Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[Zipper]

Ok, change of tact here.

One. There is no utopia. Socialist or otherwise.

Norway has its own problems and may have to back off of some of its grander ideals one day. But the fact remains that they are NOT in any danger of collapse, nor are the people of Norway (or any other "nanny state") going to flock to the ideals of a total free market economy such as the States. They have CHOOSEN to accept higher taxes in order that their entire population should benefit as a whole. Is there anything wrong with that? No.

Are their Americans who richer then most other people in other countries? You bet. Are their people who are poorer as well? Yes.

Of course poor people would love to have more money. Rich people want more money too. As for your comments about you working so hard for your money, so why should you give it to someone who doesn't? Typical cold hearted neo-conservative attitude. I wonder if you'd make the same statement if you happened to be the guy on the other end of the stick? Or perhaps with family members there? It is the responsibility of any Government to look after ALL its citizens, not just those who can make a contribution come election time. If it were your way, those who could not hold a job or pay for lunch would not have the right to vote.

As for the Norwegians having to cross the border for their goods. So what? Canadians cross the borders all the time to pick things up, as do Americans who come up here for medicine and beer. I'm sure there are Swedish who buy things on the other side as well.

Health as I have stated on this board before can be calculated in a much different way then just by GDP. GDP for the health of a nation is flawed and doesn't take into account the health of "people", only a segment of the economy. Your narrow scoped view of "health" relates only to those who can afford to do so, which is not the majority of the population.

Another fact that you can look up is the fact that the productivity of the EU is either very close to, if not higher then the States now. That, and on a shorter work week with more holiday time to boot. Not to mention benefits.

Is it perfect over there? No. Can it work over here? Probably not in the same form. Is Canada doomed? Not a chance.

As for the comparison of "poverty". Which is why I stated 1st world countries. And yes, they rate them differently. Considering the facts that you stated above say the poor in the States have all these "luxuries" must mean that they ignore a large segment of their own population. In fact we know they do. They only take into account those who pay taxes and are at home when the census is done. Funny thing is, alot of those people don't have homes. I'm sure all those homeless are sitting in front of their colour TV's on that street corner right now.

As for the American's being "trigger-happy-psychopathic-war-mongers". Not at all. There are some great people down there. To bad those in power cannot say the same. Oh, and don't forget paranoid. ;D

The fact of the matter is, that we all do things differently, and no country is going to collapse in the short term. Who knows about the next 50 years though.

 

[a_majoor]

Health as I have stated on this board before can be calculated in a much different way then just by GDP. GDP for the health of a nation is flawed and doesn't take into account the health of "people", only a segment of the economy. Your narrow scoped view of "health" relates only to those who can afford to do so, which is not the majority of the population.

How do you define health then? GDP is a good measure since it essentially strips out many factors which could throw out comparisons. Using GDP and other information such as Purchasing power parity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity ) tells you how much of a person or a nations wealth is being spent on "health care", and although you might argue if the purchase of gym memberships or taking a brown bag lunch to work is part of "health care", then so long as you compare the same things, certain trends become very clear. Just like God is on the side with the largest battalions, the nations with the largest GDPs have more wealth in absolute terms to spend on "health care" or anything else. For example, the United States was criticized for being "stingy" with their contributions to the Tsunami disaster when measured in terms of % of GDP, but when calculated in dollar terms, they were outspending many nations which had double the % of GDP relief contributions.

Another fact that you can look up is the fact that the productivity of the EU is either very close to, if not higher then the States now. That, and on a shorter work week with more holiday time to boot. Not to mention benefits.

Where did you get these figures from? As I have posted on the board (and have others), Europe has a very low rate of economic growth and productivity, closer to that of Canada than the United States, and certainly far behind China and India. This is an extremely important point, since compound interest grows remarkably fast with even a few % points difference. There is also a large number of unemployed in Europe, with again the figures being closer to Canada than the United States.

Funny thing is, alot of those people don't have homes. I'm sure all those homeless are sitting in front of their colour TV's on that street corner right now.

Many of the homeless people in Canada and the United States are psychiatric patients who were removed from full time care because it was more "compassionate" for them to live at home or be "integrated" into society. Since most were incapable of maintaining a strict regime of medicines or chose to ignore the regime when it wasn't enforced, this compassionate program led to an explosion of "street people" who were and are unable to care for themselves or hold a job.

