# Communist Canada? and a Nation without a army



## Tweed (30 Mar 2006)

Hello to whoever is viewing this topic,



      I'm Cadet Tweed, and if your wondering about the title its a little story that shocked me. It was happened one day when i was on my bus talking to my bus driver and i asked him what he thought about our new government, seeing as for almost all of Canada's History we have had Liberals in office, and his reply "I don't like any of them, were more communist then anything, being told what to do by the government". Now I'm not that big into politics, but i know the lines of communism, and Canada is nothing like communism. On the other part of this title "and a Nation without a army" is another story happening on the same bus ride, i said, "well i like the government, hopefully the will invest more money in our Military" because i want to see our military succeed, not fail. I asked him what would happen if say we didn't have a Military, and say a Invasion happened, what would we do? and he said " All the farmers would take there guns and fight" ...now correct me if I'm wrong but Farmers? against a Army of people trained for combat, so i asked about what if they used air strikes, tanks, etc...and he said " all we need is fertilizer and diesel fuel, to make Fertilizer bombs" 

But wouldn't a Military have a bit more resources? A-bombs...(not saying they'd use them) and Ballistic Missles...etc...against what? some farmers with say shotguns and fertilizer bombs! I tried to tell him we needed a army, in this day and age, its basically if you look at someone funny they declare war, and in the case of a national disaster we need relief from the Military don't we? Also people complain that we don't need a military, there good for nothing (i bit my tongue when i heard that) but when a disaster occurs and the military is no more its "where is the military? we need the military!" 


Well this is my little story, have fun picking at it


       -Tweed


----------



## Franko (30 Mar 2006)

All,

I placed this thread here to spark some good debate...and to enlighten him on a few points.

Regards


----------



## Tweed (30 Mar 2006)

Thank you Franko, i should of known to post it here 

- Tweed


----------



## nULL (30 Mar 2006)

If you're interested in material of that nature consider going into poltical science in university.

For now though, stay in school and _don't do drugs._


----------



## Tweed (30 Mar 2006)

nULL said:
			
		

> If you're interested in material of that nature consider going into poltical science in university.
> 
> For now though, stay in school and _don't do drugs._





Don't worry, i will stay in school, and wont do drugs, why would i want to mess my chances of joining the army for a five minute high?
(not meaning to sound mean)
 -Tweed


----------



## nULL (30 Mar 2006)

I can't believe I spelled "political" incorrectly. 

Always use spell check.


----------



## Trinity (30 Mar 2006)

nULL said:
			
		

> For now though, stay in school and _don't do drugs._



Seriously.. is your bus driver Otto from the Simpson's?

My biggest concern about farmers as soldiers is no one is
going to grow my food.  Then our new country under our new
rulers will have NO farmers and we'll all die of starvation and
lead to Canada becoming a nation full of cannibals.

Maybe.. we should send the BUSDRIVERS to war...  yeah!!!!
Who needs an education anyways.. if you can't walk to school,
you can become a farmer!  :


----------



## couchcommander (30 Mar 2006)

You'd be surprised the number of people, even (especially?) educated ones who don't feel that we need an army for whatever reason. 

They just see it as a bunch of guys running around with guns killing innocent civilians who really have no purpose in our society. 

They usually add that the RCMP could do the job for cheaper (disaster assistance, sovereignty), and the usual "Who is going to attack us?".... it's unfortunate that we have been so removed from the realities of the world for so long that this view is prevalent.

Next time you run into it, just ask them if they have insurance, and then point out it's much the same. We don't want a war, but should one break out, it's better to be able to do something about it. They're usually pretty removed from current affairs, so pointing out that a kerfuffle is in the making with arctic resources may tune them in a little bit more. 

As for the communism comment... lol. Ask him to define the word and watch him squirm.


----------



## RangerRay (30 Mar 2006)

Probably what he meant by "communist" was that Canada has for most of the century moved towards a statist socialist construct with the government increasingly interfering in the lives and economies of Canadians.  Those uneducated about politics tend to focus their anger on the government in general, rather than the policies of specific parties running the government.

As for his comment about "farmers fighting in times of war"...well, I'd posit that he has absolutely no clue about what he is talking about.  Not only do the farmers have to continue to grow food during war, but they would be no match for a modern and professional enemy military.  His thinking is about 200 years old.

In short, this guy sounds like he can't tell his arse from his head.


----------



## Tweed (30 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Seriously.. is your bus driver Otto from the Simpson's?
> 
> My biggest concern about farmers as soldiers is no one is
> going to grow my food.  Then our new country under our new
> ...




