From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:56:37 GMT

so i'm thumbing through soc.culture.canada, trying to see what other inane
conversations about canada are going on out there (including one about
the Muslim religion -- can't for the life of me figure out what it is doing
here), and what do i stumble upon?

sorry for infecting your home base, Gary, but then i'm sure you and your clique
will have no problem dismissing my "fascist neo-libertarian dogma".


In article <1992Dec14.162240.22301@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>>Refering to a discussion in talk.politics.misc, our New York 
>>correspondant, Gary L Dare, wrote parenthetically:
>>> (it's not often one finds a Canadian and devout libertarian ...)
>>
>>Except on USENET, which is why I take all discussions in can.* and
>>soc.culture.canada with a large grain of salt.  They certainly are
>>not representative of the country that I know.

if they wanted to be, the writers would just yawn and turn on "L.A. Law"

>
>Yeah, but this guy is good.

thanks! i do consider that a compliment. notwithstanding your lack of
comprehension of the real fiscal and monetary disaster canada is headed 
for, you seem to have a reasonably logical mind.
i believe you simply choose not to use it much of the time.

>He's not an apolitical young'un

not apolitical, anyway..

>who never saw a doctor or hospital up north that just got an EE/CS job down in
>Silicon Valley and tries to rationalize his newfound libertarianism by
>stupidly repeating ultraconservative propoganda about our "national
>health service", or an undergrad sophomore hothead.

you continue this characterization of canadian libertarians with little
basis, as far as i can see. of course this "guilt by association"-like
dismissal allows you to ignore the content of my message, which lets
you continue on in your little "canada is doing great" dreamworld.
btw, seen the dollar lately? it's heading back below $.70, you know
that, don't you?

just as you based most of your previous arguments
on singular examples conveniently extrapolated, you ignore the fact
that there *are* libertarians in canada. i was one before i moved, as you
have acknowledged. but there are others too. and it is the overwhelming
presence of socialistic thinking in canada combined with unfortunate
but undeniable apathy, which leads many who think as i do to leave
the country. don't confuse causes and effects, no matter how convenient
this may be.

i don't consider myself a classic libertarian, by the way. we do share
many common ideologies, including the basic tenets of a free market, 
and the concept that the government should not exist to protect citizens
from themselves, nor to steal from one group to give to another.
i also, however, oppose some libertarian planks, such as the recent
conversation over in alt.politics.libertarian, where i have been arguing
(on pragmatic grounds) against the gold standard. i try to be consistent
and logical. i believe in respectful equality and the right for
self-preservation and advancement. i don't subscribe to party politics,
and i believe that parties turn otherwise rational, free thinkers into
automatons. even the libertarian party, in some cases (though FAR less
than the others).


>[he] can hold your attention.

maybe not. i haven't held very much attention at all.
i wanted to talk about the myriad of signs which show that canada is leading
the united states in the north american "race down the toilet". instead
we ended up talking about bunches of irrelevant (or at best tangential)
issues like health care, the GST, and whether or not you were conservative
because you read the WSJ.

>There's room for a diversity of opinions, and reading some of his
>stuff is good for a reality check in this discussion about the Reform
>Party.

i don't know much about the reform party, but what i have heard of them
is refreshing, considering the "business as usual" i have heard from the
mainstream parties, including the "new demolishement party" as they will
be known in ontario in about ten years. the development of the reform
party, along with other signs (like Sen. Kennedy's recent comments about
Mulroney) only confirm my feelings that the PC's are no longer 
conservative at all. if they were, why would there be a need for the
reform party?