The fact of the matter is, that we all do things differently, and no country is going to collapse in the short term. Who knows about the next 50 years though.

What happens in the next 50 years is determined by what happens now. Our lack of influence in the greater world can be traced to various policies that began in the 1960s, gutting our military and foreign service along the way. Our break-out from economic stagnation in the early 1980s can be traced to the FTA and NAFTA agreements, and the "negative" consequence of becoming tied to the US with 80% of our trade flowing south can be attributed to our underwhelming performance in the rest of the world (see the point about the 1960s).

Canada may not collapse in the sense of ceasing to exist on a map, but as the Gomrey Inquiry is demonstrating, our political structure has decayed to such an extent that Canada may be in for a radical reshaping. Perhaps the voters will sweep the Liberals out of office for a generation. Perhaps a Liberal minority can squeak through, allowing the Provinces to become "feudal domains" able to set the agenda and dictate to Ottawa. Perhaps after the chaos, people will welcome a Dictator (think of how dictators arise in other societies). What Canada do you want to live in?

 

[Zipper]

Once again your talking in economics alone! GDP and PPP are simply economic models that do not look at the true health of anything other then the economy. Because the US has a large GDP doesn't mean that the people benefit from health care or lead "healthy" lives.

And I agree with you that they did a bang up job with the Tsunami disaster becuase they had the resources and capabilities close on hand to lend the best and fastest support. No arguement there.

However if you look at how much the US spends on foriegn aid as opposed to even us as a percentage of GDP, it falls far behind. Is that the way a world leader should act?

As for the EU productivity. Yes, it is lagging behind right now. But this is mostly due to the strong retail sector in the States. I just looked at the latest numbers. Some of the EU is on par or better (Germany, Belgium, France) then the US, while most of the others are behind. Especially the newest members and those who started out much farther behind in the first place. However this will change as the EU's balancing effects take place. Considering that they have double the population base and still growing with each new addition, it won't be long before they are even stronger.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/competitiveness/doc/eu_competitiveness_a_sectoral_perspective.pdf

As for the homeless, I agree. But that only takes into account a certain percentage (fraction) of the homeless. The numbers of plain regular people down on their luck for one reason or another still has the majority in this catagory. Not to mention the numbers of children.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/facts.html

This one shows that it isn't just the US and Canada with the problem. But everyone.

http://www.share-international.org/archives/homelessness/i_homelessness.htm

As for the what happens right now. I couldn't agree with you more. Government policies now do not affect us now, but at least 10 or so years down the line. Which is also why I think we should increase our trading outside of North America to insulate us agains't the policies south of the border. Their GDP may not take their deficit and trade deficit into account, but someone is going to have to pay the piper sooner or later.

AS for the Liberal's. As I've said before. Their toast. However the Adscam is small fries considering how much money was concerned. They just happened to be the unlucky ones to get caught.

 

[48Highlander]

Norway has its own problems and may have to back off of some of its grander ideals one day. But the fact remains that they are NOT in any danger of collapse, nor are the people of Norway (or any other "nanny state") going to flock to the ideals of a total free market economy such as the States. They have CHOOSEN to accept higher taxes in order that their entire population should benefit as a whole. Is there anything wrong with that? No.

Really?  So you're telling me that if you went up to your average norweigan and said "would you like to get taxed less?", he'd say "no, I want my money to go to the rest of the population"?  Sorry man, that's not the way it works.  People don't chose higher taxes.  It hapens exactly the way it's happened here in Canada.  Here, I'll lay it out in easy to follow steps:

1)  Special interest groups bitch, whine, and complain for funding for their pet causes.
2)  A left-wing party promises them all support for their causes.
3)  The party gets elected, and quickly realizes that they cannot implement their promises without more money.
4)  Taxes are raised.
5)  4 years go by, a new election is called.  Proceed to step 1.

In fact, in recent years, both the municipal party in Toronto and the provincial party in Ontario has been elected at least partly on the promise that taxes would not be raised.  Guess what, they got raised again.  Now you tell me how exactly the people decided that they want higher taxes.

Of course poor people would love to have more money. Rich people want more money too. As for your comments about you working so hard for your money, so why should you give it to someone who doesn't? Typical cold hearted neo-conservative attitude. I wonder if you'd make the same statement if you happened to be the guy on the other end of the stick? Or perhaps with family members there? It is the responsibility of any Government to look after ALL its citizens, not just those who can make a contribution come election time. If it were your way, those who could not hold a job or pay for lunch would not have the right to vote.