Farmers as soldiers, lol. we could always import for food, say from....the states? or somewhere else, but farmers as soldiers...ha!




> You'd be surprised the number of people, even (especially?) educated ones who don't feel that we need an army for whatever reason.
> 
> They just see it as a bunch of guys running around with guns killing innocent civilians who really have no purpose in our society.
> 
> ...



 Yes! this makes loads of sense, And Canada needs a military, for disasters and other things, we don't want a army of farmers do we? some tractors with a little pitch fork on the end for a tank. but seriously, we need the military for, alot of things I've already listed, and i want a job for the future!






			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> Probably what he meant by "communist" was that Canada has for most of the century moved towards a statist socialist construct with the government increasingly interfering in the lives and economies of Canadians.  Those uneducated about politics tend to focus their anger on the government in general, rather than the policies of specific parties running the government.
> 
> As for his comment about "farmers fighting in times of war"...well, I'd posit that he has absolutely no clue about what he is talking about.  Not only do the farmers have to continue to grow food during war, but they would be no match for a modern and professional enemy military.  His thinking is about 200 years old.
> 
> In short, this guy sounds like he can't tell his arse from his head.




Well, he did mean actual communism, he even said, it was somthing like, were being more like the communists, of the Fomer USSR.  My bus driver is kinda weird, but i guess thats what your get for being from Alberta, and i don't think he finished school

- Tweed


----------



## Garry (30 Mar 2006)

Tweed,

I think I'd like your bus driver 

I'd call the last 20 years of our political system much more socialist than communist. However, your driver is 100% correct that Canadians are abandoning their free will in favour of Government dominance. There are so many programs to keep the lazy fed and quiet- compounding the problem is the expectations by individuals that "the state" owes them a living.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us who actually produce things are taxed to the hilt to ensure that those who don't have Oprah and pizza delight every day. It will stop eventually. 

Being a Cadet (and good for you!) maybe time to expand yourself a little. If you have a good book store handy, try reading "Atlas Shrugged" By Ann Rand (sp??) Kinda tough read, but very educational.

Quote (attributed to several folk) "Democracy works until the electorate realises they can vote themselves money"...Happened here already.

As for the Army- imho it has NO business saving the country from natural disasters- that's what citizens are there for. No reason to lay around in a shelter when you can be productive. (By the way, Iworked emergency management for years)

I'm also a little radical in that I see no reason to waste my country's children in some poo- hole half way around the world, just to save theirs. I'm a little greeady maybe? On the other hand, I have no compunction against sending our children to hammer the enemy in his own back yard- better to fight in their turf, let their families experience the horror of violence than mine.

The Canadian Military is full of wonderfull, talented, dedicated professionals- unfortunately, the last time there were enough of them to defend Canada was at the close of WWII. Since then, we've downsized dramatically, and based the defense of our country on the United States.

As for farmers defending our country- that's whose done it throughout history. Canada has always had an extremely small, professional Army. When the trumpet's blow, it's the citizens of Canada that come forward, don the uniform, and shoulder the load. They've done very well so far.

The Chinese Army (if rumour is to be beleived) shelved planning an attack on the US as they felt they couldn't possibly fight 300 million armed people. (private gun ownership is banned in much of the world...Hitler, Mao, Idi...and many, many other despots made private ownership of guns illegal withing months after taking power of their respective countries)..PS- Canada has (had, anyways) a larger per capita of gun ownership than the States.

Want to get motivated? Go rent the movie "Red Dawn". A little old, hokey, and unrealistic, but gets the blood moving 

Most importantly- question everything. Make your own mind up, based on your own experience.

Enjoy life- Garry


----------



## couchcommander (31 Mar 2006)

Sorry, explain to me how Canada has had or is moving towards an economic model where the means of production are owned by the collective whole of the people?

If you mean to say there have been some social democrats in government, then fine ok. However I would hardly call social democracy a guiding principle of our nation (ie the use of democracy to move towards an economic model where the means of production are owned by the collective whole of the people, it would seem with all of the deregulation, selling of crown corporations, and free trade agreements we are going in the opposite direction). 

I would, however, definitely agree that we have been, for the most part, guided by what we in Canada would call a liberal social policy and have been maintaining a welfare state.


----------



## thatoldfool (31 Mar 2006)

I'd like to throw in my two cents re: farmers fighting.

From August to November, I hitch-hiked from Quebec to the coast of BC and back, and I'll tell you, perhaps it's not the farmers that will fight, but that a lot of Northern Canadians--largely rural folk--hold strong views about sovereignty. Numerous times, while discussing politics, I was told that if Canada were ever invaded, these people would fight. Most often, I was told that they would take to the woods, and in the "insurgent-like" manner we're seeing in the middle east, cause trouble without directly engaging a force that is clearly superior in many ways, both in training and technology.

