-1=e^ipi

UBI can work in every country as long as its level is reasonable. Economists tend to like UBI. Economists tend to like taxation of CO2 emissions to internalize externalities. Economists tend to like Consumption taxes over corporate taxes. Economists tend to dislike Supply Management. But all of our political parties in the house of commons disagree with economists on all of these (one exception is the Green Party and CO2 emission taxes). All our parties are run by economic illiterates. No wonder Canada is falling behind countries like Australia in terms of GDP per capita, life expectancy, HDI and various other measures of standard of living. The first past the post system certainly doesn't serve Canada very well.

We'll see who they choose. If they choose someone like Guy Caron, someone with an economics background who wants to introduce a universal basic income, sure. If they choose an identitarian SJW like Nikki Ashton, forget it.

I meant status quo with respect to what the conservative party was representing.

Well I'm certainly not voting for Scheer. Since he just wants status quo and to continue what Harper did, I doubt he will do anything to change my mind. Maybe I'll vote for NDP in 2019. I'm not really sure.

The social conservatives are certainly more politically organized, just like the social justice warriors are. This means that they can win party leaderships, but the choice their prefer tends to hurt the party when it comes to a federal election.

And the conservatives decide to go for Harper 2.0 instead of Bernier, which would be a new direction.

He lost due to a number of factors. Being social conservative is one factor that did not help. Also, Canada is less social conservative than it was a decade ago. So as time goes by, having a social conservative in power becomes a bigger liability. Oh well, looks like Trudeau wins in 2019.

And Harper lost to Trudeau. Not everyone wants to vote for a Social Conservative. I certainly didn't vote for Harper.

A social conservative that wants to keep supply management. What's to like?

First Round of Voting: Bernier 29% Scheer 22% I think Scheer might win it, unfortunately...

Exactly. This is what climate economists like William Nordhaus and Richard Tol try to do. They suggest internalizing the externalities of CO2 by taxing it at the appropriate rate. Unfortunately, their advice isn't really followed by anyone. All this banning of pipelines or new plants is inefficient. The most economicially efficient way to reduce emissions is to tax CO2 emissions. Eliminate all other forms of mitigation and only focus on the correct level of tax. Ideally, try to pursue a global pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions.

Protesting, sure. Blocking people from a venue, no. I would argue that not only is freedom of speech a legal issue, but it is also a cultural trait. If we accept that legal freedom of speech makes sense because it allows for a free market place of ideas, then it would make sense to also accept that a culture that is more accepting to people with minority view points to express their views because such a culture would be desirable as it would have a more effective free marketplace of ideas.

Post editing would be far more useful.

Politicians in Canada insist that France should remain in the Eurozone. Yet none of them advocate for a monetary union between the USA and Canada. Bunch of hypocrites. Canada and the USA having separate currencies is not in the best interest of either country.

So you are admitting that you are not consistent and don't care about consistency? As for 'common sense' it changes a lot depending on time, location and who you ask. In the late 40's and early 50's in Britain, it was 'common sense' that you want to prevent people from spreading 'indecency' and as a result, the 'indecent' acts of homosexuals were illegal. Such awful 'common sense' led to Alan Turing committing suicide. In Russia, it is 'common sense' that you want to protect children from 'gay propaganda'. In Saudi Arabia, it is 'common sense' that you want to stop 'hateful acts' like homosexual acts since they are hateful against the perfect design and perfect intent of the perfect creator Allah. In Ireland, Stephen Fry is going to be charged with Blasphemy for saying "I’d say ‘Bone cancer in children, what’s that about?’ How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault, It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?" because it's 'hateful' and supposedly violates Ireland's nonsense blasphemy laws that are intended to protect the Irish people from 'hate'. You really want a society where the government bans and imprisons people based on speech they arbitrarily deem as 'hateful' or because they claim that whatever they want to ban is 'common sense'?

Wrong. Le Pen's father made the final round in 2002. Anyway, this is good news (for France) since Macron wants to implement much needed economic reforms to make France more competitive. I wish we could replace Trudeau or Wynne with Macron.

Why would you want either system? Our first past the post system is terrible, as is the electoral college system.

So your counter argument is that 'aha, it's not legal in an airport!'? What kind of argument is that? It's like if someone is losing an argument on the legalization of homosexuality and then they say 'go to Saudi Arabia, try that 'morality' and then report back w/ your results'. You have no good arguments left. Admit it. Just concede and accept my position.

That sounds wonderful. It's in the national best interest of Canada and the USA to merge into a single country at some point anyway.

If you want to define it as incitement to violence or not, I don't really care. But if we go down this route, is advocacy of capital punishment for mass murders not incitement to violence? In that case, should we make it illegal to advocate for capital punishment?

If we go by that standard, we'd have to ban a lot of things to be consistent. Some teenage girls in Oregan thought that Slenderman was cool and tried to kill a schoolmate to sacrifice to Slenderman. Does that mean we should ban Slenderman? How about all the people killing in the name of Islam? Does that mean we should ban islam as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slender_Man_stabbing

Or if they are planning to plant a bomb. But if people are just questioning to morality of planting bombs, that should be allowed.

Nah, the USA is run by dinosaurs who can't get over the cold war and want to perverse the status quo. The reason it's allied to Saudi Arabia and enemies with Russia is because it's always been allied to Saudi Arabia and enemies with Russia (or at least it has been for so many decades that it has been the case since most people alive today were born). So the status quo doesn't really get challenged and just gets reinforced by a bubble of confirmation bias of the people higher up.

I'm confused by what you are trying to ask. My position is that advocacy for terrorism (any terrorism) should be legal as long as it doesn't fall under conspiracy to commit a crime.