Your thoughts on the platform of the Libertarian Party of Canada?

[Bryan]

So you support raising revenue then? Taxes, fines, fees?

So does the Libertarian Party.

[Bryan]

I'm not against paying more towards the national debt, but not bloating the military. That said, I support gun rights.

Our military is not bloated, it's anemic. Our international obligations absolutely require us to do far more than we have been doing. If we moved towards being a more "neutral" state, it would be even more important.

[Second-class Canadian]

So does the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party is promising significant tax reductions, which I disagree with. I'm not convinced we can afford such deep tax cuts. In fact, the NDP's cap and trade might be a valuable source of revenue.

That said, I appreciate the Libertarian Party's stance on significantly reducing government expenditure, most of it discriminatory or wasteful in one way or another.

[Second-class Canadian]

Our military is not bloated, it's anemic. Our international obligations absolutely require us to do far more than we have been doing. If we moved towards being a more "neutral" state, it would be even more important.

I actually support alliances, but with checks and balances. For instance, an alliance that submits to international law and only engages in legitimately defensive wars for its allies, not being dragged into wars its allies initiate.

[Bryan]

The Libertarian Party is promising significant tax reductions, which I disagree with. I'm not convinced we can afford such deep tax cuts. In fact, the NDP's cap and trade might be a valuable source of revenue.

That said, I appreciate the Libertarian Party's stance on significantly reducing government expenditure, most of it discriminatory or wasteful in one way or another.

A simplified tax code with next to no credits and a flat rate will still bring in significant revenue, One thing the Conservatives have proven conclusively is that trickle down absolutely DOES work -- lower taxes means more government revenue. Couple that with even less expenditures overall as Libertarian policies would do, and they quite likely would actually have more money available for the important things.

I actually support alliances, but with checks and balances. For instance, an alliance that submits to international law and only engages in legitimately defensive wars for its allies, not being dragged into wars its allies initiate.

We are in agreement there.

[Second-class Canadian]

A simplified tax code with next to no credits and a flat rate will still bring in significant revenue, One thing the Conservatives have proven conclusively is that trickle down absolutely DOES work -- lower taxes means more government revenue. Couple that with even less expenditures overall as Libertarian policies would do, and they quite likely would actually have more money available for the important things.

We are in agreement there.

Now I suppose that in the hypothetical scenario of an NDP-Libertarian coalition, combine cap and trade with Libertarian tax cuts but without bloating the military and social programs (I did say hypothetical), then maybe. But even then it might have been wise for the Libertarian Party platform to simply state support for tax reductions in principal and not as a hard election promise. That would allow them to focus on the cuts first and then explore the possibility of reducing revenue with caution. Of course tax shifting could be a reasonable hard promise, but revenue reduction is always a risky promise in uncertain times.

[cybercoma]

You just made a micro-aggression. If you worked for Berkeley, your job may be put at risk due to that statement.

Yeah he did. Ignoring the very real problem that people aren't equal is a problem that has obvious consequences to anyone who cares to understand.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yeah he did. Ignoring the very real problem that people aren't equal is a problem that has obvious consequences to anyone who cares to understand.

I know right. We need to make sure that everyone is equal and that no one is different from anyone else ever.

[Michael Hardner]

I know right. We need to make sure that everyone is equal and that no one is different from anyone else ever.

This is another loose strawman.

[-1=e^ipi]

This is another loose strawman.

Perhaps cybercoma should have chosen better words than 'people aren't equal is a problem'.

[Michael Hardner]

There's a lot of straw around today.

[Evening Star]

While that proposal isn't bad, I do disagree with some of the criticisms given of a proportional representation system.

One of the main premises of the argument is that under a proportional representation system, party leaders make up party lists. This isn't necessarily true. Parties can make up lists any way they want, it doesn't have to be by the leader. If you don't like the way the party is making up the list, don't vote for a party that does this (and there will be more parties to choose from under a proportional representation system).

Any way you slice it, the individual MPs are still chosen by, and accountable to, the parties (using whatever method the party uses), not directly by, or to, voters. Keep in mind that MPs do, or should do, more than just vote on bills: they are expected to do constituency work, committee work, etc. I'd prefer to have directly elected officials doing these things, not party hacks.

And this whole idea that MPs need to be elected by the local population is flawed. Not everyone votes based on regional interests and not everyone is best represented by a candidate in their riding. You might be, but I certainly am not. Let's say hypothetically that I really like David Suzuki, who is running to be an MP, and want to vote for him instead of someone in my riding? Why should I not be allowed to?

You know, if I took this argument to its logical conclusion, I could ask why I should not be allowed to vote for Bernie Sanders or Aung San Suu Kyi. The fewer the number of constituents each representative has, the greater the representation each individual voter seems to have, I would think. It's a logical way of breaking down a whole country to let everyone vote in a local election and send a representative to Parliament. Grenier's system tries to balance this with the potential benefits of PR, at least.