While the feasability of this is debatable, I have to say that it's somewhat heartening--that these people actually care enough, having sworn no oath of allegiance, to fight for Canada.

So..that's that. My two cents...


----------



## badpup (31 Mar 2006)

Good topic...What does it mean to you to be Canadian?
Would you lay down your life for the rest of your Country?
...I would, Many of my ancestors have.
Do you support current Military actions?
I do, as we have an obligation under The Un to Combat the forces of 9/11 Terrorism( see other threads)I would also volunteer for a return to active duty to fulfill my obligations and desires for my country.
Do you support your Government?
I do and have through many of them, both Liberal and Conservative, as They are the "Crown" I have disliked policies of both, but have carried out my duties as ordered.

My question?
What does it mean to you to be a Canadian?
My Answer:
To be a member of a free society, where discussion and discourse are common, where history and heritage are instilled in youth.
And finally to be welcomed in the world as a fair and impartial warrior on the side of all that is good and just!


----------



## parkie (1 Apr 2006)

Boy! that's a good one, farmers with guns against a highly trained military force.can you imagine.what's next ?

Well, gotta go slop the pigs and polish my gun!
                                                                                                       A.C.(parkie)
                                                                      Princess Patricia's canadian light farmers with guns


----------



## Franko (1 Apr 2006)

parkie said:
			
		

> Well, gotta go slop the pigs and polish my gun!
> A.C.(parkie)
> Princess Patricia's canadian light farmers with guns



 :rofl:

That made my day!

Regards


----------



## Dogboy (2 Apr 2006)

a littel bit of history is in order 
remember the Spanish revolution 
some of the Most effective brigades where the Anarchist ones that where made up of all volunteer workers and farmers fighting for their homes not the spit polished commies or the well armed fascist.
2 insurgents fighting in a asymmetrical war has beaten some of the most powerfull army's in the world (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan for USSR..etc.)
no one knows a contrey better the the people who live their.
and 3 Canada is not turning commie not until I see some reclaming of Private controlled companies return under gov. control (oil, gas, power, phone,)


----------



## couchcommander (3 Apr 2006)

Hey Dogboy,

Training methods have progressed at little since the 1930's.

Indeed insurgents fighting in an asymmetrical war have beaten some of the worlds most powerful armies... at great cost (and I'm not sure whether or not we should count Iraq as a loss yet...). Their lack of training and equipment, however, I am sure was not by choice, and more a product of circumstance (ie not a good thing, but just something they found a way to deal with). 

At least you got number 3!


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2006)

A few historical notes to bend your minds and help begin your research:

Historically, farmers have made the best soldiers of all, because they are already inured to a life of constant physical hardship and exertion (joining for "three squares and a sack" would have been the high point of many a young man's life back when). In certain historical contexts, farmers are also highly motivated since they are fighting for the land they own (this is the thesis of Victor Davis Hansen, you can look it up in many of his books), or in a more general sense, fighting as a team of equals for shared principles and values. Even in this day and age, it isn't so much the machinery but who is controlling it, and a high proportion of American servicemen and women seem to come from rural or small town backgrounds.

As for our system of governance; to be correctly political it is tending towards Fascism, i.e. although private ownership of property is allowed,the outcomes of ownership do not accrue to the owners, but are directed by the State through taxation and regulation. Instead of the "blood and soil" sort of Fascism popular in the 1920s through 1945 or so, we have "Welfare Fascism", where the "rich" and productive are harnessed to provide for the "collective good" and support the "poor". (How is it that with so much money being spent to fight poverty, the number of poor people always seem to be increasing?).

Enjoy


----------



## Cliff (3 Apr 2006)

Tweed,

I seriously doubt Canada will be invaded anytime soon = so don't lose any sleep over it. The way I see it North America looks like it's merging as one nation. Almost like what happened in Europe.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2006)

Cliff said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt Canada will be invaded anytime soon = so don't lose any sleep over it.



Or they are already here, and you SHOULD be having a sleepless night:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41619.0.html

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2003/other_peoples_wars11.htm


----------



## couchcommander (3 Apr 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As for our system of governance; to be correctly political it is tending towards Fascism, i.e. although private ownership of property is allowed,the outcomes of ownership do not accrue to the owners, but are directed by the State through taxation and regulation. Instead of the "blood and soil" sort of Fascism popular in the 1920s through 1945 or so, we have "Welfare Fascism", where the "rich" and productive are harnessed to provide for the "collective good" and support the "poor". (How is it that with so much money being spent to fight poverty, the number of poor people always seem to be increasing?).