I nearly had an aneurism after reading that.  I can still feel the vein in my forehead throbbing.  It is NOT the role of government to look after it's citizens.  That sort of attitude is exactly what's wrong with our society.  People want to be taken care of instead of taking their lives in their own hands and doing for themselves.  That is precisely what we are arguing AGAINST here;  we don't need a goddamn nanny state to babysit us.  It's YOUR life.....LIVE IT.

As for the Norwegians having to cross the border for their goods. So what? Canadians cross the borders all the time to pick things up, as do Americans who come up here for medicine and beer. I'm sure there are Swedish who buy things on the other side as well.

I'm sure you are sure, but I'm not sure  How can you be sure?  Have you got facts to support that view?  Or are you guessing?  In which case you're not sure, now are you?

Another fact that you can look up is the fact that the productivity of the EU is either very close to, if not higher then the States now. That, and on a shorter work week with more holiday time to boot. Not to mention benefits.

See a_majoor's reply.  You're statistics that nobody else seems to have heard of.

In fact if you type "average EU GDP" into google, you will immediately see several articles predicting a coming drop in the GDP, and not one predicting growth.  Then if you try typing "average EU GDP growth" into google, you will find several sources which confirm that the GDP of the EU has in the past years grown about 1%-2%.  On the other hand, if you type "average US GDP growth" you will find several articles stating that US GDP grew at about 3.3% untill 2000, and has been growing at a rate of about 2.7% ever since.  Now, please show me how the productivity of the EU is "very close to, if not higher than the States".

As for the comparison of "poverty". Which is why I stated 1st world countries. And yes, they rate them differently. Considering the facts that you stated above say the poor in the States have all these "luxuries" must mean that they ignore a large segment of their own population. In fact we know they do. They only take into account those who pay taxes and are at home when the census is done. Funny thing is, alot of those people don't have homes. I'm sure all those homeless are sitting in front of their colour TV's on that street corner right now.

Here is an article dealing with homelessness that I really liked.  Basic gyst:  before Clinton took office, estimated homeless figures were through the roof.  Ofcourse, as soon as a Democratic president took office, homeless advocacy groups miraculously discovered that homelessness was in a steep decline, and continued to stay at very low levels for 8 years.  A few months after George W Bush took office, homeless figures once again miraculously balooned, and have been growing "at an unprecedented rate" ever since.

The figure most often quoted for homeless in the US is 3 million plus.  The only scientific polls ever conducted showed the figures at less than a million, buit were never publicized;  after all, everyone knows that republican presidents only cause bad things to happen to people, therefore the "polls" must be inaccurate.

Meanwhile, the great and benevolent EU has between 1.1 million and 2.4 million homeless people.  Statistics on it are surprisingly hard to find.  It seems that Europeans don't like to publicize their homeless quite as much as Americans do.

If we want to look at poverty instead of homelessness, 14.5% of the US population live in "poverty" compared to roughly 18% in the EU.  Socialism doesn't seem to be making great strides in that area either.

So the figures aren't quite as different as people seem to think.  And anyway, it's besides the point.  You asked earlier if I would "make the same statement if you happened to be the guy on the other end of the stick".  Well that question is not valid to begin with.  Why am I not homeless?  It's not because I was born privilidged, or with special gifts or powers.  I'm not part of the Zionist plot to control all the banks, nor am I the epitome of human evolution.  I'm just an average person who understands that he must work in order to provide the neccessities of life.  I know that my level of success and wealth is directly proportional to the ammount of effort I put into obtaining it.  You also asked how I would feel if a member of my family were "on the other end of the stick".  Would I expect the state to provide for them?  Hell no.  They're my family.  They're not related to the government.  I would work my ass off and provide for them myself.  That's the way it's been done all over the world for thousands of years.  It's not the role of government to babysit us and breast-feed us throughout our lives.  We control our own lives;  we make them what they are.  And for the times when we ARE down on our luck, we have family and friends to help us out.


And while I was typing this, you wrote your own reply.   So I'm gonna take a second to answer that too.

However if you look at how much the US spends on foriegn aid as opposed to even us as a percentage of GDP, it falls far behind. Is that the way a world leader should act?

