Bakunin

I never said or tought that. Here is a quote from a book For ruining a corporation, the ceo on its own get 730 millions. I guess thats because its hard to get work again lol. I doubt he was winning has much with his salary. I guess after ruining that corporation, he don't need to work anymore. Enron was too much near the bush administration. If the ceo is now in jail is because the government was forced by public opinion to do something about it. I think it can be problematic if the story would have not been public wich was the goal of that corporation. As for Fox, their goal was to keep ad contract to make money. this where 2 sample of corporations where their decision was based on the fact to make money and where it was a threat to our security. I know the liberal are highly corrupt but at least thei have to be elected each 4 years. If never they make something stupid there are 3 other party that warn the population. Social darwinism: societies develop and therefore operate by "natural" laws, the real aim of "Social Darwinism" theories is to rationalize and thereby legitimize the unequal and disproportionate divisions between and within societies. You want to abolish human written law for natural law. Adam Smith would have said the invisible hand.

I don't understand why you talk about hitler and stalin. We have all heard of a corporation that polluted water and air and they got away from their responsibility. It happend in many country. Read my text again, Thei are responsible when it come to making money. But even if thei are responsible,they can get golden parachute. They get millions of dollars when they get fired. But the main thing is that their goal is to make money, if that mean to pollute a little more they will do it, if it mean hiding information then they can do it and they are not held responsible. If never they get caught well they take the corp money to get the best lawyer they can and you know how justice work. Anyway if they are held responsible its the corp who will pay not the ceo. I didnt say the entire story... The reporter denounced fox and the corp. But we can easily understand that if a corp can force a tv stations to hide stuff then it is frightning. Based on my entire life and what i saw, i don't feel that my government is more a threat to me. I hope it dont get influenced by the corp and that it can protect me from them If it become a treat ill vote for another government. You say "democratic-capitalism", you use the word "democratic" but when you talk you seem to talk about darwinism social. Why dont you just say that corporation can be a threat to your security and its normal to protect us from them with law...... Just like someone can be dangerous, a corporation can be dangerous and their must be some kind of law for protection.

i don't care if its democratic or not, i care if its a treat to my security has a human being. If its a treat then i want my government to protect me. It doesn't change a thing, the american corporation contaminated the water source of the town and the citizen have to pay. I dont understand what you mean. Im saying that the corporation goal is to make money. Its a simple fact and im not saying its good or bad. Then i say that im worried that those corporation hide me primordial information about their product like the fact that if i take it i could have a health issue related to it. Im worried that the media hide the result of their report because they don't want to lose money. We are talking about a product that could lead to cancer. we are talking about a life of a human being and your talking about a cashier error ? i don't give a shit about cashier error. I think that a murderer is a murderer. Wheiter he kill you with a knife or by hiding information about his product. Maybe you don't care about your life but i would be willing to regulate corporation for the security of their customers. Yeah maybe thei would make less $ but i it wont make our economy collapse.

Lets discuss seriously about the corporations. Im not against corporations but when i analyse them and the way they are regulated, i dont fell secure. I dont want to generalize but sometime thei are scary and here are some sample of what i find scary: 1) We all heard of this at one point or another i guess, one town near where i live has problem with contamined water because of a corporation. It has been more than 6 month and they still can't use their water. the corporation don't want to pay for what they did and the citizen of the town will have to pay for decontamination.The citizen are really mad but they cant do anything about it... We also have heard of air contamination or kind of radiation or stuff like a part of a town near a corporation where their are a lot of case of cancers. These people die because of those corporation. 2) The goal of a corporation is to make money and sometime ceo doesn't feel responsible for their decision, In fact they don'T have to feel responsible because our society don't take them for responsible, in fact the responsibility ceo has is to make money. The CEO of nike has never visited a nike manufacture in china... How can he take rational decision if he dont see consequence of his act ? 3) A company was selling a product for the farm, A television show was making a report about the product wich they conclude that the product was dangerous. When the company heard of the report, they called the tv stations wich was fox and told them that if they pass this report they will stop giving ad contract to that corporation. Fox didn't want to lose its contract so they refused to show the report and fired the reporters... In this case, the corporation managed to hide information about their company product to its consumer. Why because they would lose money...

You should watch the documentary "the corporation".

Hugo, are you a member of the Natural Law Party of Canada ?

i don't think their natural worth is 0 or that their natural worth has to be dictate by offer/demand. Im an humanist, i think we can't assume that evry man is good and therefore we must protect ourself from them with what is called the state and with rules. in a capitalist system, the worker has to adapt to the demand of the society but we all know that its impossible. Another thing is that their is not enough jobs for evryone. Their are plenty of unskilled worker, wheiter thei are at school or thei quit school or their sector is full and they cant find an employer. Since their are full of unskilled peoples who need a job, thei have to compete to get a job. They are willing to accept any wage because they don't have the choice. Wal-mart and mc donald and other company give them a job at the lower salary they can. walmart give the lowest salary to the chinese kid then the lowest salary to the unskilled worker and makes money out of their employee working value. I think that its fair that the state force the salary to go up so the worker here can get a little bit more money for their value. Else their is no difference between capitalism and a network of private dictatorship. Its ok to have different view and to constantly review the way we see life. I think some people don't have good value. I want to be protected from those don't you ? I want to be able to live in a secure world where i can get most of my working value and i don't want others to suffer even if they are stupid.Well sometime i want them to suffer but thats because im stupid too

the problem is that since walmart pay their employee the minimum wage, the competitor has to lower their wage to compete. Then the competitor lower his wage and the employe salary in this sector slowly goes down to the minimum wage. So wal mart leveled down the salary of this sector. Now he use its purchasing power to lower the cost of what he sell which is good for the consumer but that kill the competition and what will happen when their will be no competitor or only small competitor ? another point is that since those employee are paid the minimum wage, they don't pay taxes. Some may argue that if walmart decide to close, its going to make unemployer but it will also create job since the old wal mart customer will have to buy is stuff somewhere.