Taxation rates are decreasing (disproportionately so for the rich given their increase in wealth).

This from a 2005 stat can article:



> Between 1990 and 2002, Canadians saw their total income grow more rapidly than their federal personal income tax bill. While federal tax increased 49.4%, total income went up 63.8%.



This same article does point out that the portion of the federal income paid by the top 10% income earners was higher:



> In 1990, this 10% of taxfilers accounted for 46.0% of total federal personal income tax; by 2002, they accounted for 52.6%.



http://www42.statcan.ca/smr04/2005/05/smr04_12305_04_e.htm

However, as a previous study shows, the wealth of the top brackets has increased massively compared to lower tax brackets, to a startling degree. The above study also does recognize this, but it also states that the effective tax rate hasn't decreased as much as lower tax brackets. IMO given their incredible increase in wealth, especially when compared to lower tax brackets, this is not surprising. 

The previous study showing how the disparity of wealth has become increasingly pronounced:



> The survey ranked families into 10 deciles from the lowest net worth to the highest. In the bottom three deciles of wealth distribution, median wealth fell, but in the top three deciles it rose at least 30%. Furthermore, only families in the upper two deciles of the scale increased their share of total net worth.



http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020222/d020222a.htm

Effectively, the rich are, for the most part the only net beneficiaries of the last few decades of economic growth (amazingly last year the average Canadian did experience an increase in net worth)

To me this seems to be the opposite effect of what should occur in a Welfare Fascist regime bent on exploiting the rich... seem more like society has been set up to benefit the rich...  ???

As well, and I don't have a source for this off the top of my head but I can find one, it seems to me that the level of regulation has actually been decreasing.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2006)

The "rich" can be divided into two categories in Canada (and much of the rest of the world as well). There are people who are wealthy enough to hire teams of experts to game the system and arange their affairs to avoid or limit their tax exposure, for example the owner of a shipping line who moves the corporate HQ in the Bahamas so the company pays no Canadian taxes, and re flags his ships under foreign flags of conveinience to avoid Canadian regulations. Perhaps not so oddly, this class of person is also influential in politics.

Then there is the people who are designated as the "rich", but who in most nations would be middle class. These people (such as myself) have very limited means of moving or converting their assets, and the combined tax burden on most Canadians is the single biggest expense, higher even then food or shelter. You can also check this assumption by looking at Tax Freedom Day, since most Canadians work for half the year for the benefit of the Government, and the second half of the year for themselves. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/taxcalc.asp

The other part of the equation which you failed to mention is the regulatory burden on Canadians, which saps a great deal of time, effort and energy from the essential tasks of creating wealth and getting on with your life.

On the macro level, instituting a massive de regulation and a "single tax" flat rate system would create an environment which is more conducive to wealth creation, and provide the economic muscle to increase our defense spending _if that is what is desired by the people_.


----------



## pbi (3 Apr 2006)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> a littel bit of history is in order
> remember the Spanish revolution
> some of the Most effective brigades where the Anarchist ones that where made up of all volunteer workers and farmers fighting for their homes not the spit polished commies or the well armed fascist.
> 2 insurgents fighting in a asymmetrical war has beaten some of the most powerfull army's in the world (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan for USSR..etc.)
> ...



Dogboy: you mean the Spanish Civil War, right?

You might want to study that conflict a bit more closely: I don't think too many of the "commies" involved were "spit polished" . And it wasn't  really "asymmetric warfare": it was two makeshift forces (one with some more material support than the other) trying to fight each other in pretty conventional operations using 1920s technology.

Cheers


----------



## couchcommander (3 Apr 2006)

Well it seems we can both, at the very least, say that the system unfairly benefits the extremely wealthy.

However, I wouldn't characterize paying taxes as "working for the government". As corrupt and inefficient as it may be, they do end up providing a large number of services to the people, which are in turn required to sustain our wealth. Notable amongst these are transportation infrastructure (yes, it's shitty, but its there), education, health care, etc. At the same time, I am not in any way defending our current method of spending. I think it is incredibly inefficient to the point where it is bordering on ineffective. However, changing the way we tax, rather than how we spend it, won't solve this problem, IMO. 

As well, indeed an incredible amount of these taxes are distributed in the form of "social programs" designed to benefit those less fortunate (this may not just be in regards to economic circumstances). Last I checked the total amount, when municipal, provincial, and federal funds were accounted for, it hit several hundred billion dollars per year. 

My reaction, is probably the same as yours. With all of these funds, there should be no poverty left! Unfortunately, due to the divisive nature of our society, with our provincial and municipal fiefdoms, this money is used very very inefficiently.

