Renegade

Why stop there? Tax consumers who save rather than spend to represent the lost sales tax revenue due to their behavior? Tax people who take early retirement to represent the lost income tax due to their decision. Tax people who walk rather than drive to represent the lost gasoline tax revenue. Tax people who stop drinking and smoking to represent the lost sin tax revenue. Let me guess, you are trying to create unnecessary jobs but introducing unneeded bureaucracy. It is irrelevant what you want to force the currency in which outsource jobs will be paid. You cannot control the currency at all points, at some point along the way the employee will be paid in the currency of their choice or will convert the currency to the currency of their choice. Do you also propose that employees be restricted from changing the money to their home currency? How is this different from any of your previous suggestions? (ie to tax companies based upon your expectation of lost tax revenue, and force the currency of payment). I see, so you propose putting currency restrictions to prevent money from being exchanged. How do you propose to enforce this, since for example I can buy financial instruments in one currency and sell it on a different exchange in a different currency? It would seem you are creating an incentive for a blackmarket currency exchange and an arbitrage opportunity for a savvy individual. Of course it does, but the advantage of Canada is by offering a more compelling environment than other countries. If Canada cannot provide a more compelling reason for companies to invest than other countries, then it deserves to lose those jobs to outsourcing.

More good evidence that EI isn't really insurance. Maybe the government shouldn't run a program like EI at all or maybe they should stop making it mandatory. Either would have the same effect, as so many people would opt out of EI only those who are high risk and have high probability of collecting benefits would stay in. This in turn would signficantly jack up contribution rates, or cause the system to collapse.

I'm not sure that I do. Public sentiment can be somewhat contradictory depending upon how the issue is positioned. The public seems to avoid wanting to make hard choices that decision makers have to. For example: If you asked the public "Do you think that the government should help the poor and starving overseas?" I'm betting most would say yes. If you asked the same public "Would you be willing to increase the taxes you contribute, or reduce the social benefits you consume so that more can be devoted to people who are needy overseas?" You would get a different response. Which better guages public sentiment? The public wants everything but wants to personally pay nothing. They are happy to support programs so long as "someone else" pays.

The only reason we got into a discussion of what is inside a person's heart is because you brought up global conflcits as evidence of public motivations (ie what's in their heart). Well, maybe the correct way to interpret the data is that the lack of popular support is what has caused it to decline over the last number of years. If that trend continues, it will largely be irrelevant or disappear. I would qualify your statement. I don't think complete libertarinism is practical in every situation, however there are many where it is very applicable.

As much as I would like to, I don't see a way around having some kind of state entity, however the use of force to expropriate land should be a last resort and it should be difficult or cost a premium to discourage its use. I think it is naive to believe that most interventions in foreign conflicts are due to selfless motivations as you seem to propose. I'm not saysing all acts are selfish, I am saying that based upon my interpretation of the motivations of the powers involved, it doesn't seem to be for humitarian reasons. Sure, but what is the popular support for it. What is the popular support for increasing it?

Granted, however even where ideal and practice clash, they should be treated as exceptions to be handled, not dismiss the ideal. IMO being paid market value is not enough. In the end the state has something of equal value to the sum they have paid, but the unwilling seller has lost both his property and his freedom. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but perhaps one way is to force the state to pay a significant premium over market where land is expropriated to compensate the seller for the unwilling sale. Even companies who wish to acquire via a hostile bid, realize that they need to pay a premium, why shouldn't the state? The goals in most cases were never humanitarian. They were sometimes painted that way as thin veneer to disguise more self-serving goals. In any case you can guage for yourself the public support for all this foreign strife to achieve "humanitarian" goals. Sure, every now an again an event occurs which tugs at the heart and the public donates. One recent example is the Tsunami. The public is ocassionally willing to give voluntarily. I would bet that same public would be opposed to a forced taxation to support a welfare program overseas.

OK I'll acknowledge that and I'd be happy to examine solutions to make those negotiations or agreements easier. I'm sure a totalatarian state would be most efficient as it wouldn't require anyone's agreement to seize land and allocate costs. BTW, the cost of building the road doesn't actually change. The difference is that land-owners are forced to subsidize the cost of building the road by accepting a reduced price for their land. What are they specficly doing to demonstrate that they are less willing? If I remember, the amount contributed to foreign aid has been reduced over the last 30 years, not increased. Society has the ability to aleviate dying overseas by contributing to charites, yet for the most part they have other priorities for their spending. So show me some evidence, because I see very little of what you claim. It's a lot like a tobacco tax. If I had my way there would be a pollution tax, however unlike current taxes the proceeds wouldn't go to general revenue but would go to reparing the environmental damage. I agree with you here. I think that the population at large evolves their thinking at glacial speed so you could be quite right that it could take generations.