after 1995 it dropped till around 1998 and now its going up. i think in theory your right but in practice its another game, but it will all depend on jean charest and paul martin. I think charest case is hopeless, he promised something like 4 billions taxs cut, and last years he didn't cut of 1 billions, he raised electricity price and childcare price and barely made it to deficit zero by selling some provincial holding. For paul martin he can't be lower than he is right now but he will have to work hard to get back supporter because no body trust him anymore. Concrete stuff like decentralization because right now, journalist and media are quite frustrated of what happend and lets say it, liberal supporters are not well seen, nobody defend them in the public place.

The money for sponsorship was givin to companies that gave back a part of the money to the liberal party. Those companies where paid to increase the visibility of canada in quebec particulary stuff like festival. In 1995 the referendum was lost at ~ 49,4% a survey announced while the 2004 federal election showed that if there is a referendum on sovregnty 50% of the people would have vote yes.

there where a group of people near chretiens. the pdg of national society like post canada and via rail, where given to people near chretiens and they were all involved in the sponsorship scandal.

I think all province's have different minimum wage, our is something like 7,3$ / hours. i think that it should be higher but for special case like international mega store, international fastfood, maybe there should be a special law to put more money in the people's pocket. like you say, thei hired the minimum empolyes, thats the same thing for mc donald, if their profit is reduce a little bit, they wont bother.

i must agree on this one bryan. Maybe Paul Martin knew that his government was not performing enough to actually save money. Maybe he is not that stupid after all

The thing is that we often can't. I think the only way is to change them one by one. Wal-mart is a cheap labor corporation, we could higer their minimum wage to 10$ in canada by creating a law that target only wal-mart. Anyway they won't close their store if there is money to make and at 10$ minimum wage they still makes a lot of money. We just take them at their own games. So if we make flexible law to target those corporations, we can patch some problem but we can't fix international problem.

I like the liberal logic. It cost too much to save money. After 1 month they already forgot that healtcare was there 1st priority.

Exaclty, I would stand up for a radio station who would criticize peoples public job or for comedian to joke about people but i would never stand up for a radio that attack people for their phisics, sexual orientation, color or sexe. There have been people that suffered from those comment. Im for Freedom of speech all the way but im against hate speech.

they where used english ship, unused already obsolete english ship or brand new?

argus told me on this forum that our frigate cost over a billions each.

i mean rediuce peacekeeping for a while the time we buy new stuff and train our troop for that. but peacekeeping will problably be the only purpose of our army. I dont agree with naval forces. we will buy 10 tiny unequiped ship and it will cost how much ? 10-20 billions ?. And a ship is not that usefull for peace keeping. Thats why i think the infantry should be one who receive the best equipment and training. Maybe air if we want a defensive army but we should specialize in infantry for a light special force and peace keeping kind of army, and the infantry is the most dangerous job in military, they should be equiped proprely.

I think it must be a long term reform. Lets say 20 years. First we must stop to make peace mission evrywhere for a while to save money. not put a dollars in the star war system. Buy stuff that can be upgraded easily and can make multiple task, if we don't want to pay more or too much in our system. No submarine or battleship or stuff that we will never use or that we can't compete with devlopped country. No nuclear weapon or gaz. Doesn't worth it, if we get to the point of using them, its because we already lost the war or its doesn't worth fighting anymore. I think we should work on infantry, fast mobile transporter, fast light tank, artilery and air. Water is too costly and obsolete except for transport ship. Create the military equipment in 100% canada to create jobs. If never we have to go to war, it will problably be with the united nation for special task so we should be specialized in that.

actually our economy is growing evry years and in the next 5 combined years, to the place of getting 10 billions more than ontario, we will recveive 4,4 billions. the "Have not" province change over time. Wasting Money: Patronage, rural development scams, job training scams designed to rip off EI, buying lawnmowers and ice machines instead of doctors and nurses with healthcare money...the list goes on and on. The federal government do patronage, not the provincial. We don't waist our money, the liberal do with gun registry and other stuff like that.EI program is a federal juridiction. Proportionally, we have more doctors per habitant ratio than others provinces, we are already giving half of the provincial budget in healthcare. The crisis is present in alberta and ontario too. If you want to blame someone blame the liberals. Not the liberal victims.

Eureka you really don't understand quebec. You think we want money while we are trying to get quebec out of canada. Quebecers in the federal government are mostly federalist extremist. Your blaming the separatist for the action of those federalist. Its totally absurd. Sovreignist don't make scandal or any federal gestion, in fact sovreignist where the first to denounce the sponsorship scandal.

their are many terms. Independantist: wants a country with no relation with canada. Maybe 10% of quebecers. Sovreigist-associationnist: i problably dont spell it right but it mean to offer an association with canada but control our own destiny and laws as a country or else. 35-40% of quebecers. Kind of leave but a nice way. Separatist: sound to me has a flq members which doesnt exist anymore or people that are willing to take arms for Independance. Actually there is a psychopath we hear of at the news raymond villeneuve, who is like this. 0,000001% quebecers. We use the word sovreignist in general to talk about people who would vote yes to a referendum on sovreignty wich is mostly sovreignist associationist.

what do you mean by a have-not province and what do you mean by wasting money ?

We use the word sovregnist since the 70's. Actually its the liberal federal and english media who use the word separatist.