The idea that “harmonization of regulations” between countries is the first step towards losing our sovereignty is ridiculous. It’s only to prevent the bureaucratic overhead of having to have lawyers in all three countries to constantly deal with 3 different regulatory bodies for trade, massively increasing the cost of moving goods.

Equating trade harmonization with loss of sovereignty is left-wing fear mongering.

Using Lou Dobbs, who I deem to be a racist xenophobe to drive the point home, doesn’t exactly prop up the argument.

Lou Dobbs? I mean, I know who he is and all, even watch his segment on CNN now and again…. but what does he have to do with tonights CBC movie?

And balbulican, you read too much into me. I don’t hate left-wing people. I’m marrying one. I went to the campaign office of Peggy Nash last election, and she seemed to take to me well.

I’m not malicious against the left.

Take stageleft, his libertarian leanings lend me to a very favorable perception of him. Of course we don’t agree on everything. I’m a libertarian conservative. He’s a left-leaning libertarian.

I do think that many aspects of the left are devoid of integrity, and worthy of my respect. My blog represents this. You can call my message unevolved.

I read your comment over a CC, which has a similar message towards me. It’s a downright insulting message; that I don’t understand the world, that I’m insular, incapable of understanding the manifest consequences of my worldview, if they were practiced.

You know, I’d entertain that criticism, because all criticism is fair if it wasn’t a criticism made on the back of outright dismissal. That simply makes it a personal attack. Just an outright derision of everything I’ve said.

Your flavor of political discourse, to a lesser extent, is much like that of Canadian Cynic, or Robert McClelland: sneering, contemptuous, moral superiority and dismissal of people on the right. Your position, like theirs, doesn’t reflect well on your character. It doesn’t really add to the debate, and it’s not particularly different from what you criticize Kate McMillan, Kathy Shaidle, or anyone on the right for doing.

Now, I have no problem with your approach, or Canadian Cynic’s approach. But I take issue with the fact that any of you, would portray yourself from coming from a morally superior position.

You’re not morally superior. Nor am I. I don’t presume over peoples intentions, although I may question them from time to time. And while I think that sometimes intention may abdicate someone from moral culpability in most cases. Often, I don’t.

You, and others, have questioned my intention for my failure to challenge commenters on my blog. By this omission, you and others have drawn value judgements of me, my true intentions, or my lack of desire to be reasonable.

While sniping attacks between people in the blogosphere are common, and will likely remain a mainstay for the foreseeable future, I very seldom draw value judgements on people myself. You may have difficulty believing this. But I suppose that doesn’t matter.

To be honest, I’m not too concerned that you consider my blog stagnant and without redemption. That’s fine.

Now of course, as you know, I get attacked from people on the left all the time. And the only reason why I have afforded you such a lengthy response and portion of my time, is that I thought we’d moved beyond making personal attacks. But I suppose I place too much confidence in people.

And, you know, the eleventh amendment is hardly surprising considering that, when it was drafted, the assumption was that Canada would eventually be a part of the union. The fact that the loyalists would be powerful enough to keep the Upper Canada out of the U.S. or that the people of Quebec would tolerate British rule just seemed inconceivable. And some people north of the border thought the same way. It was only when the American immigrants didn’t join their brethren during the War of 1812 that we started to think that this colony would have staying power outside of the U.S.

And we should also point out that the American constitution gets amended, not taking away from. After all, we have Article 19 which bans the consumption of alcohol throughout the union, and Article 20 which basically says “woah, we’re we drunk when we wrote that last amendment, or what?”

So Mike, does all that harmonization include labour mobility and immagration rights? Like the EU?

No I thought not. Kinda puts a hole in your little Conservative utopia eh? I mean who doesn’t like less lawyers when it comes to moving TVs and oil across the boarder but loves them when it comes to workers and people.