Federal Government & Politics II

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I have pondered what a system similar to the one in that infographic would look like though. It probably wouldn't work very well, compared to having a competent police force. If someone needs to resort to robbery then they're probably not going to have an insurance policy like that to begin with. It is effectively how South Africa works though - there are 3 private security personnel for every 1 cop. Modern day South Africa effectively operates as a left-libertarian country - due to years of incompetent governments the private sector has basically come up with its own solutions. It's not perfect, but the sun still rises, people still go to work, still have friends over, go on vacations. South Africa is also a massive immigration destination despite all its problems.

What the hell is a left-libertarian country?

[Docere]

Noam Chomsky would probably describe himself as a left-libertarian.

[Build.It]

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

[savevp]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...ven-guilbeault
One line caught my attention:

Is it possible that some interpret that as jurisdictional overreach??

Guilbeault is now on the front page of the CBC English news reiterating that the feds won't be investing in road infrastructure. Which seems a stupid blanket statement to make, although probably something that appeals to the urbanist side of SSP. It certainly does for me, but only if the government properly funded trains.

Not that the Liberals have much support left, but this is a bit of a slap to their remaining rural supporters, in the Maritimes mainly.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by savevp

Guilbeault is now on the front page of the CBC English news reiterating that the feds won't be investing in road infrastructure. Which seems a stupid blanket statement to make, although probably something that appeals to the urbanist side of SSP. It certainly does for me, but only if the government properly funded trains.

Not that the Liberals have much support left, but this is a bit of a slap to their remaining rural supporters, in the Maritimes mainly.

He's super pissed at those rural MPs for blowing up the carbon tax so totally DGF at this point. He also knows he can't get fired at this point as someone who is very popular with the very left leaning Francophone crowd part of whome I guess are still Liberal leaning.

What would properly funding trains mean? So the most obvious train route Quebec City to say London doesn't really change the need for say the most controversial road developments like say the new 413.

[savevp]

Obviously the 413 is an easy example of something that doesn't deserve funding. But improvements to, say, Alberta's highway network will now get nothing from Ottawa.

Okay, bad example, Alberta wasn't getting anything anyway.

But what a thing to say as a blanket statement; 'Canadians should be using active transportation so we're not funding the roads anymore.' Meanwhile, they're presiding over the continued stagnation of VIA Rail, and intercity bus services have been decimated in large portions of Canada. So optically, this is yet another bout of idiocy from the hapless government, and the sort of throwback virtue signalling that we'd mostly stopped seeing from them.

This won't hurt the cities but is a self inflicted blunder for the gov't.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Docere

Noam Chomsky would probably describe himself as a left-libertarian.

Chomsky has self identified as a libertarian socialist.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by savevp

Guilbeault is now on the front page of the CBC English news reiterating that the feds won't be investing in road infrastructure. Which seems a stupid blanket statement to make, although probably something that appeals to the urbanist side of SSP. It certainly does for me, but only if the government properly funded trains.

Not that the Liberals have much support left, but this is a bit of a slap to their remaining rural supporters, in the Maritimes mainly.

If this announcement was paired with a commitment to create a proper regional rail network across the country (not just a single HSR line from Toronto to Montreal) there's be some merit to this announcement. But with this, it's basically saying to the entire country outside of TMV that they don't matter and should just fuck off.

It's deeply symbolic of the flawed approach the Liberals have. Let's just double the population with an absolute tidal wave of immigration, but we won't build roads because it's not climate friendly and we need transit instead, except we need to spend 15 years doing consultations to build the transit.

[1overcosc]

413 absolutely does deserve funding. It's an important piece of transportation infrastructure for moving goods around, especially for the emerging electric vehicle industry to get raw materials from the north to the first in the southwest.

Yes we need a lot more transit both intra- and inter-city. But we need roads and highways to get goods around. Look at any EU country, they have great transit but they also have extensive freeway networks.

You can't get goods to market on a bus.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Chomsky has self identified as a libertarian socialist.

Which is to say a fiscal socialist and social libertarian. Generally speaking, "libertarianism" is widely understood as the sort of vile "every man for himself" creed Ayn Rand espoused.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

413 absolutely does deserve funding. It's an important piece of transportation infrastructure for moving goods around, especially for the emerging electric vehicle industry to get raw materials from the north to the first in the southwest.

Yes we need a lot more transit both intra- and inter-city. But we need roads and highways to get goods around. Look at any EU country, they have great transit but they also have extensive freeway networks.

You can't get goods to market on a bus.

Sounds like another lob ball for Poilievre to hit a home run.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sounds like another lob ball for Poilievre to hit a home run.

Guilbeault just used a bazooka to shoot the federal Liberal Party in the foot.

This could get ugly.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

He's super pissed at those rural MPs for blowing up the carbon tax so totally DGF at this point. He also knows he can't get fired at this point as someone who is very popular with the very left leaning Francophone crowd part of whome I guess are still Liberal leaning.

What would properly funding trains mean? So the most obvious train route Quebec City to say London doesn't really change the need for say the most controversial road developments like say the new 413.

All they are going to do is not invest in road projects like the 413. The only thing moronic about this is saying it out loud. Just deny the investment and pick the ones they want. They aren't under any real obligation to invest in every provincial road proposal anyway.

[hipster duck]

Why is the Minister of Environment giving an update on something that's within the Minister of Transport's mandate? I mean, I think I know the answer, but thought I'd point this out, since it's very on brand for the Trudeau government to dispense with the idea of "scope", whether it's typically the responsibility of another government or, now, another ministry.

Anyway, agree that it's virtue signaling given that (a) the Feds don't usually chip in a lot for provincial road projects, and, (b) now that the Champlain bridge is done, I don't think there are any roads that fall under a Federal mandate (of sorts) that are suffering from a capacity (AADT) problem. There are sections that need upgrading to modern safety standards, but nothing that requires expansion. Maybe the L-H Lafontaine tunnel?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Why is the Minister of Environment giving an update on something that's within the Minister of Transport's mandate? I mean, I think I know the answer, but thought I'd point this out, since it's very on brand for the Trudeau government to dispense with the idea of "scope", whether it's typically the responsibility of another government or, now, another ministry.

Anyway, agree that it's virtue signaling given that (a) the Feds don't usually chip in a lot for provincial road projects, and, (b) now that the Champlain bridge is done, I don't think there are any roads that fall under a Federal mandate (of sorts) that are suffering from a capacity (AADT) problem. There are sections that need upgrading to modern safety standards, but nothing that requires expansion. Maybe the L-H Lafontaine tunnel?

Don’t forget the roads in federal jurisdiction like 103 KM of TCH in B.C…

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Don’t forget the roads in federal jurisdiction like 103 KM of TCH in B.C…

Is the Gordie Howe bridge considered a "road"? The Liberals don't know how to stop the self flagulation at this point. They're daring the electorate to vote for them the next time around. I'm out.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Which is to say a fiscal socialist and social libertarian. Generally speaking, "libertarianism" is widely understood as the sort of vile "every man for himself" creed Ayn Rand espoused.

Indeed. Anyone who has read/watched Noam Chomsky would never describe him as endorsing the sort of vile "every man for himself" creed Ayn Rand espoused

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Black Star

He needed a break from the relentless mindless leftist attacks Me thinks. My advice....Stay off this toxic site that really doesn't represent the Canadian people. And makes no money! But promotes the Far left Agenda. But if you do have to venjure here....Come Conservative Guns a Blazin. Like I do

Lets Bring it Home Pierre.

What are you doing here, then? I admit that this site is not particularly friendly to people who engage in:

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Gresto

You own buildings? Who knew?!

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

All they are going to do is not invest in road projects like the 413. The only thing moronic about this is saying it out loud. Just deny the investment and pick the ones they want. They aren't under any real obligation to invest in every provincial road proposal anyway.

Well who knows what they would do with another mandate. It's clear Guibault would prefer not to fund any new road projects. Which isn't a crazy idea to be honest but is far from the political will of Canadians. As you and I have discussed previously it's not even the will of Canadians in a liberal city like Ottawa let alone the whole country.

Absolutely insane politics in a country where Toronto, Vancouver and to a lesser extent Montreal decide elections.