>While I find Reform
>a little strong for my Red Tory, fiscal conservative/social liberal
>beliefs

what an oxymoron. do you still not realize how inconsistent social liberal
policies are with fiscal conservatism? where do you think the deficit
comes from? in 1990, the canadian government spent 72% of its non-interest
expenditures on social, transfer and assistance payments, and crown
corporations, while running a huge deficit. how can the two be compatible
when "social liberal beliefs" are what is CAUSING the fiscal problem?

i heard today that canada's public debt (public only -- private debt
is also enormous) has climbed to *93%* of annual GDP. that makes canada
one of the worst debtors per capita in the industrialized world, trailing
only italy, i believe. canada spent 28% of its budget on servicing its
debt in 1990, and that was two years ago. you can be sure it is more know.
and that doesn't even include Mr. Rae and his tax-and-spendathon which only
started in 1990 and isn't reflected in the national numbers. when does it
all end folks?

it will end soon, in one of three ways: A. the government wakes up and
starts to drastically slash social spending, and NOW (that is what a
real fiscal conservative would do... are you home, Mr. Mulroney?). this
scenario is unlikely. B. the government, faced with paying larger and larger
interest payments, starts the printing presses going full speed, leading
to hyperinflation, a la south america in the 80's. C. the government
keeps building higher and higher deficits, until finally they no longer
can even pay the interest on the debt. financial chaos ensues. we are
forced to crawl on our hands and knees to our creditors to work out
repayment arrangements. this happened to many nations less than 15
years ago! how can we all be so stupid?

any way you slice it, it means the end of the north american way of life.
you watch -- it's going to unravel right before your eyes. if you
doubt me, pick up the book "Bankruptcy: 1995" by Harry E. Figgie, Jr.
it shows how debt is swallowing the US government. and canada is in a 
much worse situation. i have many more numbers, and they all speak for
themselves. don't say you weren't warned.

and if you oppose what i said, be prepared to back it up. the only
"argument" i have heard so far is "the government wouldn't let that
happen. it couldn't happen. it would be too terrible". that argument
doesn't hold much water for me. remember, these projections (Figgie
calls for the final reckoning to happen in 1995) are not based upon
some kind of worst-case projection for *increased* spending -- they are based
upon *current* spending patterns.

>they are not much stronger than most liberal Republicans we
>have in Manhattan and on Long Island

which is why the US is giving canada a run for its money in the competition
to see which can become the next third world country. don't think to
yourself "it can't happen here" -- they said that in germany and in
south america. look around you. it's happening already.

>nor the right-wing rumps of the
>French Gaullistes and the German Christian Democrats (the position
>that Reformists held in our Conservative Party 'til they split off).

maybe they split off because the conservative party has demonstrated that
they are no longer any such thing?

>I don't even think that a mild conservative like John Paul Morrisson
>can escape a chat with Charles without having socialist tendencies
>being pointed out to him

i try to speak the truth as i see it. i don't know Mr. Morrisson. i
don't really know you either. i only know what you write. that is all
upon which i comment.

>(but I don't mind; I'm proud (-; to be a 
>socialist!).

geez. since you put your smiley next to "proud" and not next to "socialist",
am i to infer that you finally admit it, after all your protestations?
remember, i know that you wrote that last piece never intending that i
would read it...

that's ok, Gary. be proud of what you are. seriously, i never meant otherwise.
just be honest with yourself and with everyone else. and don't try to get
me to ignore everything you write which suggests you *are* a socialist,
just because you say you aren't one.

>Folks, there is a LOT of room beyond the Euro-Canadian
>centre-right ...

if you consider the PC's to still be center-right, you should redefine
what you mean by "center" (or should i say "centre"?)

>The topic [Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)] has very wide
>implications, that's why it started on Talk.politics.misc and it
>should stay there.

i doubt it. i'm sure very few non-canadians care. you will admit that
most americans don't care squat about what happens north of the border.
and since our last several posts degenerated into nothing more than you
spewing propaganda and irrelevant comments, and me flaming you out of
frustration, we probably accomplished very little, other than to expand
several thousand kill files across the globe...

maybe some other canadians will read this and we can get some real
discussion going. if i can get just one other person to open her eyes
and look around, i will have accomplished my goal.

>It's a great reality check ...

too bad. it was meant to be a hell of a lot more.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada