StoneyPicton

I had a brief look and confirmed this is similar to our property taxes in North America. The exception being that it is tied to net worth and not just the value of the property. Overall that might mean you pay more but it depends on your wealth and the rate the canton charges. Interesting though, thanks.

I hadn't looked closely at that. I'll have a look, thanks.

I agree with your arguments and especially about new governments tearing up what was done under the other. This would still happen but maybe less. Bottom line is I'd vote for either when in mean getting rid of FPTP. Cheers

No genocide. We're already seeing population reduction around the world that is being offset by immigration. With a coordinated effort we could accomplish a lot through attrition. Stop being so melodramatic.

I agree and am not opposed to PR. I only worry about the fracturing of the electorate.

I much prefer ranked ballots to PR. IMO PR will lead to dozens of niche parties with single issue platforms that will end in coalition hell.

It cannot be countered at all, no matter what you do with capitalism. It can be slightly mitigated in order to provide time to adapt, which should include substantial reductions in population.

Don't know where to start with this one. Creating more political parties just splits the vote. In a "first pass the post" election set up, this would be a disaster. Allowing someone to become extremely rich is not necessarily a problem. The problem should really be looked at more from the gap between them and the normies. Shrink that gap and that lessons the problem. The biggest problem with extreme wealth in an individual or corporation is the outsized influence they have on politics and government. Your SC's citizen united decision is the real problem that generates a lot of the hate for the rich. Rich people don't want to be taxed more (in general) so if you try to force it on them they will look for solutions like relocating their tax home. You would need to have tools to punish attempts to do this, like loss of citizenship and asset seizures. These are not popular steps and could sink any initiative before it begins. Those are just some of the problems I see. There are many, many more.

I have serious reservations about the patent system. After Apple was granted a patent several years ago where it was granted for their use of facial recognition to open the iPhone. They didn't invent either technology but were granted this. I don't know what came of it but I never heard of it being overturned.

I wasn't referring to our select tariffs I was referring to the orange baboon being allowed to, by Canada's lack of response, give relief to certain industries where a tariff would hurt the U.S.. If we let him pick and choose without making all his constituents feel the pinch I think we're giving him an easy win. Now I'm not entirely against Canada doing selective retaliation against mostly red states but I question the whole approach to tariffs at all. My preference would be for Canada to add an export tax. Appease trump by saying yeh, you're right, we've been totally unfair to you (or something like that), so we're going to tax all our exports to level the playing field. Then Canada keeps the money and trump can't raise money through this approach to trade. Now I don't discount that he would still have tariffs and so this would be a double hit to Canadian exports, but I'm curious how this would play out.

The title was a bit confusing. I think your point is that it should also be taught at parochial schools. There is no doubt this is the case. The thing that gets me is that is comes down to what public (or private to some extent) educations goal should be. I think that schools should teach all topics as it is important to expose kids to all aspects of life and let their passions lead them to a satisfying path. Others think that parents should have more control in restricting what topics are covered. I think there is a way to honour both approaches but there is conflict in its organization.

As more and more people drift away from corporate control of our connections, I wonder when the U.S. will introduce laws to ban these user controlled environments in the name of national security.