I have a hard time classifying it honestly. It's egalitarian in nature, which pushes it towards the left, but also very decentralizing, which pushes it more to the right. It's a lot like social credit in that way.

Honestly if I had to place Distributism and Social Credit somewhere, it would be on the left strictly because they involve a radical reform of the existing market economy and are based on fairly egalitarian principles, but they are much less statist than most socialist theories, and if your concept of right vs left is freedom vs state intervention rather than hierarchy/merit vs equality, then these could conceivably be on the right.

I guess that's a long way of saying I'm not sure.

As a system I find it an intriguing idea, but I don't know how well it would work in practice.

"If only there was a party that combined the social elements of the left with the economic elements of the right."

Libertarian Party

Nah, the Christian Heritage Party is pretty much a Far Right party. Their economic platform involves eliminating all income taxes and introducing a "Fair Tax", which is basically a sales tax with a rebate for the really poor.

A Social Credit party that wanted to actually try and implement C. H. Douglas' Social Credit theory would come sort of close (in practice most Social Credit parties in Canada usually evolved into populist right-wing parties like the one under Earnest Manning), but Social Credit theory isn't easy to classify as right or left wing either. It's one of those odd economic theories, like Georgism, that have elements of both.

No, what you're really looking for is a Christian Democrat or Christian Socialist party that espouses Liberation Theology and/or the Social Gospel. Basically you're looking for a Communitarian party, and honestly I think such a party could do pretty well among both religious folk (Catholics and poor evangelical protestants especially) and immigrants from more collectivist cultures like those in Asia with a Confucian cultural heritage.

Now that I think about it, the old Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) under J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas would be a prime example of this kind of party.

Right, it wasn't full on advocacy for privately run roads, but just tolls on public roads... my bad on that.

Mr. Coyne still strikes me as a strong advocate for free market economics and in that way more right than left though. You know, what with articles like these: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/28/the-biggest-hu...

Hmm, on a bit of a lighter note, I wonder what we should call this new party?

The Pragmatist Party?

The Centrist Party?

The Canada First Party?

The Serious Party?

The Liberal Democratic Party? (No wait, that's for a merged Liberal/NDP...)

The New Progressive Conservatives?

The Federalist Party?

Personally, I like the name: The Commonwealth Party.

It harkens back to the idealism of the old CCF, gives a nod to our British commonwealth roots/status, and suggests a grand, united vision for Canada, doing what's best for the common good by creating wealth for everyone, etc, etc.

Interestingly, it's historically been a name that's been used by both socialists and libertarians in other countries.

It's not sustainable.

Your suggestion that Mr. Coyne, someone who has previously advocated privately run toll-roads as a solution to traffic, would describe Mao or Lenin as 'centre-left' is sufficiently ludicrous as to make it impossible for me to take what you say seriously anymore.

But then, they'd have to admit they did something wrong. This government doesn't seem like the kind that would want to admit making any mistakes. Better to deny everything so that the party's true believers can continue to believe they did nothing wrong.

Harper saw how the Liberals collapsed under the weight of the sponsorship scandal. All those pricelessly incriminating sound bites from an inquiry that the Liberals themselves called, taught him not to dig your own grave by giving the media and opposition any ammunition. Why else do you think he muzzles his ministers and puts such emphasis on controlling the message by filtering everything through his PMO?

The second any Conservative admits they did anything wrong, it'll be on the National or in the The Globe and the Cons will take a hit in the polls. Denying everything may not be the most honest tactic, but it is probably the most strategically sound, unfortunately.

So are you suggesting that in order to be consistent, Animal Rights groups and Pro-Life groups should take up arms and... what exactly? Armed rebellion? These people are opposed to cruelty and killing for whatever reason, you really think they're going to turn around and kill for their cause?

Oh wait, there have been examples of that, where Abortion Doctors were shot, and Animal Testing facilities raided. And overwhelmingly the public reaction has been terribly negative. Doing those things hurts their cause, which should be to make their views publicly popular enough for them to be enshrined in law.

I for one, do not think that animals have the same rights as human beings. However, as animals are sentient life forms, (sentient as in, they can feel and perceive), it is our responsibility to them to ensure that they are treated humanely. I see this as a fair trade. These animals live in a symbiotic relationship wherein we humans allow them a fairly safe, content existence, in exchange for their eventually being used as a resource for our contentment. In the days of family farms and ranches this was more true than in today's world of factory farms where it's arguable that their existence isn't so content.

Thus I advocate for Animal Welfare, as opposed to Animal Rights, which in my view, as it appears to be yours, come with responsibilities that only a sapient person can be conscious of.

In so far as I am sympathetic to Animal Rights, it comes from the possibility that some animals possess some level of consciousness. Pigs for instance, have been known to pass a variation of the mirror test (being able to recognize itself in a mirror). All mammals have a neocortex, and it's arguable that such creatures have at least some low level of self-awareness (to the extent that they seem to fear death).

Regardless, even if I were to conclude that animals deserved Rights, I would not immediately take up arms to defend them, because this would be futile and suicidal. Without popular support or substantial military or economic power, a revolution of any kind is bound to fail. And once one has acquired enough popular support, it simply makes more sense in a modern democracy to leverage that support to enact new laws peacefully.

So basically it's a matter of pragmatism. These activists -could- go to their nearest factory farm and attack it in an attempt to liberate these animals (much in the way that PETA once did with animal testing facilities), but chances are near certain they would all be arrested and thrown in jail (and garner much bad publicity in the process). To achieve justice in the face of powerful opposition sometimes requires being circumspect.

Hmm, interesting. Is this the New Keynesian viewpoint, or something heterodox like Chartalism?

I'm curious where this analysis is coming from. Can you cite some professional economists who agree with you? That would probably strengthen your argument on these boards considerably, to have some intellectual heavyweight "expert", or even just some obscure economist's paper/article/blog post arguing in your favour.

Either that, or you're going to need to explain how exactly these 'classes of people' have 'jammed(sp?) the system'. Are you saying bankers? Speculators? Investors? And how exactly have they faked the recovery? How are they underproducing money?

I mean, isn't the government funding stimulus in order to simultaneously increase employment and raise the money supply with debt (which is subtly different from just printing money)?

If I'm correct on this, isn't the danger of just printing money the fact that the increase in the money supply is permanent, as opposed to temporary in the case of debt-driven stimulus? The idea there being that temporary inflation is acceptable during a typical (non-stagflation) recession (with its associated deflationary tendencies) to lower unemployment, but that you don't want that inflation to stick around after the recovery?