). Their self-interest is impaired so to speak and directed partly by others (mass media is just one way). If Smith thought that we constantly calculate pleasure and pain, he did not realize that some people seem to frequently make faulty calucations. They have reduced levels of self-control. How else are we to explain why people do things that are not in their best interests but may be in the interests of others? people who smoke and drink people who join cults only to commit suicide people who become anorexic, bulimic or obese people who listen to Phil Collins People may make decisions, but not always within the context they would choose. Maybe people will not be convinced to give up their MP3 players in favour of 8 tracks, but where did they get the idea to buy either? What are they likely listening to? Mozart or Britney Spears? Why does it seem as though younger people listen to music more often than older people? Free choice?

Has Arafat kept the lid on things more often than not, or did he stir up more problems than he solved? My fear is that more radical leaders may take his place and consider global terrorism to be on the political agenda.

I have heard many American tv shows poking fun at Fox news. Why do we want yet another crappy news source? What incredible alternative viewpoint do they offer as opposed to CNN, CNN Headline News (brief edition for those with short attention spans), CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC etc. etc. etc? My only fear of Fox is that I would have yet another station to eliminate on my remote but be FORCED to pay for. That's choice? No thanx.

1. Because Canada is often perceived as a "stepping stone" to the US. We review every immigration application whereas the US has a lottery system (just to be reviewed, not accepted). Some go through Canada b/c of our fair laws. 2. Because there are more Americans than Canadians (actually, based on this alone, I would have thought that more CDNs would have moved to the US, so I think you have argued against your own point). 3. To experience more of the world. I choose to live in many countries and to work at the same time though Canada is still home. In this day and age, people from wealthy countries generally move around for experience, not to escape their own nation. With all of the challenges associated with moving, do you really think that people move to obtain slight tax advantages, especially when you must pay out of pocket for every possible advantage you may reap? Nothing is free. Won't argue with you there. I like my space, but space is relative.

Could not have said it better myself.

I disagree. We let corporations move freely throughout the globe and argue that they are generating wealth, so why not let individuals do the same?

Let me get this straight, the debate is whether or not politicians of any stripe have hidden agendas and whether or not Harper is right wing? He was unable to articulate an actual agenda during the last election b/c the Cons. had held no policy convention and even then he flip flopped on the issue of supporting the US in Iraq. I also doubt even Harper would refute that he is right wing. So, what is the argument here?

Maybe we should remember that they have a much larger population. I suspect that on paper, China looks like heaven right now too.

After 33 years in power, I think that the Progressive Conservatives in Alberta should be forced to field at least two candidates in each riding. That way, there would be something contentious and interesting about the provincial election here. On election night, you would wonder if PC party "A" (label them extreme socialists and big spenders like their leader Klein) would win or PC party "B" (label them extreme right wingers like their leader Klein) would win. (ps...I am just joking)

Hmmm...maybe you are correct, but look at how many Americans voted this time. There seemed to be much more interest this time around. I was amazed at the votes to outlaw gay marriage. Some time ago this year, I listened to a church leader who said that gay civil marriage thwarted the church's power over marriage. He was not just concerned about being forced to marry gays in the church, but worried about how their authority was being reduced over civil marriage. I was outraged that a religious leader (Catholic I believe) would claim any authority over my marriage. Apart from the economic, it seems to me that there is a real resurgence of right wing cultural "values" that are really at odds with liberal "values". When Rev. Fallwell seems mainstream, something has changed. Maybe he will have his way and force a vote on outlawing gay Teletubbies.

Hugo, I did not anticipate that you would claim coercion is merely physical! You mention that physical laws dominate us (i.e. eating chocolate and gaining weight), but I would say that many people are afraid of their weight not for health reasons, but because the mass media dominates us ideologically and tells us we are ugly if we are not thin. Some anorexics destroy themselves in the pursuit of thinness. If a cult convinces their followers that a spaceship is heading to earth and will take them to heaven once they commit suicide but not force them to do so, then is this acceptable in the eyes of the anarchist? Free choice is illusory. My point is that anarchy will not work, because even if you eradicate the physical repression of the modern state, there will always be greed and some will always dominate others whether physical repression exists or not. Is not the modern state the best example of my logic? Most people do not try to buck the system, because they truly believe it is legitimate.

After 911, the US intervention in Iraq, the inability to capture Osama etc etc, what is going to happen should Arafat die? Will there be a strong resurgence of violence and terrorism throughout the globe?