Ok let me rephrase to something you and I both agree on. In cases where the right to freedom that one individual has intrudes on another’s freedom then it is unavoidable that the freedom of one or both of them will be limited. Limitations put on restricting one individual’s freedom should be no more than necessary to preserve the other’s. Of course I acknowledgement in these cases some judgments need to made on to what extent each individual’s freedom should be limited. Well I’m not really sure what example you are looking for. I clearly agree that when two individual’s rights clash rules must be in set in place to mediate between the rights. In your example I don’t necessarily agree that one has the “right” to make noise nor to have a quiet surroundings, but assuming one did, then presumably a rule would be in place to set limits in each case. OK. So what is stopping the people in the area from negotiating with each other on how it is funded and from negotiating with land-owners for the required land. If negotiations cannot arrive at a settlement, the road doesn’t get built. Being cynical doesn’t make me wrong. You personify “society”. Who is that? There are other reasons for social programs such as welfare. One reason is that by giving some tangible benefit to the poor, they are less likely to disrupt the system (through revolt, crime, etc). Since you seem to use the existence of social programs as evidence of “society’s” will, perhaps explain why “society” is willing to let poor die behind closed doors overseas, but not domestically. I would expect that smokers and other polluters would need to negotiate the compensation they pay for the impact they have on the environment. If a smoker isn’t willing to pay such compensation, then no they don’t get to smoke. Maybe I will, but it is likely redundant to other threads I’ve seen on the subject. In any case I have neither the time nor the inclination to build a scenario for you to pick at. Perhaps sometime but not right now, thanks. In any case Michael, no doubt you are familiar with Libertarianism and you don't need me to educate you. If you are not, then there is plenty of material available for your reading and a wikipedia artcle to get you started. Libertarianism

Huh? Why do taxes "belong to the government before you even get paid"? The government forces companies to remit because they have the power to do so. The government seizes taxes because it can, not because it "deserves" it.

Then perhaps I did not make myself clear or misunderstand what you mean by balancing freedom. I agree that one individual's freedom needs to be balanced when it conflicts with another individual's freedom. It is what I meant when I said that freedom should be maximized. I do not agree that an individual's freedom should be balanced againt other goals unless it is done so voluntarily. For example the goal of increasing overall wealth should not be balanced against individual's freedom. The situation you originally described where freedom needed to be balanced, was not a clash of freedoms between individuals, it was trading off freedom against some other goal. If I'm incorrect, please tell me what freedoms are being balanced because I don't see it. Why is that a clear answer, because it is not clear to me that that it is correct. Let's start with a tangible goal then. If your tangible goal is to "To build 100 km of road going north from Kingston on highway 3". How did the state arrive at that goal? To arrive at a goal, it must have a purpose beyond simply building for building's sake. Actually, I'm ok with it. Poor and hungry did all the time, they just happen not to be on Canadian streets. It seems that the Canadian society in general is ok with that happening, they just would prefer not to see it up close. Out of sight, out of mind. I expect, none, unless it can be negotiated with others who also are custodians of the environment. I'm sure there are a whole host of differences but I'm not sure this is the thread for that. In short it minimizes the role of government to what is absolutely necessary. Minimizing fraud or misrepresentation is one of the few areas I see a role for govenment.

Of course. Nothing I've said contridicts that. Practice needs to take guidance from the ideal. The issue we were discussing was a practical one. Should a person be prohibited by law from being able to act in his own best interest. If you look ag the ideal that freedom should be maximized, then it is clear that no such law should be allowed. Sorry, but I disagree. You can't have programs being enacted such as services and managment, without first having a goal. If the goal is a free society then it leads to a decision on which services or managment is required. The whole point of this thread was that perhaps welfare services are not required. His choice to act as he wishes even if it is against his own self interest. If you remember your position was that a individual should be restricted from makeing "bad" decisions. The individual doesn't own the environment, it is jointly owned by everyone. Actions impacting the environment would also impact other's use of the environment, so it is reason enough to protect the environment while consistent with maximizing freedom. Michael, your pointing to issue such as the environment or how infrastructure shoudl be built just indicates that the devil is in the details in implementing the philosophy. It doesn't negate the philosophy, nor the premise that each one should be allowed to make their own bad decisions which primarily or only impact themselves.

