I forget what my point is, but I think it's something like let us forever remain vigilant in our cynicism, brothers and sisters.

That is entirely different from the attitude shown by the LPC in this press release (and by most "progressives" in my experience) that opposing views are not worthy of consideration or honest discussion.

As to Mao, Stalin, et al, they were moral relativists, not absolutists. That is why they believed that it was ok to do whatever they wanted as long as it furthered their goals. "Might makes right" is a moral relativist position; moral absolutists like me (and, I suspect, you) believe that certain actions are never justified.

I find your slogan "Do the least harm" very profound, honestly. It would be mine as well.

It really must hurt for them.

Isn't that just a tad inconsistent?

As such it is noteworthy that Ignatieff did not think to take it out of his speech as a qualifier on those whose ideas he wants at the Montreal conference.

Trains are only the most obvious example and one that dates back to the beginning of our nation. The leadership role of the state in developing of IT, the web and nuclear is ignored by libertarians/conservatives who prefer a myth about individual ingenuity as the source for all great accomplishments.

There is also a leading but not exclusive role for the state in heavily regulating our banks and food and healthcare, roles conservatives and libertarians generally oppose and sometimes quite strongly oppose. Harper's abdication of this leadership role in healthcare, as seen with the isotopes and H1N1, is appalling.

If there is a role, what is the extent and how should the government be leading? Seems to me that these are excellent questions for a thinker's conference even if they make you "a bit twitchy, feel faint and break out into hives all at once" because it is, in these areas and many more the "government's role to decide where we will be in a decade" despite what you and Thatcher think.

My only question is: with so many people talking, who will listen?

You’re readin into that what you want to be there. I can see how you would read it that way. But can’t you also see how he is inviting people and experts who consider themselves ‘progressive.” Not everone who regards themselves as a progressive is necessarily a liberal. Obviously he isn’t inviting nihilists or hardcore libertarians…it’s isn’t a university seminar, but an attempt to generate ideas…at least i hope it is.

I realize that to you, the possibility that Leftism is consistently evil is not even worth thinking about. You'll notice, however, that that assessment does not preclude me from discussing issues with leftists in an effort to challenge my worldview and get a fresh perspective. Ignatieff and the Liberals should attempt to do the same.

Government has legitimate role to play in law/order, national defence and infrastructure. You are preaching to the choir, Ted, when you mention national railway.

It is funny how progressives bring up infrastructure to defend government – when no one is against public works – but never say it's great that we employ hundreds of people to monitor our cheese buying habits or why it is reasonable for our health services to employ Communications Training Officers.

I want to live in a country with health care and education available to all and a social safety net. Harper is implying most Canadians are/were content with that, too, but he has different ideas. One doesn't have to build something to change the course. One can destroy something and it can have just as large an, or an even larger, effect on people.

Anyway, the point is it is unrealistic to expect any PM not to have an idea of where they want to lead the country to, even if they are open about it.

However, it wasn't one of the left who recently said "As to the Left, an ideology that is consistently evil is actually a pretty good moral compass. When it points North then you can't go too far wrong if you head South," and sorry, anybody who espouses that any particularly ideology is "consistently evil" probably doesn't do enough thinking to really be useful in a conference to come up with solid ideas for the future.

Ok, new rule, everyone from Toronto we know and like is invited to spend the weekend with us in Montreal! Welcome to the new Liberal party!

Secondly, Harper was saying that he wanted to get rid of socialist control to allow people to follow their own path. So he's not actually deciding where you will be in a decade because you get to decide for yourself.

As for your second quote. Someone who did as much to undermine local democracy and local say in matters as steam roller Thatcher has completely lost any credibility on issues of state power or control.

The first point may be a difference of moral/philisophical worldview, but the second one’s a fact.

Canadians living our lives and deciding individually where we will be in 10 years does not cancel out a significant role for the government. To think so not only is naive, but rejects the fundamental core of Canadian social, economic and political history.

In Canada (and frankly in Britain and, if they were honest, very much in the US) the economic and social fabric of the nation has been built by government and individuals acting in partnership, not in keeping away from each other. Macdonald's greatest accomplishment, after creating the nation, was in using government power and resources to forge a national system of railways. This not only opened up markets, strengthened the economic union across provinces, made living in the west sustainable, but it allowed the flow of people out to the west, it created a social and demographic base that was aligned east-west despite the great and more natural north-south gravitational pull of the US. Same with Laurier.

Canada was not built on the free market alone but equally on the peace and order and good governance of the state.

So, Harper thinks he should decide where we will be in a decade and he explicitly said he didn't think that it was where Canadians wanted to be.

No one should take the job without having some idea of where they want to lead. It's better if the PM is open and honest about what his or her vision is.

Is it really a "spirit of openness" to limit the ideas to those from either "Big 'L' Liberals" or "progressive thinkers and experts"?

What about the rest of us? We're Canadians too. This is one of the problems with the Liberal party.