[Mikkel Paulson]

My one problem with the idea of a North American union is that, like every other North American treaty, it would involve the United States dominating the other parties. That's a dealbreaker, and there are no assurances that could convince me otherwise if such a thing were ever seriously put on the table.

[Nuitari]

We're already pretty much tied at the waist. We're thankfully not drowning with them, yet. It's not because the cord is very long that there isn't a problem.

[Mapleson]

Do you also oppose thermonuclear war, the oppression of humanity by alien overlords, and the naturalization of Santa Claus as a Canadian citizen?

Is it necessary to disclose every unlikely contingency that is undesirable?  Is it necessary to reduce an array of diverse factors for an entire continent to the talking points of "opposing a North American Union"?  As there there are no international treaties or negoations pursuing such as event, such conglomerations of facts that do exist about such a NAU do not reflect political reality, and the de facto status that the Canadian economy is globally diversifying (Percent of non-US imports/exports have doubled in the ~20 years since NAFTA and NAU propaganda took root, the threat posed by such an Union is small and diminishing with time.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Well said.

[Jay Frank]

1. Do you also oppose thermonuclear war, the oppression of humanity by alien overlords, and the naturalization of Santa Claus as a Canadian citizen?

2. Is it necessary to disclose every unlikely contingency that is undesirable?  Is it necessary to reduce an array of diverse factors for an entire continent to the talking points of "opposing a North American Union"?  3. As there there are no international treaties or negoations pursuing such as event, such conglomerations of facts that do exist about such a NAU do not reflect political reality, and the de facto status that the Canadian economy is globally diversifying (Percent of non-US imports/exports have doubled in the ~20 years since NAFTA and NAU propaganda took root,4. the threat posed by such an Union is small and diminishing with time.

1. Yes Yes No.
2. Absolutely.
3. What political reality are you living in?  http://www.spp.gov/
Gold futures are looking like $1500/oz before xmas as US fiat currency deflates.
4. Blinded by incrementalism.  When the dollar bubble busts the amero and/or the bancor will be offered as our financial saviors.

Further....

Imports tend to go up when you don't manufacture anything at home...demand doesn't decrease just because there is no local suppty.

J

[Mapleson]

Don't let the fact that Canada has had a growing trade surplus for a decade before the current economic adjustment get in the way.

Please provide a full list of every matter that must be opposed.  If you say "I don't want a joint currency with the US", "I don't want an unsecured boarder with the US", or "I don't want to use joint task force fighter jets", then you have something that's worth talking about.

The EU has been around in forms for over 50 years and England still has it's own currency.  The British maintain internal boarder control against continental immigrants.  England is leading the charge for a joint Europe policy force, but others aren't as keen.  If England, Germany, and France cannot agree to a political union, why do you think Canada, Mexico, and the United States would be compatable?

Please tell me what specific growing threat to Canada is there?  That the US might have economic leverage over us?  That Canadian environmental policy might be decided in Washington?  That people not born in Canada might influence the direction of the country?

I'm living in the political reality where California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas would oppose the relaxation of immigration rules.  I'm living in the political reality where Canada is no longer worried about the "Brain Drain" to higher paying jobs on American soil.  I'm living in the political reality where the Canadian dollar has gone from $0.65 to $1.15 American.  I'm living in the political reality where the US has 13 TRILLION dollars debt with a 1 TRILLION dollar budget deficit ($4.11 billion new debt per day), while Canada has $463 billion in debt with a deficit of $54 billion ($4.5 billion new debt per month).

What exactly are you afraid of?

[Biogrand]

Jay is right. The Canadian Action Party is perhaps a bit alarmist if anything, but their platform is based on facts.

-----------------

That is not true at all.

That means 9/11 was an inside job.
That means the H1N1 pandemic was orchestrated by the Government to boost the pharmalogical industries.
List goes on.

CAP is a party of "culture of fear" within our political realm - basically an "Alarmist Party of Canada" or "Conspiracy Theorist Party of Canada" base on cherry picking for their policies.

That is my opinion

[Mikkel Paulson]

Absolutely. Does it seem ironic to anyone that a political party would seek to gain power by spreading the fear that the government used fear to gain power?

[Biogrand]

Absolutely. Does it seem ironic to anyone that a political party would seek to gain power by spreading the fear that the government used fear to gain power?

Fear is a powerful tool that often bypass individual common-sense and reality, which individuals, in turns seek to eliminate that 'fear' by seeking comfort from parties that can dispel such 'fear'.

Its true, we are the barn animals and the farmers are the government. Well maybe not exactly, but you get the metaphor

[Mikkel Paulson]

Been reading Animal Farm?

[Biogrand]

Been reading Animal Farm?

well maybe, but it was definitely a freudian slip now I look back at it.

BTW - the leader "Moldren" of CAP, left to join the Christian Heritage Party.

You can tell that the stability of CAP is very unstable for number of reason.

1) the party is over 10,000 in debt
http://capmh.ca/trustandaccountability.html

2) Many leaders came and go - more then 6 parties leader came and go since 2004 - thats almost 1 different leader every year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Action_Party#Party_leaders

A party stability can be judge on number of things
1) new leaders over period of time (too many leaders in short period of time = instability)
2) loyalty to core issue (the more often the party switches on issues the more unstable it'll become)
3) finances (a party in debt is a party digging its own grave)

*notice that number of votes does not account for its stability/instability as 'votes' are external to the party internal therefore the number of votes means nothing

[Jack Daniels]

Concerning the conspiratorial view of history, I posted the following review of Ralph Epperson's 'The Unseen Hand' on Amazon.com several years ago. I do believe in the conspiratorial view of history, but I think theory, or philosophy, is more important. Anyone who espouses Austrian theory will necessarily stand in opposition to any conspiracy in operation today, whether they believe the conspiracy exists or not. Conspiratorialists need to keep this in mind. I am not advocating a blindfold where you adhere to just economic theory, but pretend no such evil men exist in this world. Naivete is never good.

The CAP has good intentions, but as was said before, they are into cherry picking. Their chosen policies make me very angry. I'll explain later. Let me know what you think of my review.

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://img139.imageshack.us/i/theunseenhand.jpg/'><img src='http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3820/theunseenhand.jpg' border='0'/></a>

Uploaded with <a target='_blank' href='http://imageshack.us'>ImageShack.us</a>

This review is from: The Unseen Hand (Paperback)
I have had this book since about 1985, when I was 18, and I have read every chapter at one time or another. Since very few chapters are related to each other, this book is more like a collection of pamphlets than a single volume, which is fine with me.

When I was young, immature and highly impressionable, I thought the claims and message of this book were of utmost importance. I have since learned otherwise. The truth about evil acts committed by government are important, but without the right philosophy from which to view those facts, they are useless. (There is no such thing as a 'bare fact.' 'Facts' only aquire the value that their viewer imputes to them, which is determined by that viewer's presuppositions. Facts, fossils, statistics, results are just like a fiat dollar. They have no intrinsic value. Their value is subjective, not objective. Study Gordon Clark's dogmatism and you'll understand.)

In The Unseen Hand you read about the ACTS of tyranny and the violation of Austrian (read: Christian) ideals such as private property rights, personal freedom, the right to the medical treatment of your choice, laissez-faire capitalism, sound money, and the evils of legal plunder, false philanthropy, economic interventionism, and more. The problem with the conspiratorial view is that it focuses on evil intent (to murder and enslave or cause widespread suffering) as of primary importance. While this is probably true in many cases, I have come to see it as immaterial. This is a dead-end road. You can't do anything about it even if it is true, and promoting these ideas will profit you nothing. In fact, doing so will be socially counter-productive to your own goals. If you follow my advice, you'll be taking a short-cut to what you would learn by experience anyway. Let me save you the trouble.

In Austrian economics we leave such speculations behind to focus on the principles and theories which we see violated in all of the accounts found in The Unseen Hand. If governments followed Austrian theory, there would be no conspiracies. If the majority of voters were educated in Austrian theory, and let their voice be heard, governments would not enjoy the power they now have. The Unseen Hand focuses on evil ACTS (practice); Austrian economics focuses on evil IDEAS (theory). All ACTS are the practice of some theory. Without the knowledge of THEORY, your moral philosophy concerning the ACTS will be disjointed and inconsistent. So, while I encourage you to buy The Unseen Hand, please don't stop there. Move on to Austrian economics and leave conspiratorialism behind.

And by the way, Epperson does provide some excellent theory concerning freedom and collectivism in the first couple of chapters of the book. Learning about the conspiracies will develop in you a healthy skepticism of government, even if some of them are a little far-fetched. And I'm not saying they are.

Whether the accounts in The Unseen Hand happen by design or are the result of stupidity, they are still sin. All of it is a violation of some biblical (Austrian) principle. What difference does it make, especially when they are so difficult to prove, and they are only allowed to happen because of the moral ignorance of the masses anyway? Stick with theory.

[Jack Daniels]

I want to continue my previous post here. I said that the CAP's chosen policies make me very angry. I read through their policies about 5 years ago. Maybe they have changed, but I never saw any reason to continue an interest in them, so I haven't followed them since then.

I realize that this party has nothing to do with religion, and it is not my intention to raise religious controversy here, but I chose the following statement as a concise example of why I hate the CAP. In spite of my agreement with them on some issues relating to conspiracies that are in operation today, and with their views on fractional reserve banking, and some other issues, the issue of individual rights is non-negotiable. Disagreement on this point is cause for eternal enmity. A now deceased friend of mine, John Robbins, wrote the following statement as a preface to the famous essay 'Not Yours to Give', which he published in the Trinity Review, a publication of The Trinity Foundation:

(The essay can be read here: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=23. This site has many excellent essays on economic and political issues, which I highly recommend.)

Editor’s Note: The Christian’s duty to help the widow and orphan is clearly stated in the Bible. The Bible also clearly states that the Christian is to use his own property in charity, and it clearly forbids stealing to help the poor. Yet there are some professed Christians who believe that stealing is a virtue so long as it is done in the name of “social justice.” They advocate political programs to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. But governments, like all human beings and institutions, are subject to the moral law, and are specifically commanded not to steal. Not Yours to Give illustrates the difference between lawful and unlawful political action, and exposes the hypocrisy of those who pretend to help the poor through political action.

In short the CAP is a socialist and collectivist party. Regardless of their views on other issues, which I might wholeheartedly agree with, if the CAP were in power, we would still have more of the same. More legal plunder and false philanthropy, to use Frederic Bastiat's words. I am not free to work, earn money to support my self and my family without also supporting a government schooling system that I do not agree with. This is slavery, pure and simple, and the CAP approves. If I subtract the amount from my income tax, the police will use force to extract it from me. And the CAP approves of this also. So the CAP approves of violence as a means of securing payment for a collectivist agenda. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who espouses such a barbaric policy can go straight to hell. The difference between Canadian socialism and Chinese or Russian communism is immaterial to me. The former simply allows me to live in peace under the threat of violence if I don't comply.

Whatever is just and right about the CAP is nullified by their moral ignorance and stupidity regarding the basics of liberty and individual rights. The CAP is run by shitheads, as is the Conservative Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservatives.

I apologize if my swearing offends you. Feel free to edit my post. Like I said, the CAP makes me very angry.