However, this should not be taken as an argument against social spending, but an argument FOR effective social spending. The current system is completely dysfunctional, and needs to be overhauled, from top to bottom. That does not mean we should leave Canada's unfortunate out to dry. 

The problem with instituting a flat tax system is that for the most part this flat tax would not affect the majority of Canadians, who currently sit in the bottom tax bracket. Though you may be correct in saying that the freeing up of capital amongst the upper tax brackets would "produce more wealth", the inherently poor distribution system in the market would result in virtually all of the benefit of this going to said upper tax brackets (as has been the case for the last 20 years). 

This quote from a 2000 piece from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives summarizes the point:



> The flat tax of 17% being proposed by the new federal party would be of little benefit to the majority of Canadians, most of whom already pay only 17% (a majority of Canadian taxpayers make less than $30,000, the income at which the current second tax bracket kicks in). Moreover, in order to finance what amounts to a huge tax cut for Canada's wealthiest income earners, the flat tax would put many of the public programs Canadians cherish at serious risk.
> 
> Progressive taxation recognizes that the market, left to its own devices, does a poor job of distributing incomes. Given the fact that the market is producing more and more inequality, we need a progressive tax system to mitigate the growing gap between society's haves and have-nots more than ever before.


http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=757&pA=DA794529&type=2

They also point out that raising the level at which taxation would begin would be of little benefit overall, especially when compared to the detractors of a flat tax system. 

This is the reason that a progressive tax system is in place, and is needed. If left to it's own devices, market economies have shown an amazing ability to channel wealth almost exclusively to the wealthy. This is pointidly shown by the incredible disparties that have been growing in the US between rich and poor, to the point where I have read several articles predicting the death of the American middle class.

It is unfortunate that your personal circumstances have put you into an awkward situation in regards to the tax situation, however once again this is simply a good argument for restructuring the current system to better reflect the realities of society (ie lift the burden from the lower and middle classes, and redistribute it to those who have actually had a net benefit from our growth).

Finally, in my view, the regulatory burden, while cumbersome, is important in protecting the rights, and the very lives of ourselves, and our families. Given the massive lapses in safety and oversight that currently occur, even within this system, one could only imagine what would occur if companies were not required to maintain at least a baseline. Once again, I am not arguing the system is perfect. In fact, I will be one of the first to stand up and say it needs drastic change. Once again however, completely scraping it does not seem like a beneficial move, as it does have a large number of useful qualities; rather it needs to be refined into something more effective and less cumbersome.

*edit* This discussion between a_majoor and myself should almost be moved to a new thread


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2006)

>Well it seems we can both, at the very least, say that the system unfairly benefits the extremely wealthy.

From my view, it looks like the wealthy benefit the wealthy.  Their advantage is somewhat self-sustaining and -driving.  The "system" still takes more from the wealthy.

>However, I wouldn't characterize paying taxes as "working for the government".

If you work a certain number of hours each year for which someone other than you receives the wages, then who exactly are you working for?  To be fair, taxes are more like a subscription.  The problem is that the subscription is open-ended and subject to the influences of other subscribers working in unison to increase their subscribed services at the expense of others.

>With all of these funds, there should be no poverty left!

There isn't.  We don't seem to have poverty in Canada.  Statistics Canada deals only in measures of income disparity, and anti-poverty activists are unwilling to define what constitutes poverty.  Instead they seize upon measures of income disparity as a surrogate for poverty.  What is poverty?  First we must agree on a meaningful definition.  Then we can determine if we have any.

>The problem with instituting a flat tax...

...is that if we don't immediately scale back public spending significantly or exploit other sources of public revenue, what it does is transfer part of the revenue envelope from the upper to the middle classes.  Looking at the share of personal income tax revenue provided by the top 5% or 10% of earners in Canada, it is clear that moving to a flat personal income tax rate is a huge political and financial hurdle.

>Progressive taxation recognizes that the market, left to its own devices, does a poor job of distributing incomes.

Maybe, but so what?  Income disparity is not a measure of poverty.  If there were a finite "pie" we were all sharing, this would be a problem.  However, the "pie" continues to grow.  The real question is, what drives the growth of the pie; and, equally importantly, what sort of policies will kill the golden goose?


----------



## couchcommander (3 Apr 2006)

The Canadian Government has defined poverty.

http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/poverty.html

And indeed, it is a self sustaining cycle... which I call the system . 

