-1=e^ipi

I don't like any conservative parties. Conservatism is about conserving stupid ideas, be it conserving the dairy cartel in Canada or conserving a policy where women are beheaded for shopping without a male escort in Saudi Arabia. However, one of the benefits of proportional representation, is it allows for more views to be represented. This allows for a greater competition of ideas and for the people to have more choice and be better represented. More competition of ideas allows the best ideas to win in the long run. What we have in Canada with our Trudeau-Scheer supported first past the post system is a sad lack of choice, diversity of ideas, and competition of ideas. What's the point in having 300+ MPs if they all agree with each other on every issue? What we need is not a conservative party, but a party that supports free trade. A party that doesn't want to go into a giant trade war in order to support some cartels that make food unnecessarily expensive for poor people. A party that supports freedom such as the freedom of same-sex marriage, the freedom to get an abortion, the freedom to do marijuana, the freedom to do cocaine and other hard drugs, the freedom to engage in prostitution, the freedom to buy/sell sperm, eggs and surrogacy services, and the freedom purchase private healthcare.

They have subsidies, not a cartel system. A subsidy system would be an improvement over the cartel system. But the parties in the house of commons aren't even interested in moving towards a subsidy system.

In all these other developed countries, like Australia, France, UK, etc. the centre seems to involve not having a dairy cartel, pursuing free trade, and allowing for private healthcare to complete with public healthcare. I don't think that Scheer or Harper's freedom hating views of being against gay marriage, being against choice with respect to abortion, and being against the legalization of marijuana is centrist.

Trudeau, Scheer and Singh would rather see the country burn to the ground in a giant trade war than make food cheaper for poor people. The best interest of the country is to get rid of supply management and promote free trade. None of the morally bankrupt parties in the house of commons support that!

This is why we need proportional representation. So that we have a diversity of views represented in parliament, so that the people are better represented and so that the ideas can compete in the free market place of ideas.

Put it on the negotiating table, pursue free trade. Obviously US subsidies should be on the negotiating table as well. The US admin has indicated willingness to engage in the mutual reduction of trade barriers.

Libertarian party is the only viable party that supports free trade. The parties in the house of commons support 300% tariffs and call it free trade. If Canada got rid of its awful supply management system and pursued free trade with the Americans, I doubt the Saudi's would feel so bold as to perform all these sanctions and threaten Canada with 911 terrorist attacks. Trump is taking a neutral stance because he is trying to use this as leverage in NAFTA negotiations. Doesn't reflect well on Trump, but it's the reality.

Get rid of the system!!! Secularism and Tax Savings Now!!!

Yes, I oppose that. The state should not give a symbolic sign of respect to a monarchy. The state should be secular and egalitarian. The monarchy violates both principles.

No. Down with the monarchy! No damn monarchist flag!

Also, just as nazism can have advantages over communism, communism can have certain advantages over nazism too. The ideal system would be to try to combine the strength of both systems. See what I did there? Your argument is invalid. The ideal system should at the very least have: Freedom of Speech. Separation of Religion and State. Equality under the law. Monarchy violates equality under the law. Also, in the case of our monarchy, it violates separation of religion and state as well.

It's still discriminating since it discriminates when it decides how to allocate funding. Also, atheist schools don't get funding.

I'm not so sure about that. Sounds like even more tax money being wasted.

I never said you did. More I was countering your suggestion that funding all religions with tax payer money is an acceptable solution.

Funding all religious schools is a violation of secularism. Who determines the allocation of funding? Who's to say that islam doesn't get enough funding and hinduism gets too much? What about atheist schools? Should we have schools that teach children that god is a lie? The state should not fund religion. It should not take a position on the existence of a god or gods. There should be separation of religion and state. Monarchists don't want that. They want the head of the Anglican Church as Head of State.

Cons wanted to fund religious schools. Greens only changed their position on catholic schools recently, not 3 elections ago. Also, the first past the post system limits options. Why else do you think we have that awful premier Doug Ford?

Majority? The majority couldn't vote. Women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't vote. Indigenous peoples couldn't vote.

From wiki The 1867 Constitution These pre-existing rights for tax-funded minority faith schools were then part of the constitutional negotiations surrounding Canadian Confederation in the 1860s. At the Confederation conferences, Roman Catholic Archbishop Connolly of Halifax argued for separate Catholic and Protestant school systems across the entire federation, administered by the central government. This was forcefully rejected by French Canadian delegates from Canada East, who demanded provincial control over education.[3] The compromise was Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which allows the federal government to intervene only to protect minority schools which are already established. Apart from that caveat, the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that education is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Canada has had religious schools since before confederation. The whole 'freedom of religion' and 'separation of religion and state' of the US constitution was greatly unappealing to the Quebec theocrats. As a result, the Quebec theocrats made a deal with the monarchists and Quebec was a semi-catholic theocracy until the Quiet Revolution. This started long before the 1982 Charter.

Canada does not have Freedom of Speech. It has also never been a Republic. Nor has it ever been secular. Blame the monarchy for the catholic school system. They imposed it upon us hundreds of years ago in order to appease Quebec theocrats and prevent Quebec from joining the US.

I support your right to fly a monarchist flag. However, I disagree completely with what it represents.

Freedom of Speech.

You mean false majority due to the first past the post system?

What a bizarre excuse to support an immoral system that says that people are not equal under the law, and that the head of state should be determined not through merit but by birthright.

That flag is an awful symbol of the immoral monarchy.