-1=e^ipi

Absolutely. And sadly, our social-conservative PM Trudeau still denies the rights of gay people to buy and sell eggs, sperm, and surrogacy services. A right that gay people in the U.S. have.

Here's a good video by freedom advocate John Stossel on designer babies.

So which views scare you in particular? 1. The legalization of cocaine and other hard drugs? 2. The legalization of third trimester abortions? 3. The support of a mixed health care system, which includes private clinics? 4. Acknowledging that transmen can have abortions? 5. the legalization of the sale of a fetus for money? 6. The legalization of designer babies?

Broad-based taxes (i.e. taxes on everything) are generally more economically efficient than a complex tax system of micro-taxes where the government picks and chooses winners and losers instead of allowing for competition, let alone a system of mass regulations and subsidies. As a comparison, current estimates of efficiencies of various subsidy programs for renewables or electric cars are typically in the range of a few hundred dollars per metric ton of CO2. In comparison, the marginal cost of reducing emissions for a tax is equal to the level of the tax (so in Canada's case $30 per metric ton). Taxes would also generate revenue instead of wasting revenue.

Not only should it be legal to have an abortion in the 3rd trimester, but it should be legal for a transman to choose to abort a designer-baby fetus in a private clinic and then sell the fetus to buy crack cocaine! I am very very pro-freedom and pro-choice.

Or you could implement a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, which is simple and the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions...

Wrong. It's called radiative physics. We've known the physics for nearly 200 years, since Fourier first proposed the greenhouse gas effect. Antarctic ice cores do not show this. Antarctic ice cores only go back a few hundred thousand years, in a few cases over a million years. The last time CO2 levels were this high was 3 million years ago during the Pliocene. Proxies other than ice cores were used to reconstruct CO2 levels that far back in time.

Waterloo has warmed at a rate of 3 degrees celcius per century in the last half century. http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/city-list/W Climate change is a factor, but it is not the only factor in the current warmer winter.

What are you going on about? I support the Hong Kong protestors. Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else?

1. I do not support the Chinese communist party. 2. I don't support patriotism. 3. Please don't make unsupported inferences.

I doubt Harper's politics were informed by economics. Just look at his support of mass crony capitalism and his love of the dairy cartel. He had the economic illiterate belief that implementing a tax on CO2 emissions would not decrease CO2 emissions, despite that going against basic understanding of economics as well as empirical studies. He also lowered the GST, despite it being the more efficient than personal income taxes or corporate income taxes at raising government revenue per cost the the economy (justified again by economic theory and empirical studies). Honestly, it's very possible for a poli-sci person to take some economics classes, barely pass without understanding anything, and then being able to claim they have a master's in economics. I doubt Harper could even do a simple OLS regression.

Why is Michael Chong not on the list?

This is incorrect. People would still have an incentive to work as they would get more money. This is not my thinking at all. Rather, I would argue that, from an empirical utilitarian perspective, a universal basic income (combined with a relatively flat level of taxation) is optimal. As many economists, including Gregory Mankiw and Milton Friedman, have argued in the past. I never specified the level of universal basic income in a previous post, did I? The optimal level of UBI should be determined by weighing the increase in the disincentive to work with people's diminishing marginal utility of income. Tax bases are also affected by the level of taxation. Increasing taxes to pay for a giant bureaucracy reduces the tax base.

Universal basic income, relative to many options such as guaranteed income or various welfare programs, has a lower disincentive to work because it doesn't create a welfare cliff. What you propose above is to create a giant 'job' bureaucracy which will cause needless expenses. Universal basic income doesn't require a giant bureaucracy.

Where is the option for zero? The minimum wage is a terrible economic policy, which pushes poorer people and teenagers out of the job market. Wages should be determined by supply and demand. Also, there is no such thing as a living wage, only a living income, which is why a universal basic income policy is better than a minimum wage policy.

I doubt that Martin was as beholden to the dairy cartel as Scheer, so obviously Martin.

Your options are not very good. There are multiple reasons to hate the conservatives, but the biggest ones aren't there. I would say my top reason is their love of the socialist dairy cartel, which makes food unnecessarily expensive for poor people. Also, their support for more expensive environmental regulations instead of a broad based tax on carbon dioxide emissions. There support of the first past the post system combined with their complete lack of coherent explanations for their policies also tops the list. As it greatly reduces the competition of ideas, which we should have in a democracy.

The government has an incentive to create as many ministers as possible, in order to increase the salaries of their friends.

I would be willing to pay the pigouvian level of taxation of my emissions. Average annual CO2 emissions per capita for Canada is about $20 per metric ton. The pigouvian level of taxation is around $40 per metric ton maybe. So I guess $800 for me. I guess you just put me in the extremist camp with your poll. Edit: the cost of the pigouvian tax would be offset by lowering other taxes, so maybe less than $800 Canadian for me. I would have to consult integrated assessment models such as by Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus.

Abolish the senate.

So Harper 3.0? Conservatives never learn.

Of course there is no ideology, conservatism is about the irrational desire to conserve stupid policies, be it supply management in Canada or killing gay people is Saudi Arabia. Thus the CPC's irrational hatred of taxing CO2 emissions, despite it being the most cost effective way to reduce emissions and despite it costing them the election.

Or it could be that there are a lot of people in BC, particularly in the lower mainland, who support Hong Kong.

Harper had his shot against Trudeau and lost. Harper 2.0 (Scheer) had his shot against Trudeau and lost despite LNC-Lavalin and Blackface. Scheer literally ran on a platform of "we should change nothing" during the CPC leadership race, so the label of Harper 2.0 is completely accurate. It wouldn't surprise me if the conservatives pick a Harper 3.0 and lose again. Conservatives are about conserving things and not changing or adapting to new circumstances. This can include conserving losing strategies.

Harper had his shot... and then he was replaced by Harper 2.0. Are we going to have Harper 3.0 next?