No one, ought to be getting a Child Care benefit from government. It is simply yet another form of welfare (as are bailouts, and govt subsidies)

Freedom Balanced? Not at all. It is like saying that the right to think for yourself should be balanced. Freedom should always been maximized not balanced. IMO, there are very few valid reasons for restricting freedom. Protecting the chooser from his own choices should not be one. Separation of church and state (IOW, keeping the state from making moral judgements) is one of our tenents. I don't know if it is completely attainable, however to the greatest degree possible it should be implemented. Nor should I or anyone have to. Trade exist because individually make those determinations based upon their own perceptions. The philosphy is an ideal. If you agree on the ideal, they you work to implement the ideal as closely as possible. Where it is not workable, there are exceptions created, however they must be significant justification for the deviation from the ideal. I really don't remember the outcome of the debate. I think there have been a few. In any case, the connection between building roads and one's right to choose for themselves free of the state's moral code is loose. IOW, even if the state choose a system to force funding of infrastructure, it can still let and individual make his own choices.

"better" implies a value judgement. The person who's freedom you restrict may not agree that it is "better". It shouldn't be about balancing freedoms, it should be aobut maximizing freedoms. IOW, freedoms should be allowed so long as it doesn't intrude on another's freedoms. Again this requires a value judgement. IMV, the govenrment should stay out of value judgements.

Actually you don't have to go back a hundred years. Such a system is already in place in much of Asia. Weak income support systems mean people are forced to work in order to survive. Those who would ordinarily turn to welfare need to find whatever work they can. That is why in much of Asia, for a middle-class household having servants is common and even expected. There are a host of work the middle class, if given a low-cost alternative will off-load. Yard-maintainance, domestic chores, driving, child-care, cooking, are but a few. BTW, such a system works most effectively when you eliminate minimium wage reguirements as well.

This is only your opinion, not a fact. To not allow people to make a choice, whether a good choice or a poor one, robs people of their freedom. Besides, who are you go decide what is a "good" choice and what is a "poor" one? So what? If a person makes a poor choice shouldn't they pay the price for that bad decision? ---- Would you also prohibit low-wage people from buying lottery tickets because such a decision is a poor choice?

Not necessarily true. Debt such as mortgage may be "good" debt as is may be better than the alternative (renting). Forced savings doesn't offset the fact that most people take on debt. Yes true, and unfortunately there are very few curbs that prevent a politically influential group from compelling others to support them. Thus I have mixed feelings about forced savings programs. On one hand forced savings restrict our ability to choose for ourselves, on the other hand it also reduces the opportunity for non-savers to demand that taxpayers support them.

It is true that a significant number of people cannot manage their own cash flow, but a forced savings plan penalizes those who can. For some people, they would be financially better off putting the savings toward their debt rather than toward future pensions. If the existance of senior welfare programs provides incentives for people not to save for their retirement, then perhaps we should consider reducing those incentives.

Of course, so doen't if follow that those who pay taxes should have a say on how those taxes are spent?

Huh? You mean immigrants would return to their home country to give birth or perhaps you don't consider offspring of immigrants who are born on Canadian soil "native Canadians"

I would have thought that the impact of environmental legislation is to beyond just Canadians. For example if we pollute the air do we have some way of ensuring that the smog stays in Canada? In any case, if Canada thinks it has justification to tax non-residents then perhaps non-residents should also have a say in how their taxes are spent. IMV, there should be at least 2 categories of legislation. Some legislation require no financial commitment from govenment, others do. Taxpayers should have a say on those which imply a financial commitment to the extent that the taxpayers have funded that commitment.

I agree that it should be tax contributed to Canada. Since Canada taxes worldwide income this sholdn't be an issue exept we would need to offest foreign tax credits. If the income is not visible to the CRA it doesn't generate tax paid to Canada and it should not result in any political influence. It is irrelevant if the wealth is "invested in Canadas well being first and foremost among nations" (what does that even mean). All that is relevant in that proposal is that tax is paid on the income.

I don't think it is relevant if they have a rather differnt outlook on life than "normal" Canadians. Isn't that the point of having a say so that a "different" view is represented? In fact it is even more important to have a say when the view is different because mainstream views are already represented. Most of the revenue collected isn't from a few individuals with a lot of money, it is from the large middle class. While many middle class don't have the same level of wealth as a few wealthy individuals, they more than make up for it in volume. IMV they should get a larger and institutionalized way of having a greater say. It should not to left to indeterminate ways of generating influence.

Do you agree then Argus, that the more money you put in the pot the more say you should have in how it is spent?

Actually it s about those on the bottom saying "I could be a lot better" and make themselves more valuable.