-1=e^ipi

I think a minority government is a possibility. Also, if NDP choose Guy Caron, I'd give them a decent chance to form government.

I disagree. It would be nice if the social conservatism in all 5 major parties on issues like reproductive freedom, drug legalization & men's rights were exposed.

Cause it would be so terrible to have a mixed health care system like France, UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, Sweden, etc. *sarcasm*

Pretty sure Trudeau is a theist.

What kind of messed up country has an inherently non-secular party such as the CDU as its largest party?

Might take a few decades though. Look at Venezuela. Also, if social conservatives like Scheer and Hudak keep getting elected, then it will take even longer.

So libertarian means what? People that prefer less efficient government policies such as minimum wage, EI, welfare & progressive taxation to do essentially the same thing? Does it mean the rejection of the Pareto Principle? I'll point out that Milton Friedman was a libertarian consequentialist, which is quite different from a libertarian non-consequentialist. Whether or not you consider me a libertarian or socialist or whatever I don't really care; I'm an empirical utilitarian, so I'm fine supporting either libertarian or socialist economic policy provided that empirical evidence suggests it will increase the social welfare of society.

Universal Basic Income is preferable for minimum wage. Minimum wage should be abolished in favour of Universal Basic Income. Yes, because it's not like any of these people will become unemployed or have less hours due to such a policy...

I'd like to retract my previous claim about Philip Mason's debunking. I was tricked by his sophistry. Here is a debunking of Mason's claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx52A-v65Q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJa9tQyMXDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0uwJoNnhc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDuXH2CJC10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQPAzZX7Pp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhOVq1W1IUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhgJJbEXR5Y

Yeah there is. His name is Scheer.

So in your view, Milton Friedman is not libertarian?

Sounds like what Erdogan wants to do with Turkey.

Such a pigouvian tax eventually gets you to a non-CO2 emitting economy. All approaches that do not involve a pigouvian tax are economically inefficient and are therefore undesirable.

I agree. Which is why I think we should pursue a global pigouvian tax, where the level of taxation is justified by integrated assessment models.

Or maybe it's the result of people trying to approach an inherently quantitative problem like climate change qualitatively and as a result make bad decisions.

It is true that that is a factor. To be fair, BC and Quebec have very comparable natural resources though. Also, some eastern provinces are somewhat anti-development of natural resources. For example, banning fracking, pipelines, etc. You can have all the natural resources in the world, but if you have anti-development politicians in power it doesn't really matter. There is a reason why LNG has taken off in USA and Australia, yet it stagnates in Canada. It's because of the anti-development politicians in power.

Australia also has a lot of remote places. Yet they manage to have a mixed health care system and a higher life expectancy than Canada. Moving towards a mixed health care system, like the Australians and the French have makes sense.

Man, I can't win. 1 person in this thread thinks I'm an extreme socialist. The other thinks I'm an extreme libertarian.

I'll point out that one of the reasons why the Eastern provinces are consistently poorer is because they are more socialist and less free market than the Western provinces. Also, one of the reasons why the East has a more elderly population is because they've been more socialist (which has scared away jobs, reducing immigration, and causing young people to move to Western provinces to get more employment).

I'm not advocating Bernier's position. I think that health care should be a federal responsibility, not a provincial one. I'm just pointing out that Bernier's position is not to 'defund healthcare'.

He wanted to shift the tax burden to the provinces since it is a provincial jurisdiction and all these health care transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces ends up being a nuisance. Spinning it as 'defunding healthcare' is inaccurate.

Yes, why have a rank 1 health care system like France (according to WHO rankings) when we can have a rank 30th system like Canada?! Our rank 30th system gives us such warm fuzzy feelings and national pride as we have free access to ridiculously long wait times which prevent us from getting much needed health care! Seriously, what kind of messed up country determines it's health care system using nationalism and patriotism? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at empirical evidence to determine which health care systems are best? Mixed health care systems like those in France, Germany, Japan, etc. perform better.

Communism never worked well 'in theory'. It was theoretically bad to begin with due to ignoring the impact of wages on how much people work. A theory is only as good as it's ability to explain observations. What, you don't think I want these to be taken into account? You can use empirical evidence to construct models to predict how human behaviour changes in response to changing financial incentives. You can also use empirical evidence to infer how much people value the additional dollar, additional unit of leisure, etc. You can combine this to predict optimal taxation systems. And what economists, be it Mankiw or Freidman, tend to find is that it is optimal to have a certain level of UBI. But apparently, you have convinced yourself that all these economists advocating UBI haven't looked at or tried to predict how the amount people work will be affected by such a policy. Lol. I guess Freidman and Mankiw are communists. No, strawman. The impact of CO2 taxation on economic output is something I find interesting and discuss in the CO2 & economic impacts thread and other threads. Do you think economists like William Nordhaus and Richard Tol just ignore the 'complexity' of the impact of CO2 taxation on economic output? It's not like they use damage functions in their integrated assessment models or anything... Nah, they must be communists too. Lol. Then you shouldn't be afraid of having a referendum on this issue, then. Maybe you should email Andrew Scheer and tell him that you want a referendum on electoral reform.

Yeah. So maybe a country should at least try. But apparently, because no country has ever tried UBI, no country ever should, regardless of how much economic theory or empirical evidence suggests it makes economic sense. You're a true conservative Argus. You really have a strong desire to irrationally conserve the status quo / tradition (which is the definition of conservatism) even if it makes no sense what so ever if you accept arguments like 'X has never been tried before, therefore we should never ever try X'. It doesn't need to be necessary to justify it. Actually, you don't even need to believe that decreasing CO2 emissions is beneficial for Canada to justify taxation of CO2 emissions. CO2 emission taxation can be justified on the grounds that, up to a certain point, it is a more efficient form of charity to other countries than either aid or military expenditure, so if we were to implement CO2 emission taxation and cut aid/military spending, then we could do more charity for the same economic cost. New Zealand and Netherlands appear to be in good shape. But you want the system that gave us Trudeau, Notley, Wynne, Trump, Harper, Hitler, etc. Cause it's worked out so well!! Let's be honest. We both know that the main reason why you oppose changing FPTP is because it favours Harperites such as yourself and the extreme identitarians of the fake liberal party run by Trudeau. It allows your minority view point to occasionally hold all the power and denies various groups representation (classical liberals, libertarians, communists and other groups get zero representation). You are inherently against the idea of a representative democracy and are only interesting in how frequently you minority beliefs can hold power.