I'm not too sure about those stats, but Americans spend way more as INDIVIDUALS than we do.   Considering how much lower their tax rate is than ours, it makes sense, and should balance out nicely.   How about you go find some numbers for a change?

As for the homeless, I agree. But that only takes into account a certain percentage (fraction) of the homeless. The numbers of plain regular people down on their luck for one reason or another still has the majority in this catagory. Not to mention the numbers of children.

The article you posted is a red herring.   It shows the percentage of those in "poverty" who are "down on their luck".   You were trying to show that the majority of "homeless" were down on their luck, no?   In fact, if you try to do a search on figures for "causes" of homelesness, you won't get anywhere.   Every "action group" out there quotes different statistics.   Womens groups claim that the major cause of homelessness is "domestic abuse".   Homeless advocates claim it's lack of affordable housing.   Other studies blame it on divorce.   And ofcourse, the "neocons" blame it on drugs, alcohol, and mental issues.   Which one's right?   Your guess is as good as mine.   Find some reliable figures, otherwise bickering about it is pointless.

 

[larry Strong]

Well I guess I am a "cold-hearted neo conservative", I have worked hard for 30 some years, I am really tired of seeing that my taxes equate to what a lot of people gross in a year. It has been stated that welfare parents begate welfare kids.
Well as King Ralph said one night  "Get a job you bum"

 

[Brad Sallows]

On the subject of Norway and Alberta, it never ceases to amuse me that some of the same people who complain that Alberta should not be pointed to as an example of the pre-eminence of "right-wing" principles of government in the Canadian context simultaneously point to Norway as an example of the pre-eminence of "left-wing" principles of government in the greater scheme.  Guess what they have in common other than relatively small populations?

 

[Zipper]

I'll speak to that last part first.

Hmm...    ...welfare kids are begot by welfare parents? So we should get rid of welfare and let them all starve to death? Or do we try to give those kids the best chance of breaking the cycle as possable?

And your quoting someone who puts his foot in his mouth everytime his handlers are not there to control him. Great.

As for the rest.

And I guess its hard for you to accept that the Scandinavian countries "chose" to go down the path they have? Do you actually believe with the levels of taxation they have, that is was just a slow slide? C'mon. They WANTED to go there and it works for them.

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet____3927.aspx

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108008.html

So if a Government is not supposed to look after its citizens? Then what is it for?

Guess you had better shut down all the Ministries. Since they are all there to look after ALL the people of this country. Or are you saying that they should only look after the privileged people? Or only the ones that pay taxes? Or only the ones that make contributions to political parties? Or just business?

Funny. I could have sworn that a country was run with similarities to a business? And we all know that the happier and healthier the workers are, the more productive they will be. But then we had better cancel your benefits package as well, and let you buy your own.

As for the looking after family. Agreed. That is the way its SUPPOSED to work. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there that cannot afford to look after themselves, let alone family. As well as a lot of just plain selfish people who choose not to look after their families. So what should happen to those people? Starve as well?

As for numbers of homeless at any point in time in US history or under what politics they happen to land. Big deal. The fact that they are there at all is a shame. And of course the EU has homeless. Everyone does. Its a global problem that needs to be addressed. But if we take those numbers you just posted and then took a look at the population of the EU in comparison, then you would think those numbers would be alot higher considering they have nearly double the population base as well as the newly entered members from the old eastern block. But then maybe we should just look at the numbers you presented, and judge for ourselves.

As for the border crossing thing. I guess you should live by a border sometime and watch the private traffic both ways.

The point is...              ...other governments, whether more social or not, work fine for those who live there. If they didn't, you'd see alot more revolutions. But you do not. SO they work. Get over it.

 

[larry Strong]

And your quoting someone who puts his foot in his mouth everytime his handlers are not there to control him. Great.

I personally don't care how many times he puts his foot in his mouth,he's done good things for this province, and in my opinion, thats what counts.

Funny. I could have sworn that a country was run with similarities to a business?

If any business was run as inefficiently as this country is it would be out of business

 

[Brad Sallows]

>As for your comments about you working so hard for your money, so why should you give it to someone who doesn't? Typical cold hearted neo-conservative attitude. I wonder if you'd make the same statement if you happened to be the guy on the other end of the stick? Or perhaps with family members there? It is the responsibility of any Government to look after ALL its citizens, not just those who can make a contribution come election time.