Hugo, As I understand it, most of your defense of anarchy is based on freedom from formal control exerted by the state. I can appreciate this to an extent, as it is not a far stretch to perceive current industrial democracies as being similar to feudal monarchies. However, in my judgement, formal institutional control used by the state amounts to relatively little control over most people's actions because informal self-control is more powerful. Examples Does a person really make a choice whether they follow religious principles or not if they are taught at an early age that God exists? After all, there is a strong correlation between being introduced to religion early in life and being religious in adulthood. If a person is attracted to someone of the same sex, yet remains "in the closet" so to speak and the state makes no distinction between them as legal subjects, are the closeted not still controlled? If a person, temporarily out of work, uses welfare to pay the bills but votes for a political party that publicly announces reductions to or elimination of payments to welfare recipients because they drain the public purse, then are they not controlled ideologically? Antonio Gramsci speaks of "hegemonic" control. Is this not really the most powerful form of control that every person experiences yet can rarely ever identify and therefore ever eradicate?

I would like to know how those (right and left) who experienced the 1960's feel about the so-called cultural divide in the US right now. Is this just BS reporting by the US media, or is there substance to this suggestion? If you listen to the media and pundits long enough on both sides, it sounds as though we have returned to the 1960's or early 1970's. The urban "hippies" and the rural "moral majority" are going after each other. Thoughts?

I think Parrish has every right to express her feelings about foreign affairs, but she should do so in a more congenial and professional fashion. Having said that, I doubt that the Americans ever hear about her. Most do not even know who our PM is so I doubt she makes any ripples down there. As for US people fleeing to Canada, I highly doubt that there will be very many. The death toll in Iraq will have to get much higher before this happens in large numbers. These individuals should be welcomed just as any others are. Relatively speaking, we have a welcoming immigration system here. I would think that the free market theorists here (righties) would say "let the market decide".

I thought that this story was somewhat interesting. I wonder what they really mean when they say some people have been unfairly targetted? http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ort_041104.html

That is why trades are of greater $$ value right now. You get to work and train at the same time. In academia, this does not happen until grad school (and not all students get funding). From a $$ perspective, university is simply not worth it unless you become a judge, MD etc. Even then, a lot of medical doctors question whether it is worth it anymore when you factor in tuition, effort, time and then the continued time, effort and illnesses once you work. Not all doctors are making bank either.

It is better to stand for something and lose then to not stand for anything at all. Clinton stood for a public health care system. He was unable to implement it, but at least he had a different vision for the US. The Democrats got what they deserved. Bush will be able to complete his agenda and the Republicans will have to defend this agenda next time round.

I agree. I did not know who would win, but I did think that in order to request votes, you need to give people a reason to do so. Kerry is too similar to Bush.

The Dems have lost touch with Americans and themselves. I do not think they have a sense of who they are and what they represent. I found a lot of similarities between Kerry and Bush (because Kerry is an opportunist). I think that both sides have to create a coalition of sorts. Bush did this effectively (as did Clinton) and Kerry was just not able to. I am not sure who ran the GOP campaign, but Bush should give them a big raise because the strategy was effective with a prez that most people agree is not very articulate. The rural/urban split is interesting.

To answer my own questions, it seems that an agreement should be signed especially since world productivity is increasing. As the third world continues to industrialize, environmental degradation will also continue. The truth is that science cannot prove anything, it can only rule out possibilities (that is the nature of scientific reasoning). Indeed, the tobacco companies were correct and still are correct when they say scientifically, we cannot prove that smoking causes cancer. Common-sense tells us that smoking causes cancer. So, better to play it safer. A global agreement should provide incentives for corporations to modernize their productive techniques and provide incentives for individuals to reduce waste. Even if degradation can never be proven, is it not simply better to be environmentally conservative than wasteful?

If I may alter the question a little August? As scientists have only been able to measure changes to the environment for a relatively short period of time, they will likely never be able to PROVE changes are caused by human activities. Therefore, A. Should the world even sign a global agreement on environmental concerns? B. If so, what should that agreement look like?

I do not think it is rigged, but it is an antiquated system created in the 18th century that seems to be in need of change. I doubt that they would create such a system today. Imagine if each province had a winner take all formula? At least the EV went in the same direction as the total vote (even if I am not a Bush fan). Two things do surprise me about this election though. I am surprised in this tech/communication era that it takes so long to properly count all the votes and that it is so difficult to create a more representative system of government (in the US and Canada).

In order to prove that ethnicity was a key factor in winning this riding, you would have to know how people voted. I suspect that there are many divisions within this particular group of people and they placed their votes for many different reasons. The way it sounds here is that they ALL voted and they ALL voted based upon ethnic solidarity (ethnic nepotism). Maybe, just maybe, people want to see the province move in a different direction (i.e. undestruction/unruin/undrunk/unhigh)