Renegade

Somewhat like saying paying income tax is optional because you can organize your life to earn no income and thus pay no tax.

Unfortunately the pension system is somewhat run like a pyramid scheme where current contibutors support pension recepients. This can work as long as there a large population base supporting a smaller set of recepients. It becomes hard to sustain once the number of retirees outnumber contributors. We can see the scenarios play out at GM, Chrysler, Air Canada, and others. It was 1998 not 1990. Contribution rates were hiked to prevent plan collapse. http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/isp/cpp/cppchanges.shtml

The CPP system should be adjusted because it has a number of rules which don't make sense: 1. People who retire eariler than 65 are not penalized enough becuase the amount they save by collecting for longer and not contributing between the time they retire and 65 is not sufficiently offset by the reduced pension amount. 2. The requirement to cease working in order to qualify for collecting makes no sense. Some people who are in a position to arrange a brief work stoppage to collect CPP and start working again are at an advantage 3. Longer lifespans means that people are working longer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to contribute to the pension plan as long as they can? 4. Males should be paid a higher pension then women because according to actuarial tables they live shorter lifespans. 5. Single receipients should recieve higher payouts than married receipients because the system isn't required to pay survivor benefits. I am aware that the proposed changes do not address all of these but they do start to address some. As far as a proposal that EVERY Canadian get a pension, that would be grossly unfair to contibutors to the plan as their benefits would be reduced to pay pensions for those who have not contributed. In any case the welfare system of OAS and GIS are available to all Canadians.

Good point! My quoting of the twit ceases immediately.

What you are demonstrating is that you have nothing of relevance to contribute to the topic.

Wow, I was so wrong. I thought you knew nothing. You managed to show you know one thing. Too bad it isn't relevant to anything asked.

How do you know he's a man? He hasn't answered anything else so maybe you can ask him.

For you benoit, the void is not in your somach but somewhere higher up.

Thank you benoit but you cannot teach as you are devoid of true knowledge.

How about you answer the question then? Which country is closest to the "deliberative democracy" you advocate? wrt philosophys, you claim "we retain the one that best resists its criticisms" yet refuse to name what philosophy that is. It is impossible to have a sane discussion with someone who can neither read nor write. benny, further useless conversation without knowledge is often futile.

No. His claim is that the government spends it, not the people.

That is an interesting stat if true. Any reference to back this up?

You obviously have a comprehension problem. Which specfic ONE have YOU retained?

So which one have you retained as you seem to quote bits and pieces from a multitude of philosophers?

Philosophers make claims and try and justify their claims. There are all kinds of philosophers sometimes with opposite claims all defending their opinions rationally. The philosopher you quote has a theory on how to determine what is "right" from "wrong". There are many other theories, many equally if not more valid. You fail to show why one philsophy should be adopted to the exclusion of others. Even if we accept one mechanism of defining morality, you still would need to show why morality should be imposed collectively upon society instead of individually adopted voluntarily.

So what? That one defends their opinion vigorously doesn't mean their opinion is the "right" one. You seem to use philosophers thoughts as a crutch when you are devoid of any substance you can defend yourself. Let's get to the real world. Have you racked your brains yet and found a place which implements the system you advocate?

Why the hell would anyone consider what a philosopher says anything but an OPINION? They and you may have an opinion on what we "must" or "must not" do but no one is under any obligation to subscribe to their opinions. Charles Manson was a philosopher of sorts, and believed his followers should kill. Does that justifiy the killing? Each person should be guided by their own moral code or the rules of society. Opinioins are a dime a dozen. Pridictabily, you opted to ignore a question which you did not like the answer.

Please forgive Benoit. English is not his first, (and possibly not his second) language.

Who defines what is a duty? You? Virtually every system which is recognized as a democracy allows its citizens to vote anonomously and without having to justify their choice. So I ask again: Is there a country on earth which adopts the system you advocate? Can you read it now?

That may be true in the debating club but it most certainly isn't true of political systems. A vote is cast in private and a voter owes you nothing about why he has made such a choice. BTW, you did not address, which country on earth adopts the system you espouse?

Why exactly do they have to exchange their reasons? Why is it not sufficient to simply express their preference without giving their reasons? Is there any society on earth where you can point to where common will is determined in such a manner?

Huh? Who said society needed to be changed? How do individuals "recognize themselves" and what has that got to do with a common will? As usual, you are not making any sense.

OK, I'll bite. Please tell us how to determine what a common will is and why it is different than the aggerate of individual's wills.

Ah so you are suggesting that people lie in surveys and referendums and don't express their true will?

Why, don't you think people are intelligent enough to make their own choices?