OK, I feel guilty.  But my guilt (or lack thereof) is my own; so what?  Why should I pay to support someone who lives in, say, New Brunswick but not someone who lives in Maine or for that matter in Myanmar?  Because one lives on the "correct" side of a line on a map?  What is your compelling moral argument, other than the fact that you want to use the point of a gun (which I agree should be there only to maintain peace so that people can take responsibility for their own liberties) to redistribute the resources of others in order to feel good about yourself?  Why is it the responsibility of Government to look after its citizens (by which term I infer you really mean "subjects" since Canada more and more resembles a government which owns a nation and people rather than vice versa) and not the responsibilities of citizens to look after themselves?  Even if we are to have that sort of Government, why should its powers extend any further than the people of my own community and region to whom I may have some tangible connection, as opposed to the centralized monstrosity of federalism which benefits at my (and my neighbours') expense some people I do not know and with whom I may very well share no cultural affinity and to whom my only connection is a vague political one occasioned by where the borders were drawn?

Compassion only exists when you give freely.  Political redistribution can never be compassion.  If I give charitably, a net good is achieved and I obtain moral credit for the act.  When something is taken by force from one person (bad) and given to another (good), there is not necessarily a net good achieved and there is no moral credit to the person doing the taking and giving.  A compassionate liberal by definition can only ever be one who gives freely of his own and tolerates the social and economic freedom of others to do as they please.  Those who wish to call themselves "compassionate" and "liberal" must follow the rules, or else search the dictionary and proudly adopt and proclaim the terms which truly describe them.

It would be one thing if some people simply wanted to take money directly from me and give it to someone else.  But what actually happens is that a large bureaucracy is established to manage charity, and the insult and inefficiency are compounded by the fact the bureaucracy won't simply take my money and otherwise keep its nose very much out of my private matters.  I went through a phase of my young adulthood where I supported Liberal and NDP candidates at the federal and provincial levels.  But for those inclined to use the power of the state to pursue their self-fulfillment it's like a form of political crack.  They can't stop.  They simply can't help themselves.  There is always another cause, another change to make, another way in which they imagine they could do more good coupled with the arrogant belief they have the right to do so and not be accorded the status of "tyrant".  Where does the line get drawn; where does the involvement of Government end?  Ever?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>However if you look at how much the US spends on foriegn aid as opposed to even us as a percentage of GDP, it falls far behind. Is that the way a world leader should act?

What percentage of its GDP does the US spend on a trade imbalance in what amounts to a giant charity scheme (because much of it is consumptive spending) that keeps how many people employed in the developing world?  Maybe you should add that to the balance.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So if a Government is not supposed to look after its citizens? Then what is it for?

Since you ask, the sufficient purpose of government is to safeguard the rights of its citizens.  It need do nothing more.  When it starts to do more, it necessarily infringes the rights of some citizens to provide various forms of social and economic security for others.  When some of the people decide to use the authority and power of the government which was established to provide essential security to obtain for themselves privileges and to dictate to others what choices in life they should make, and what penalties others must pay for whatever frivolous or potentially self-destructive pursuits they enjoy, a threshold of unreasonable tyranny (of the majority) has been crossed.  There is an almost unlimited number of regulations we might impose in the pursuit of some imagined good, and there are those among us who imagine themselves to be wise enough and to be possessed of some inherent power to save the rest of us from our foolhardiness.  I would prefer they spend their days at the beach pounding sand in an effort to make the grains finer and more luxurious to the feel of my bare feet.

In plainer terms, there are some things like publicly-funded health insurance and basic welfare which are worthwhile enterprises; but as I note above, I've yet to meet a socialist who knows when to retain and practice his good ideas solely for the benefit of his own self-advancement and amusement.  There are very, very few true social liberals - many who would grant on the one hand, say, same-sex marriage and permit vices of which they avail themselves would on the other hand act to constrain perceived vices which they don't understand or enjoy and therefore deem unnecessarily harmful.  For example, those who want no constraints on their behaviour in the bedrooms of the nation but expect the publicly-funded health care system to bail them out of their indiscretions would do well to exercise no interest at all in the gun lockers, tobacco pouches, and fast-food wrappers of anyone else.

 

[Zipper]

I personally don't care how many times he puts his foot in his mouth,he's done good things for this province, and in my opinion, thats what counts.

I guess you don't mind the fact that Alberta has one of the worst environments in country? One of the fastest rising number of cases of cancer? Lousy Educational standards? Etc...