Further, the pie, as having an "economy" implies, is finite. Though this pie does, as you pointed out, continue to grow; as I pointed out, all these new pieces go to the weathiest people, leaving a relatively similar or even smaller amount for the rest. a_majoor was advocating flat tax for it's growth benefits, while I was pointing out that while this may be true, it won't actually help the vast majority of Canadians in a meaningful way.

And you are right about the having to cut programs to finance a flat tax. The article I linked to pointed this out as well. 

And sure, why don't we call it working for a subscription. lol, I'm good with that.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2006)

Since this topic has been beaten flat in the Politics forum, I will simply close by saying the disagreement lies in the matter of control.

Conservative philosophy (Classical Liberal if you prefer) is based on the idea that the owner of property can dispose of it in the manner which best supports the owner's wants and needs. If you earn the wealth, you have the right to use it for your purposes. All people are imperfect creatures motivated by self interest, so any society should be constructed in such a way as to take these factors into account.
Freedom to own and use property, voluntary association and a level playing field to settle disputes are what is required. Nothing in this construct precludes banding together to achieve goals greater than any individual can achieve, and nothing in this construct defines the nature or type of voluntary associations created to achieve these higher goals.

Any philosophy which demands outside intervention in the ownership and use of property is also by definition not providing a level playing field (who after all is deciding the disposition of your and my wealth and property?). This should be seen as immoral and something to be opposed at all costs in any form.


----------



## army outfitters (4 Apr 2006)

I think you are all missing something here. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The MILITIA ie part of the present army in Canada were farmers and many other tradespeople. Whom do you think repelled the finians not once but twice? Who went to the red river rebellion? Who went to the Boer war etc? Do you think that during the Finian raids that all members of the QOR were regular full time infantry troops who did nothing but drill? No they were MILITIA which by its nature means part time. Farmers with guns is what most of them were to get a few extra shillings plus show a sense of national pride among other reasons.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Apr 2006)

ohh ohh  another Militia vs Regular Force battle...

duck!


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2006)

The "Militia Myth" is one of the things which harms rather than helps. 

In all your historical examples, the Militia was augmenting the "Regulars" (although the ratio was something like 80:20 Miltita/Reg as opposed to the 20:80 ratio common today), with the Regular troops providing the disciplined spinal column of command, control, logistics and heavy firepower the Militia could not provide. This is not to dismiss the many and worthy contributions of the Militia then or the Reserve now, but simply to put it into some sort of perspective. The Militia Myth essentially dismisses the contributions of the professional Regular troops and suggests we can "stand up" an effective fighting force without much money or effort, something which we should all recognize as dangerously false.

That being said, the Reserve does provide not only a useful "depth" for the Regular forces, but also a much broader pool of knowledge and experience gained through work, school and just plain "life" experiences which the full time soldier does not have access to. Ally that with the command, control, logistics and special skills of the Regular force, and we have a great combination of skills and assets to take to any sort of operation.


----------



## Franko (4 Apr 2006)

Sgt Bilko Surplus said:
			
		

> I think you are all missing something here. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The MILITIA ie part of the present army in Canada were farmers and many other tradespeople. Whom do you think repelled the finians not once but twice? Who went to the red river rebellion? Who went to the Boer war etc? Do you think that during the Finian raids that all members of the QOR were regular full time infantry troops who did nothing but drill? No they were MILITIA which by its nature means part time. Farmers with guns is what most of them were to get a few extra shillings plus show a sense of national pride among other reasons.




The particpating units in the Fenian Raids are:

Regular Calvalry (British):
19th Light Dragoons
1st Dragoon Guards (later renamed the King's Dragoon Guards)
7th Light Dragoons (later the 7th Hussars)

Militia:
Govenor General's Body Guard of Upper Canada (Toronto)
13th Battalion of Canadian Volunteers
Queen's Own Rifles
Caledonia Rifles
York Rifles

Bit of a back story, quite a good read too:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbertuca/g/FenianRaid.html
http://www.doyle.com.au/fenian_raids.htm

The Northwest Rebellion:

Regular:
The Royal Canadian Dragoons
The Royal Canadian Regiment 
The Northwest Mounted Police

Militia:
The Governor General's Body Guard  	
The Governor General's Foot Guards 	
The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada 	
The Halifax Rifles 	
Les Voltigeurs de Quebec 	
The Royal Grenadiers 	
The Canadian Fusiliers 	
The York Rangers 	
The Simcoe Foresters 	
The Durham Regiment 	
Les Carabiniers Mont Royal 	
The Princess Louise Fusiliers 	
The Winnipeg Rifles

Boer War:
http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/boer/canadianarmy_e.html

2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment 
The Royal Canadian Dragoons
1st Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles
Brigade Division, Royal Canadian Field Artillery 
Strathcona's Horse 
2nd Regiment, Canadian Mounted Rifles 
10th Canadian Field Hospital 
3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th Regiments, Canadian Mounted Rifles 
The Canadian Scouts 
The South African Constabulary 
3rd (Special Service) Battalion 

This thread will not degrade into a "us vs. them".