Also, by restricting people to only vote for those in their riding, in many cases you prevent people from voting for the party they want to because they are not running in their riding (because they are a small party and cannot afford it). If I want to vote for say the Freedom Party, Libertarian Party or Communist Party, and they aren't running in my riding, why should I not be allowed to?

See, I think this is still assuming the primacy of political parties. And, of course, if it means that much to you, you could always run for one of those parties.

[Evening Star]

Actually, this government has given individual First Nations members more rights. Property ownership on some reserves for example.

I guess I was thinking of the Libertarian Party's preference for FN sovereignty. I suppose that if you looked at it this way, you could argue that individual FN members might have more 'freedom' in the libertarian sense, if you do not interpret the Canadian government's jurisdiction over FNs as colonial.

[Smallc]

I guess I was thinking of the Libertarian Party's preference for FN sovereignty. I suppose that if you looked at it this way, you could argue that individual FN members might have more 'freedom' in the libertarian sense, if you do not interpret the Canadian government's jurisdiction over FNs as colonial.

I interpret it as something that shouldn't exist. I actually can almost guarantee you that Harper shares my view, based on his actions. It's just so hard to change things. You go and hammer out a deal with the Grand Chief of the AFN, and you and he get shouted down. The agreement would have allowed FN schools to improve their academic curriculum while allowing them to incorporate cultural teachings. Aboriginals would have had the same school board structure that exists everywhere else, allowing community input...but no.

[PrimeNumber]

A simplified tax code with next to no credits and a flat rate will still bring in significant revenue, One thing the Conservatives have proven conclusively is that trickle down absolutely DOES work -- lower taxes means more government revenue. Couple that with even less expenditures overall as Libertarian policies would do, and they quite likely would actually have more money available for the important things.

You think the conservatives have supported any of these?

It's in fact quite the opposite.

[-1=e^ipi]

Any way you slice it, the individual MPs are still chosen by, and accountable to, the parties (using whatever method the party uses), not directly by, or to, voters. Keep in mind that MPs do, or should do, more than just vote on bills: they are expected to do constituency work, committee work, etc. I'd prefer to have directly elected officials doing these things, not party hacks.

Another issue is that since certain ridings historically tend to go a certain way (some are very conservative, some are very ndp, etc.) a group of people may not get the best candidate for them. Let's say hypothetically that the greens get enough votes for 1 seat in the house of commons. Most of the green voters would prefer to be represented by person A who is in riding X. However, riding X has a lower % of votes compared to riding Y, so under your system person B of the green party in riding Y is chosen over riding X.

Not only that, but you create an incentive for parties to move high ranking party members to 'safe ridings' in order to ensure that they get elected. So you may actually get less regional representation because perhaps the MP you like in your region (who represents the region very well) is displaced by another candidate of the same party in order to ensure that this new candidate is in a safe riding.

See, I think this is still assuming the primacy of political parties. And, of course, if it means that much to you, you could always run for one of those parties.

It's about giving people more options. Also, the fact is that a lot of people do vote by political party. Just because you don't, why should that trump the desire of those that do want to vote for a political party?

[Bryan]

You think the conservatives have supported any of these?

It's in fact quite the opposite.

Those were two separate points. The Liberatarian way is a good way to reduce tax rates, AND reduced tax rates have been shown to result in increased government revenue.

[cybercoma]

I know right. We need to make sure that everyone is equal and that no one is different from anyone else ever.

Hey, remember in that other thread when you asked me to point out strawmen. Here's another one.

[cybercoma]

This is another loose strawman.

Oh look. It's so bad that even MH pointed it out completely unprompted.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps cybercoma should have chosen better words than 'people aren't equal is a problem'.

Ignoring the fact that people aren't equal is a problem. You can cut half the sentence out and quote that out of context, sure. But that's just another strawman, since I'm going to assume that reading comprehension isn't a problem and you're doing it on purpose.

[-1=e^ipi]

Hey, remember in that other thread when you asked me to point out strawmen. Here's another one.

Who am I strawmaning?

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

There can be no strawman argument if there is no one to misrepresent. Who's argument am I misrepresenting?

[Evening Star]

One thing the Conservatives have proven conclusively is that trickle down absolutely DOES work -- lower taxes means more government revenue.

Lol that something that economists have debated for decades has been proven conclusively by Canada's Conservative government.

[Bryan]

Lol that something that economists have debated for decades has been proven conclusively by Canada's Conservative government.

Economists debate theoretical scenarios without having to back it up. The CPC said what they were going to do, told people what would happen, and that's what did happen. That's what proving it means.

[cybercoma]

Who am I strawmaning?

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

There can be no strawman argument if there is no one to misrepresent. Who's argument am I misrepresenting?

You are misrepresenting my argument to make your own implied argument. If you understand these things so well, then I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself.

[CanadianFreedom]

Some of you might be interested in an article about two Libertarian Party of Canada candidates running in Vancouver and Surrey for the 2015 federal election:

http://www.straight.com/news/558126/guns-drugs-hookers-and-freedom-meet-political-party-formerly-banned-elections-canada