Fine, he's done a great fiscal job. But at a price. Lets hope that he starts to remedy things now that he's paid off.

Brad - You world doesn't even exist in the States. And while there may be more social liberal's then you think (or social conservatives for that matter). Their are defiantly far to few people who wish to give anything of what they earn to a good cause. In fact it is rather funny that Newfoundland which has been for years the poorest of the Provinces has given the most to charity. And that is now falling as they make more money.

Where does the line get drawn; where does the involvement of Government end?  Ever?

It stops where the "people" feel it should stop. That may be farther in Scandinavia then we are comfortable with, but it does not mean that they should not go there. We will go as far as we (the majority) wish our government to go. Sometimes that requires backing off of something a few years later as a bad idea. But that is the way it goes.

As for safeguarding the rights of its citizens. What rights would exist in your world except the right to do as you please? The Government is there to not only protect us from outside forces (foreign interests), but to also protect society as a whole from its own selfish people. Hence why we have laws and police.

Even if we are to have that sort of Government, why should its powers extend any further than the people of my own community and region to whom I may have some tangible connection, as opposed to the centralized monstrosity of federalism which benefits at my (and my neighbours') expense some people I do not know and with whom I may very well share no cultural affinity and to whom my only connection is a vague political one occasioned by where the borders were drawn?

This worries me. You can say the same thing as "why should I care beyond the boundaries of my backyard". We are a country, and thus our boundaries are large and involve everyone inside of them. Its called being a Canadian. I prefer to see myself first as a Canadian, then a (transplanted) Albertan, then an Edmontonian. I guess you go the other way around.

Also with the world getting smaller with globalization, we cannot NOT call everyone in it a neighbor. And I would go so far as to say that we are all connected in some way, and thus everything that goes on is of concern to us all. Scary? You bet.

As for your implied fears of us (or anyone) falling into communism. It won't happen. Communism (and any other totalitarian regime) has been proven to be a dead end. Can we tip towards it (or fascism)? Yes. As history proves, any country can make bad choices under certain circumstances. But I don't believe we can (or will) ever go there.

 

[larry Strong]

Personally I could not give a sweet rats a** about the enviorment. Every day you see some new tree hugger screaming about the sky about to fall.
As for cancer....well something is going to kill me in the end, so who cares.

 

[48Highlander]

And I guess its hard for you to accept that the Scandinavian countries "chose" to go down the path they have? Do you actually believe with the levels of taxation they have, that is was just a slow slide? C'mon. They WANTED to go there and it works for them.

What?  did you even read the links you posted?  Neither one of them supports your stance at alll!  In fact, the second one has the following to say:

An elaborate structure of welfare legislation, imitated by many larger nations, began with the establishment of old-age pensions in 1911. Economic prosperity based on its neutralist policy enabled Sweden, together with Norway, to pioneer in public health, housing, and job security programs. Forty-four years of Socialist government were ended in 1976 with the election of a conservative coalition headed by Thorbjörn Fälldin. The Socialists were returned to power in the election of 1982, but Prime Minister Olof Palme, a Socialist, was assassinated by a gunman on Feb. 28, 1986, leaving Sweden stunned. Palme's Socialist domestic policies were carried out by his successor, Ingvar Carlsson. Elections in Sept. 1991 ousted the Social Democrats (Socialists) from power. The new coalition of four conservative parties pledged to reduce taxes and cut back on the welfare state but not alter Sweden's traditional neutrality. In Sept. 1994 the Social Democrats emerged again after three years as the opposition party.

Sure seems like a turbulent past and a slow decline into socialism to me.

So if a Government is not supposed to look after its citizens? Then what is it for?

Guess you had better shut down all the Ministries. Since they are all there to look after ALL the people of this country. Or are you saying that they should only look after the privileged people? Or only the ones that pay taxes? Or only the ones that make contributions to political parties? Or just business?

If it were up to me, I WOULD shut them down.  The Federal government exists for only two reasons:  to protect the nation from outside attack and to handle disputes between provinces/states.  The provincial government should exist only to regulate transportation and manage relations between cities.  And municipal governments should exist only to control crime, handle emergencies, and control development.  That's it.  Even the US government has exceeded it's mandate; originaly it was supposed to stick to the terms I outlined.  In fact, the US government was originaly forbidden from owning ANY land, or even keeping a standing army.  Why?  Because the people understood that the more power the government has the more opportunity for abuse and incompetence there is.  That's why we should take care of our own lives;  because the more levels of beurocracy you add to any given program, the more money is "lost" and the more chance there is that someone will use that program for their own purposes.

