HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:26:44 GMT

>How can you accuse me of espousing dogma...apart from asserting a
>single principle, that of popular sovereignty, I haven't been advocating
>any ideology...and the advocation of popular sovereignty is basically
>asserting the position that everyone is entitled to their personal
>beliefs and a right to voice them politically through 
>their right to vote...which is a method more than an ideology.

Ugh. Popular sovereignty? I am feeling very sick to my stomach. Who sends
people off to wars? Elected politicians. Who raises your taxes and smiles
and says its the will of the people? Elected politicians. And who is
responsible - no not the politicians, but the Canadian people who are all
suckers for believing that other people can solve their problems. Popular
sovereingty. If that is the case than I declare individual indpendence
against the popular state and pronounce judgement on those who exercise
authority against me solely because a majority of electors (morons) have
elected them to do so. A truly wicked system.

>Gerald



-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: 500 New Jobs Per Day
Keywords: recession, jobs
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:54:43 GMT

rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF]) writes:

>In article <schuck.726799410@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>By 1992, the Tories had raised it to 250,000 per year -- 685 per day.
>>
>>I know that all 685 of those people were not looking for work,

>Right.
>A significant number (i.e. more than 185) are probably young children,
>housewives, etc.

Way too many. But housewives do work in the '90s and young children
grow up and enter the work force. 10 year olds who emigrated in 1984
are now 18 and entering the work force.

>>but a
>>little simple math says that if jobs grow by 500/day and we let
>>685/day into the country, unemployment grows at 185/day.

>Only if you ignore what you just said before the "but".

>i.e. you just said something like "If we ignore the facts, then ...".

I didn't ignore the facts, I just didn't explore every possiblity.

Just like the person who said we should look at the 500 new jobs a day
and ignore the unemployment rate. He ignored all the people entering
the work force for the first time and all the immigrants.

I used the 685/day figure because I don't know what percentage of
immigrants look for work, but I do know that many if not most look for
some kind of work because many are not eligible for welfare and they
have to eat! Only refugees are automatically allowed on the welfare
rolls. 




Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: 500 New Jobs Per Day
Keywords: recession, jobs
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:01:21 GMT

In article <carlos.726803398@morgan> carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Miguel Borges) writes:
>
>"Seasonally adjusted" - What a great term.
>
>It means that the new unemployment rate does not count those who are
>unemployed now and were unemployed at the same time last year.
  
  Sometimes it does, but they usually use the term 'anually adjusted.'
'Seasonally adjusted' can also mean that compensation is made for 
seasonal unemployment -- unemployment due to people working at jobs that
can only be preformed at a certain time of the year.  (E.g. farm workers
out of a job during the winter.)


>
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Canada for foreigners
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:04:48 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique

Someone once wrote:
> I am working on "multiculturalism" through the works of three immigrant
> authors: Joy Kogawa, Michael Ondaatje and Rohinton Mistry. Unlucky Canada
> is far from Italy and i lack a lot of informations. Would you like
> to help me to improve my knowledge of this country with suggestions and
> messages on this "news".

Overview
--------
Canada is a big empty country with a few people living in a narrow
band just north of our rich and powerful neighbour, The Benighted
States :-).  Most of the country is frozen during the winter months
with the exception of a small region in the extreme West where it
rains a lot.

The primary factors that have shaped modern Canada are
the presence of lots of francophones, loyalty to the British Empire,
massive immigration from all parts of the world, the emptyness
of the land, having no power, being next to a country with lots
of power, the weather, and the presence of a large amount of
natural resources.

History as it was never taught before
-------------------------------------
In the beginning there were the First Immigrants, now sometimes
known as the Natives or American Indians, who don't necessarily have
anything to do with curried prawns or chicken massala.  The Natives
were a disparate lot that walked over the land bridge that once
existed between Asia and Alaska to spread out over the whole of the
two American continents in various waves.  The arrival of the Europeans
put paid to their cultures, remnants of which survive in Reservations
and some remote areas where no one else wanted to live until
some condos and golf courses were built.

The first Europeans were the French, Lief Erikson notwithstanding.
At first they could barely be bothered to colonize the place,
but a sudden fad for beaver skin hats saved the day.  Peasants
were rounded up in France and sent off as brave pioneers.
Someone decided that maybe they should have some wives
so a boatload of women were sent over as well.  Yes, the French
have always had a certain savoir faire when it comes to romance.

The British wanted beaver skin hats too so they opened Mr. Hudson's
department store.  Mr Hudson decided that they needed more furs
to sell so he sent the lads over to the New World to see what they
could find.  They didn't find much but they did find the French,
which led them to immediately send over some volunteers to set
up their own colonies.

In the meantime, the Spanish had been looting acres of gold from
the southern continent, and they started poking there noses
up north, eventually reaching the rainy bit.  But they
didn't hang around long and the pesky British outflanked them
but setting up tourist attractions and restaurants serving tea
on an island that is quite close to the city of Vancouver, but has
nothing much to do with it.

A suivre.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: ai465@yfn.ysu.edu (Paul Shuttle)
Subject: Re: Property rights and the constitution
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 14:23:27 GMT


In my opinion, entrenchment of property rights in the consti-
tution is just not feasible. In a previous posting, Stewart M.
Clamen asks whether individuals and
corporations could sue the governments for losses arising from
zoning and/or environmental
legislation, and whether the governmental liability would
extend to all damages.

What about the losses arising to individuals possessing
currency from governmental legislation that promotes inflation?
(Perhaps the currency is the property of the person
concerned, but rather the government?)

What about, as Mr. Clamen suggests, losses arising to
owners of polluting automobiles and factories when environ-
mental legislation is introduced?

What about losses to ranchers when their cattle and swine
become ill from pollution due to government legislation
that fails to protect the environment?

When you believe, as I do, that government action includes
both acts and omissions, any and every change to 
property can be attributed to government. Compensation
for every such change is clearly unworkable.

Property rights (i.e. protection from governmental action)
makes sense only as long as one believes in a public/private
split.  When you believe that the "private sphere" is merely
the government acting by omission, the very fact of
property becomes a governmental action. What the government
creates, it can take away.
-- 
Paul Shuttle   aa478@Freenet.carleton.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: canadian subway
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:22:04 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1993Jan10.235430.10290@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
>I know of no other city that you can board a bus, do your business at the
>other end, and _return_ home on the same fare (other than by buying a
>return or two-way ticket of course), and who can imagine a 50 kilometer
>journey in, say, London, for 60 pence?

San Francisco has a similar system for the buses and light rail lines.
The fare is $1.00, and transfers are free.

But I must say that as a former resident of Montreal, I love the Metro.
The varied designs of the stations has always fascinated me.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov


Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Unique, eh?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:42:41 GMT

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
: 
: Hmm, Laurence Godfrey and Ted Kaldis must have been on holiday
: as well.

No, they're both busy working on their Hermann Goering scrapbooks.

-- 
Brian Ross                          
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca            
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Question(s) about Upcoming Election
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:47:13 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <pikedav.930111130957@lab5.duc.auburn.edu> pikedav@lab5.duc.auburn.edu (David Pike) writes:
>
>Sorry to get you all excited... this is NOT an annoucement that a Federal
>Election has been called.  But, as we all know there is going to be one
>before the year is through, I want to ask a question or two in preparation.
>
>In particular, this is my first year living outside of Canada.  When the
>election is finally called...
>
>- will I be allowed to cast an absentee vote?
>  (I wasn't in the Referendum :-(
>
>- if I'm allowed to vote, what must I do to ensure that will actually get
>  to vote?  Will the Canadian Embassy contact me, or must I contact (or,
>  heaven forbid, visit) them?
>
>Any comments from people who have gone through this before would be
>much appreciated.
>

Non-residents of Canada, except I think for specific exceptions
involving embassy and military personel, cannot vote.  I think
there is some move afoot to change this, but it would be awfully
strange to see more votes cast in California and Florida than
in some provinces.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 01:45:34 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Followup-To: can.politics,talk.politics.theory

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>If I am advocating a limited democratic government...how can I
>be arguing that there is one right and true way to run a country...

I was referring to past discussions we have had on the nature of
"fundamental human rights".  You have said that every rational
person has these fundamental rights, that these rights are
limited _only_ by each other, and that any action that otherwise
restricts those rights is immoral.

In particular, you said that there is exactly one policy on gun
control that is moral (tho' you did not explicitly say what that
policy was).  You allowed no differences due to local morality or
conditions.  Rights are rights are rights.

You are now saying that the only right and proper way to run a
country is through a limited democracy.  No variations due to
local morality or conditions.

You stuff yourself into a tiny box labeled "Fundamental Human
Rights" and loudly proclaim that you have all the room in the
world.

>I would argue that simple majoritarianism is not sufficient...

At what point did I say that majoritarianism was the rule?  I
never did.  I never even said that democracy was necessary.
I said that government action is inappropriate to the extent
that it offends the morals of its people -- the greater the
offence the greater the inappropriateness.

By greater offence I do not mean a greater number of people
offended, but rather separate people each more offended.

>A society can often be judged extremely quickly by how it
>treats its dissidents.

I agree.  The mathematics is not terribly difficult, either.
Dissidents are offended by the way the gov'ment is doing things.
If the dissidents are maltreated, they only become more offended.
Also, people who weren't offended by the gov'ments original 
actions are offended by the way the dissidents are treated.
The total amount of offence increases when the dissidents are
mistreated.  Thus the government is acting inappropriately 
when it mistreats dissidents.  QED

No need to invent spurious rights.

Also note that the mistreatment of dissidents is not _a priori_
inappropriate, but relies on the fact that it offends someone
when you mistreat them or their friends.  It's a property of
the human race.  If humans were all masochists, there'd be
nothing wrong with mistreating dissidents, since they'd _enjoy_
it.

...mark young

NB:  I have altered the follow-up line to exclude scc (sighs of
relief echo around the net) and to include talk.politics.theory.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:16:35 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

>spoken like a true socialist.

>how typical of a hypocrite to simply repeat for the hundredth time
>a stupid, overly-simplistic pile of crud such as this, after his opponent
>has already ripped his position into tiny pieces and he has chosen to
>ignore those arguments.

>beneath contempt.
>--
>charles
	A little courtesy goes a long way. My rule for posting is if I
wouldn't say it in person then I won't post it.

Charles Jobagy
charles@cs.ualberta.ca
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9960 can.politics:11426
From: godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Unique, eh?
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:44:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.020927.5639@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
> This newsgroup is really quite unique.  I can think of no other that I read
> regularly where I could expect to see all 22 new articles on the same
> thread and by such a small number of people, as I saw today.  Although this
> is an extreme example, soc.culture.canada always has a remarkably small
> number of subject lines for the volume of postings.  How boring.
> -- 
> Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
> ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  ray@cam.org           |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray

Does that surprise you for a group which concerns itself with Canadians?

Laurence

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:55:39 GMT

In article <wVd=WR@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>
>Your morality.  Gerald's morality.  My morality.  Three very
>different views of what the world should be like.  It is not
>the task of government to investigate the three and choose the 
>best one.  The role of government is to find a middle way, one 
>that preserves the peace.  A government has failed in its 
>mission if its citizens take up arms against it.  
>
>You and Gerald both believe that there is exactly one right way
>to run a country, one set of rules for what a government should
>and should not do.  Unfortunately, you disagree on what that
>one true way is.  
>

If I am advocating a limited democratic government...how can I
be arguing that there is one right and true way to run a country...
I am leaving myself only one vote, and argue that the state should
actively insure that everyone is able to vote.  And I have said 
that the "democratic" system which I have advocated can be judged
entirely by its utility, and not necessarily on an ideological
basis.  I believe that limited democratic government can 
empirically justify itself as the optimal system of government.

>I'm more of a pragmatist.  The government should do what its 
>citizens want.  I will oppose those actions if I find them 
>immoral -- following the society's rules for opposition if
>possible, outside the rules if necessary.  When I do step
>outside the rules, I do so knowing the consequences and
>willing to accept them.  I expect the same of other citizens.
>

I would argue that simple majoritarianism is not sufficient...
that the possibility of the tyranny of the majority is possible,
and that as a result, even a democratic government must be
must be a limited democratic government to be legitimate.
To provide for no mechanism as a check against the tyranny of
the majority, is to build in a flaw.  Hence a notion like that
of individual rights is explicitly necessary to recognize within
the structure of the society itself that the majority can be
wrong sometimes, and that there are things that the majority
cannot do legitimately.  A society must build in structures
as a mechanism for dissent or appeal...saying that one must 
just accept the consequences of dissent without a legitimate
means of appeal is the acceptance of tyranny.

A society can often be judged extremely quickly by how it
treats its dissidents.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:40:04 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Rights
 <1993Jan8.114258.13118@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <93008.151415SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1993Jan8.221932.13807@athena.mit.edu>

In article <1993Jan8.221932.13807@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M
Kozierok) says:

>what do you mean by "passive" rights?

Rights in the passive voice. The right "not to be...", etc. Rights that
require others to refrain from the negative, rather than act positively.
The arguments in favour of this distinction provide a good example of
the circular arguments in "objectivism".

>you have not demonstrated sufficiently what this "circular argument" is.
>please elaborate. i would like to understand your point.

Here we are. Suppose I live opposite to a large farm which lies between
myself and a town I need to visit frequently. Suppose that the farmer at
some point decides he doesn't want me walking across his farm. Has he
then invoked a passive right (the right not to have me trespass on his
property), or has he imposed an active obligation (to walk two miles out
of my way)?

Presumably, objectivists would argue for the former, since the farmer
does have property rights on his side. But what, then, do they base their
case for property rights on? The nature of rights as human rights. In
short, objectivists base the case for their version of rights on an
argument which turns out to rest on their version of rights.

>if you want to base your argument on individualism, that is.

Considering what I suspect you mean by "individualism", I don't.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that only individuals can act as moral
agents. I believe that the justice (or injustice) of an act depends
on its effect on individuals. But I don't accept the idea that somehow
that means individuals have no enforceable responsibilities to one
another.

>if you choose to do so voluntarily, i wholeheartedly agree.
>but if you force me to do the same, you abandon your claim
>to individualism. if you wish to do so, fine. just recognize
>what you are doing.

As I said above, I have no interest in claiming to be an individualist
on your terms. If you want to claim that my positions render me a
"collectivist", that's fine. I have no fear of that word. I think
we would be closer to the truth if we agreed we disagree about what
constitutes "individualism" because we have fundamentally different
views of the rights, obligations, and nature of the individual. But
as I say, labels don't bother me.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Unique, eh?
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:30:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.034008.2994@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
> godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de (Laurence "I was fired from NRC" Godfrey) writes:
> : In article <1993Jan9.020927.5639@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
> : > This newsgroup is really quite unique.  I can think of no other that I read
> : > regularly where I could expect to see all 22 new articles on the same
> : > thread and by such a small number of people, as I saw today.  Although this
> : > is an extreme example, soc.culture.canada always has a remarkably small
> : > number of subject lines for the volume of postings.  How boring.
> : 
> : Does that surprise you for a group which concerns itself with Canadians?
> : 
> : Laurence
> 
> Hey Larry! Tell us about yourself!
> Canada is boring; Larry Godfrey is interesting!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Brian Ross                          
> bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca            

Sure, what would you like to know?

Laurence

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9846 can.politics:11296
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: canadian subway
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:17:52 GMT

wheelan@cs.mcgill.ca (Bill HEELAN) writes:
>
> I wonder if the city has ever considered day passes (or even several-day
> passes)?  A few tourists have mentioned this to me as a good idea.  Even
> though I only use the transit system a few times a month, there are times
> (Christmas shopping :-) when I seem to spend the entire day going from
> place to place, and don't want to blow $10 or more on the trip.

I'm surprised that Montreal doesn't have such an arrangement, since there
are so many tourists there and so many great sites are linked by metro.

Toronto's TTC does have day passes, for sure a family pass (2 adults +
kids) good on Sundays and holidays ... my fiancee and I usually spend
the July 1st weekend in Toronto if it falls on a Monday or Friday so
that we can wangle a long weekend from work ... we dump our car and
zip around town to our hearts' content with our passes (I'm sure that
these same passes are single person for saturdays).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		President Bush should
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			pardon Amy Fisher NOW!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada