It only balances out if your using all of those services. No while the practice of owning the mineral rights by government originated with the Brits, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are still owned by government. In practice this is a for of socialism isn't it? I mean according to the definitions you posted? Your not going to say you don't understand the difference between socialism and communism now are you Larry?
Tim -----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:37 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Altruism (was RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries) People pay more in taxes, yes, but much, much less in health insurance, car insurance (for Manitoba and BC at least), unemployment, workers compensation, education, college, etc. So essentially it balances out. As for the bogus comment about mineral rights, it has nothing to do with socialism or whatever. Its from a far older system, called the british government model. The crown owns the land, and the individual buys from the government. As for the utilities, frankly as far as I'm concerned its better that the provincial government own the electrical utilities and get some hope of getting something back rather than it all going out of the province to enrich some person who never had to work in his life. A quick comparison, Manitoba owns its electrical generation and delivery systems. Before I left Winnipeg, Manitoba, I paid about $15 a month Canadian (approx $10) for an electrically heated 2 bedroom apartment. Coming to Roanoke, Virginia, where there was a privately owned electrical utility, my electrical rates were about 3 times as much. There are some advantages to a regulated government monopoly. larry >They own their houses, but they have no mineral rights to what's under the >ground. Also look into Esso and the amount of money it gets from the >government sometime. Look at the utilities and who owns and runs those. > >Your oversimplifying this a lot you know. BTW they pay far more in taxes >than we do. Hell GST, provincial and federal taxes, supporting all of these >various social programs. > >I don't know why you have such a problem with the word? How would you >define it? Is there some stigma you attach to socialist? > >Tim > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:33 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: Re: Altruism (was RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries) > > >Well all I know is that Tim claimed that it was socialist because the large >industries are government owned and something about property rights, >neither of which is true. I have been in the states a long time but I have >family in Canada and ya they own houses, work and pay taxes in very much >the same way that I do. > >Dana > >Nick McClure writes: > >> That is only part of the equation. >> >> Socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, you can have a >socialist >> democracy, capitalist monarchy or a communist republic. >> >> Socialism or capitalism is the economic side, democracy or dictatorship is >> the political side. >> >> I would say that Canada is not a 100% capitalist country. There are >> obviously capitalist ideas, but there are a number of socialist ideas as >> well. >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:04 PM >> > To: CF-Community >> > Subject: Re: Altruism (was RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries) >> > >> > It's a parliamentary democracy. >> > >> > Dana >> > >> > Heald, Tim writes: >> > >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