Funny. I could have sworn that a country was run with similarities to a business? And we all know that the happier and healthier the workers are, the more productive they will be. But then we had better cancel your benefits package as well, and let you buy your own.

Cancel my benefits package and give me a raise?  I'd be thrilled!  Because that's what we're talking about here.  My money is being sucked away to pay for services I have no interest in.  If I wanted medical coverage, I'd buy ensurance.  If I wanted education for my children, I'd provide it myself or pay for it.  If I wanted a gun registry or a sponsorship scandal....well, you get the idea.

As for the looking after family. Agreed. That is the way its SUPPOSED to work. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there that cannot afford to look after themselves, let alone family. As well as a lot of just plain selfish people who choose not to look after their families. So what should happen to those people? Starve as well?

Ya know, as cold hearted as it sounds, evolution has served us well for milions of years.  Our current policies have stopped it in it's tracks.  While I hate to see people suffering, I also have no interest in funding a crack-addicts habit.  Some sort of assistance SHOULD be offered to people.  Those too sick or insane to accept it should be institutionalized.  The rest will accept what they're given and improve their lives.  They don't want to improve their lives?  Well then fuck 'em.  We should give people an opportunity, not care for them all their lives.

The point is...              ...other governments, whether more social or not, work fine for those who live there. If they didn't, you'd see alot more revolutions. But you do not. SO they work. Get over it.

No, they don't work fine.  I think the Canadian political system is shit.  I'm just too stubborn and patriotic to pick up and move to the US.  A lot of other people are pissed off at the high tax rate too, but all they do is grumble and complain.  Why?  Because when things get bad gradualy, people learn to accept the changes.  Revolutions only happen when EVERYTHING collapses at once, or when a truly worthy cause emerges.

 

[TCBF]

There ia a  certain advantage to boiling a Frog slowly - by the time it realizes it is in mortal danger, it is too late to do anything about it.

 

[Zipper]

You must lead a very very sad lonely existence Larry. :'(  I wonder if you have kids to pass that sorry attitude onto?

As for 48th - Sheesh. I hear there may be some survivalist militia in minnisota looking for recruits. And I wonder how you can maintain that patriotism in the face of all that hostility towards our country? And yes, the Government represents and is thus our country. And as for those benefits you so reluctantly pay into...         ...take it from someone who used to have the same attitude until I suddenly needed them and they saved me and my families financial life.

Ya know, as cold hearted as it sounds, evolution has served us well for milions of years.  Our current policies have stopped it in it's tracks.  While I hate to see people suffering, I also have no interest in funding a crack-addicts habit.  Some sort of assistance SHOULD be offered to people.  Those too sick or insane to accept it should be institutionalized.  The rest will accept what they're given and improve their lives.  They don't want to improve their lives?  Well then **** 'em.  We should give people an opportunity, not care for them all their lives.

I won't go so far as you on this. But in some ways I agree. We shouldn't allow people to live (suck) off the system. The Ontario unemployment/retraining for work program (or whatever it was called) that Harris brought in was in my mind a good way to go. It finally got a friend of mine out of the work to unemployment to welfare to work (repeat) cycle. But then some people need care for the rest of their lives. Its a case by case basis.

And I did read your links. In fact I accidently posted the same one to prove MY point that they keep choosing to go back to that government because that is where they wish to stand.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>It stops where the "people" feel it should stop.

Basically, if enough of you and friends can get together to strong-arm me, that's the way it goes.  You do realize that is the essence of what you propose, do you not?

>The Government is there to not only protect us from outside forces (foreign interests), but to also protect society as a whole from its own selfish people.

I get the part about preventing foreigners or citizens from infringing our rights.  Maybe you should clarify what you mean by protection from selfish people.  Some guy doesn't want to share his income with you and you figure we should just take what we want?

>This worries me.

Why does devolution of power and authority worry you?  Why should local governments not in fact control most of the government activity in this country?

>I prefer to see myself first as a Canadian

That's nice.  So do I.  Do you think that implies some obligation on my part to you, or vice versa, other than to respect your fundamental rights?  You have a certain idea of what it means to be Canadian.  Do you truly feel you have the right to impose it on any one other person?

>As for your implied fears of us (or anyone) falling into communism.

I have no fear of falling into communism.  What I respect is the demonstrated tendency of people to abuse the power of the state.  Responsible self-government requires restraint.  I think the US got at least two things right at the start: the most important thing a free people can do upon establishing their government is to recognize that the fundamental human rights are in fact inalienable (and not something granted by government) and that the most important role of constitutional and other foundation documents is to clearly define and limit the power of government.

 

[larry Strong]

Actually I lead a full an active life, have a group of good friends, and yes I have 2 kids that were not dope headed thugs, both have good jobs, and live life according to the good book, and I even have a granddaughter. Just because I don't sit around and fret about things i have no control over, does not mean I have a lonely life. As to their politics, I don't really know, they are 2 grown ups and can make up their own minds.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

It is the responsibility of any Government to look after ALL its citizens,

That was the exact moment you lost me.

"Give me your money; I work the government.  I will do what's best for you, because I know what you need better than you do.  Trust me ;D.  Besides, if you don't give your money you will be incarcerated ... where's my limo?" 

 

[Zipper]

Larry - You do? Thats wonderful. Congrats. I find it rather disturbing that with all those wonderful kids you would have the attitude of "somethings going to kill me, oh well.". but then I say...   ...Oh well too.

>It stops where the "people" feel it should stop.

Basically, if enough of you and friends can get together to strong-arm me, that's the way it goes.   You do realize that is the essence of what you propose, do you not?

Actually its called democracy. That ideal form of government that we have these days and are thus forced to live with.

>The Government is there to not only protect us from outside forces (foreign interests), but to also protect society as a whole from its own selfish people.

I get the part about preventing foreigners or citizens from infringing our rights.   Maybe you should clarify what you mean by protection from selfish people.   Some guy doesn't want to share his income with you and you figure we should just take what we want?

You don't understand this part? You know. People who break the democratically arrived at laws for their own gain. Otherwise known as criminals. That includes breaking tax and business laws.

>This worries me.

Why does devolution of power and authority worry you?   Why should local governments not in fact control most of the government activity in this country?

>I prefer to see myself first as a Canadian

That's nice.   So do I.   Do you think that implies some obligation on my part to you, or vice versa, other than to respect your fundamental rights?   You have a certain idea of what it means to be Canadian.   Do you truly feel you have the right to impose it on any one other person?

Actually I don't see a problem with our civic governments having a great deal of the responsibility (rather then power). In fact with our population gathering more and more in cities, I see it as something that needs to happen. However it doesn't matter where the "power" lies, you will still have corruption and abuses of that power. But you also have to realize (which I don't think you grasp) that for the most part, the playing field should be as level across the country as possable. You cannot call yourself a country if one side of it is in the slums, while the other is flying high on the hog. This includes one city over another. Yes, we still have our problems that way. But at least attempts are made to solve it.

>As for your implied fears of us (or anyone) falling into communism.

I have no fear of falling into communism.   What I respect is the demonstrated tendency of people to abuse the power of the state.   Responsible self-government requires restraint.   I think the US got at least two things right at the start: the most important thing a free people can do upon establishing their government is to recognize that the fundamental human rights are in fact inalienable (and not something granted by government) and that the most important role of constitutional and other foundation documents is to clearly define and limit the power of government.

Then if this were the case (Which I do not think has ever happened except for the first 30 seconds after the US constitution was signed), why is it that the US federal government has so much power over the people? All they have to say is "national security" and suddenly they have camera's and police everywhere and neighbors turning in each other on suspician of speaking against the government (terrorism). Otherwise I think you had better go and read the charter of rights again.

Something I think you, and many who look to the US as a perfect system, do not understand is the fact that we come from (for the most part) countries where we were RULED by a single person or family. We chose through various means (rebellion or otherwise) to have elected those people who RULED over us. Our (and others) government is not just there as an administering body, but to RULE over (be the figure head of...)  the country in question. Which is why we pay them so much and give them fancy titles and places to live.

"Give me your money; I work the government.   I will do what's best for you, because I know what you need better than you do.   Trust me ;D.   Besides, if you don't give your money you will be incarcerated ... where's my limo?"   

As above. Their called tax laws. And if you don't like it. Don't vote for them. And I don't think they know what is better for YOU then you do. But they may have a better idea of what society as a whole needs better then you do.