My point is both work in dandem and compliment each other. We never work alone.

a_majoor....well said.

Regards


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Apr 2006)

Among the other units involved in the 1866 Fenian Raid in the Niagara Peninsula were the Royal Grenadiers from Toronto and the 19th Battalion from St. Catharines. Both were in the column commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Peacocke of the British 16th Regiment of Foot which halted at Stevensville instead of pursuing the Fenians to Fort Erie. Two other units, the Welland Canal Field Battery and the Dunnville Naval Brigade, saw action at Fort Erie on 2 June.

The 140th anniversary of the Battle of Ridgeway will be commemorated on 2 June this summer and will include the dedication of a plaque provided by the Ontario Heritage Foundation.


----------



## Franko (4 Apr 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Among the other units involved in the 1866 Fenian Raid in the Niagara Peninsula were the Royal Grenadiers from Toronto and the 19th Battalion from St. Catharines. Both were in the column commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Peacocke of the British 16th Regiment of Foot which halted at Stevensville instead of pursuing the Fenians to Fort Erie. Two other units, the Welland Canal Field Battery and the Dunnville Naval Brigade, saw action at Fort Erie on 2 June.
> 
> The 140th anniversary of the Battle of Ridgeway will be commemorated on 2 June this summer and will include the dedication of a plaque provided by the Ontario Heritage Foundation.



Here I am reading all this and I've just found it (I knew I was missing a few units)......Oh well, not like I have anything better to do    ;D

Regards


----------



## couchcommander (4 Apr 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since this topic has been beaten flat in the Politics forum, I will simply close by saying the disagreement lies in the matter of control.
> 
> Conservative philosophy (Classical Liberal if you prefer) is based on the idea that the owner of property can dispose of it in the manner which best supports the owner's wants and needs. If you earn the wealth, you have the right to use it for your purposes. All people are imperfect creatures motivated by self interest, so any society should be constructed in such a way as to take these factors into account.
> Freedom to own and use property, voluntary association and a level playing field to settle disputes are what is required. Nothing in this construct precludes banding together to achieve goals greater than any individual can achieve, and nothing in this construct defines the nature or type of voluntary associations created to achieve these higher goals.
> ...



Well I cannot really comment on you're view what is moral or immoral as that is your view. Indeed this has been beaten flat before. So I'll close as well by saying that it seems to me, in my moral schema, that we have a duty, not just has citizens, but as fellow human beings, to aid and assist those of us who are less fortunate. Sociological theory is quite insistant that humans are, in large part at least, and of course not in whole, a product of their environment. Further, as unpopular as the view is, due to the strong effect that society has upon the nature of a human, we are, in effect, responsible for whatever is produced, whether we view it as good or bad, lazy or productive, kind, or mean. This of course does not mean we should baby them, and our current system is not effective. This does mean, that we SHOULD try and effectively help them, however. 

Further, it has been my experience that an individuals goals often run contrary to the goals of society, and the other individuals within it. These goals, as well it seems, over a long term, are often contrary to the good of said individual as well. Of course, individual freedoms, to an extent, are beneficial to society as a whole, but need to be tempered with some direction.

Finally, it seems to me that a group, cooperating together, is able to achieve much greater things than an individual. This cooperation should be encouraged, fostered, and directed by an efficient, and effective mechanism. If individuals, with no mechanism of control, are left to try and cooperate, it is often the case that a significant number of said individuals end up being exploited by a few. This, unfortunately, effectively means that these exploited individuals would be unable to pursuit their own goals, thus leading to a breakdown of the individualistic system. 

To me, it seems, that the good of even individuals is not servered by their pursuit of their own material goals, but is better served by their pursuit of goals which will end up having a net benefit to the nation as a whole, and themselves.


----------



## Garry (5 Apr 2006)

Hey CC,

You were doing great until your last post 

"So I'll close as well by saying that it seems to me, in my moral schema, that we have a duty, not just has citizens, but as fellow human beings, to aid and assist those of us who are less fortunate"

I tend to agree, but playing devil's advocate- so what? Why should my tax dollars support someone who chooses not to support themselves? Is citizenship merely a guarantee of a free ride? Taking it one step further- if the population of canada really and truly agrees with you, then there should be no backlash against your views. If that's true, then the process of delivering that aid should/could be relegated back to the populace. (maybe with the churches and other aid organisations, like it was years ago, and for many years) 


"Further, it has been my experience that an individuals goals often run contrary to the goals of society, and the other individuals within it."

That's what society is, a group of individuals with similiar moral standards. Those standards allow us to assign mores and laws, which remove from soviety those who contravene it's laws.  (jail) So, individual goals may sometimes run contrary, but not often nor regularly- or then society itself has changed and those who haven't are out of the norm.

Bottom line, the Government is there to serve the people. Not just the poor, but all the people. (news flash- the rich are people too) Want a truly fair way of funding the Government? Abolish all taxes except sales tax. Since I'm on my soapbox, Abolish all laws except those that define how we interact. Make judges a voters responsibility. Define those things that Governments are responsible for. (I can think of National Defence.....I'm sure there are others, give me a minute or two  )

Lastly, maybe we'd be better served if a citizen actually had to earn the responsibility to vote- say own land, or (stretching the point-horrors!!) actually support yourself and your family!!

Last thing is a quote from Winston Churchill: "A man who, at age 20, isn't a Liberal has no heart. A man who, at age 40, isn't a Conservative has no brain".



Cheers-Garry


----------



## couchcommander (5 Apr 2006)

Garry said:
			
		

> Hey CC,
> 
> You were doing great until your last post


Ah we all slip up at some point.  Sorry a_majoor was right that this had been debated to death already, and had given a quick outline of his position as a (closing argument). I thought I could get away with much the same thing.... dang.



> I tend to agree, but playing devil's advocate- so what? Why should my tax dollars support someone who chooses not to support themselves? Is citizenship merely a guarantee of a free ride? Taking it one step further- if the population of canada really and truly agrees with you, then there should be no backlash against your views. If that's true, then the process of delivering that aid should/could be relegated back to the populace. (maybe with the churches and other aid organisations, like it was years ago, and for many years)



lol, the population of Canada doesn't agree with my views, unfortunately. But no, I wouldn't say it gives a free ride. IMO if someone refuses to support themselves, that is a sign of something being wrong (most normal humans seem to have the desire to better themselves). They need help, and whether that just means occsionaly counciling, or institutionalization, whatever, they need help. Once again though, my own personal moral structure. 



> That's what society is, a group of individuals with similiar moral standards. Those standards allow us to assign mores and laws, which remove from soviety those who contravene it's laws.  (jail) So, individual goals may sometimes run contrary, but not often nor regularly- or then society itself has changed and those who haven't are out of the norm.



Oh i wasn't talking about criminals. But take for example an individuals desire to accumulate vast amounts of material items. Despite the fact we actually have more than enough goods for everyone, we still have (and I don't have an exact figure for this) a vast number of Canadian's not able to meet their basic needs (or those of their families) due to this unequal distribution of resources. These are often times not bums or welfare bums, but working poor (sources can be found if required).



> Bottom line, the Government is there to serve the people. Not just the poor, but all the people. (news flash- the rich are people too) Want a truly fair way of funding the Government? Abolish all taxes except sales tax. Since I'm on my soapbox, Abolish all laws except those that define how we interact. Make judges a voters responsibility. Define those things that Governments are responsible for. (I can think of National Defence.....I'm sure there are others, give me a minute or two  )


Problem with having popular justice is that it becomes, as the name would suggest, a popularity contest rather than an exercise in justice. Just having GST would be... interesting IMO, as GST doesn't cover a lot transactions, especially those concerned with the rich. 



> Lastly, maybe we'd be better served if a citizen actually had to earn the responsibility to vote- say own land, or (stretching the point-horrors!!) actually support yourself and your family!!



lol, own land? I'm all for earnign the right to vote, but I would make it something like being employed, having a certain level of education, possibly military service. 



> Last thing is a quote from Winston Churchill: "A man who, at age 20, isn't a Liberal has no heart. A man who, at age 40, isn't a Conservative has no brain".



Yea I've heard that many a time.  But thanks for the reminder that Churchill  was a conservative. 

Thanks (and sorry for the typo's, I'm madly writing these posts inbetween doing a paper, so I don't have a lot of time to read it through again). 

PS As I said before, this really wasn't meant to be a controversial post, more of a closing argument... but if you want to, I'm good to go a few more rounds.


----------



## Garry (5 Apr 2006)

"PS As I said before, this really wasn't meant to be a controversial post, more of a closing argument... but if you want to, I'm good to go a few more rounds. "

Well said!

I'll gracefully bow out of the public comments as well.

However (especially since a closing statement sems to be de rigeur) I'll stand available to continue your education via PM. 

Cheers-Garry


----------

