Renegade

Benny, let me understand this. You feel outrage at welfare for corporations for need it, but no outrage for welfare for citizens. Why the double standard?

What happens if city officials aren't easily embarrassed? I thought you said that purpose of welfare was to save city officials embarrassment. If Mike Harris was ok to be "embarrassed" why do you have an objection? Why are the "grand children of the people who built the infrastructure - who poured the foundations for the bank towers" owed anything? They aren't the ones who provided the labour, and the ones that did were remunierated.

Perhaps the "someone" who should make Canadian Made cars is the CAW. Let them use their retirement funds and other funds to purchase Chrysler Canada and pump out Canadian made cars. Then they can pay their workers whatever they please. Only they seem to have the confidence that they can continue to sell cars in the current environment and make a profit. BTW, how is the threats from Chrysler any different from threats the CAW has issued from time to time?

If you think that executives shoudl agree to work for $1.00 a year, then you are free to ask your MP to make that a precondition of any bailout. It is interesting that you think that minimium wage legislation should apply to everyone but auto executives.

The unions should do what make sense to the workers? They can refuse a $20/ hour and wage reduction and potentially lose all their wages or they can accept a $20/hour reduction and make it more likely that they will keep still lucractive wages. What CEOs or politicians do is irrelevant.

So how does that contradict anything I said? Well, that is your interpretation of the purpose of government. It is not mine. I have yet to see any constitutional document state that the purpose of government is to redestribute wealth. The only mandate the government has with respect to a social saftey net is the mandate the people give if at election time. If its platform is to dismantle a social saftey net, and it gets elected than that becomes its mandate. On what basis do you generally claim that the gorerments "are charged with ensuring that we have a social safety net"?

There is a difference between requireing that people be treated equally and requiring that they have end up at the same level. the charter focuses on the rights of equal treatment, as it should. It doesn't require equal outcomes. BTW, the Charter itself is a discrimminatory document. It probhits certain discrimmination but allows others and in doing so instutionalizes its own brand of discrimmination. That is the whole different subject and discussion belongs in a different thread.

People are not equal. Not in their skills, knowledge, experience, looks, luck or many other factors which influence the accumulation of wealth. The state should not intervene to try and equalize the end result of inherent inequality.

No, there are many other factors which influence the accumulation wealth including luck. So what? Are you somehow suggesting that some factors should be state-sactioned and others are not? For example, a lottery winner accumulates wealth by luck. Should the state take away his winings and redestribute them because luck isn't a sactioned way of accumulating wealth?

By what criteria do you rate it as the most important? What evidence do you have or is it simply your opinion that it is the most important? If violence results from economic inequality and those that have, decide that it make sense to redestribute their income, they will do so volulantarily. They may also decide that they are willing to put up with the risk of violence or that investing in security is a more efficetive solution. To believe this you have to beleve that people are equal in ability, skills, experience and other factors which influence the creation of wealth. Even if you gave everyone political representative equality, there are those will will succeed and those who will fail. Your only way to redress this is to forcibly take from those who succeed and give to those who fail.

They are ONE limiting factor. They are not the only factor which limits economic growth. We, in general, have become more wealthy over the centuries because we have become more efficient in how we create, process and consume resources. This has lead to an overall increase in our wealth. That wealth has not been evenly distributed but so what? Neither is the knowledge and skills required to turn the resources into wealth.

It is a false argument to assume that resource are the limiting factor to our wealth. If that were true, in centuries past when the population were less and resources more pelntiful, people would have been more wealthy. This clearly false as people have not been as wealthy as they have been in modern times.

No that is not the question because your question presupposes that those who go without, do so because others have an inheritance. Those who go without, do so because they cannot attain for themselves. It is irrelvant if others have attained either by their own skils or by inheritance.

The equality you describe is really a description of our expectation of how we expect the state to treat its citizens. In the case of the vote, we expect that the state gives each of its members a right to choose who will set the rules of the state. (If you examine it closely you will see it is far from equal. Some people like non-citizens, those under 18, etc, are no allowed to choose. Some are given more weight in their choice based upon where they live). My expectation for "economic equality" is not that each of us are of equal wealth, but rather that the state treatement of us is economically equal. Of course this is far from true today. Extreme poor get funds and services from the state, the rich do not. IMV, the state should not be involved in explicit wealth redestribution, and economic equality is the right to equal economic treatment. There is no reason we need to all end up at the same level of economic wealth.

I don't know enough about CAS to know. It may be with CAS that the execution is poor, however the intent is nobel. Are you against protecting the rights of children from parents who abuse those rights? If not, please explain how you intend to protect those kids if you cut or eliminate CAS. In any case my point has got nothing to do with CAS. If you restricted the opportunity to parent to those who are qualified, then perhaps you would have less need for CAS.

Sure lots wouldn't qualify. So what if the population didn't grow? People take it as a given that population growth is a good thing. I'm not certain it is. It has as many drawbacks as it has benefits. Just think about the pressure put on the resources and the environment by additional population. Could we accomodate reduced populatoin? - Most certainly!

In the same way that every other new law gets implemented! It would seem to be you have a poor argument if your only objection is that resident or potential resident won't know about it. You also seem to have a fixation with CAS. Did your child get taken away by CAS, perhaps because they did not see you as a fit parent?

No it is not enough, nor is it necessary, to be rich to be a parent. What is necessary is to be qualifed. IMV, to be qualified a potential parent needs to satisify multiple criteria, including emotional stability, maturity, commitment and yes be able to afford kids. Some poorer potential parents would not qualify if they couldn't meet the criteria for affordability. Some richer parents wouldn't qualify if they did not meet the other criteria. Yes, I agree, it should be put into the constitution or law.

Yes that is exactly right Oleg. Anyone who cannot afford to provide for their offspring shouldn't be having offspring. Propogating is a privilidge which comes with responsibilties and those who cannot live up to those responsibiltes shouldn't have the priviledge to propogate. BTW, wealth doesn't automatically make someone qualified to be a parent. There are plenty of wealthy people who shouldn't propogage either.

I don't know who you are inferring is saying that. It isn't me. However society shoud penalize doubtful decisions even made in youth, especially if the person makeing that "doubtful decision" will leave the rest of society to pick up the pieces from that doubtful decision. If doesn't matter if any individual taxpayers pass or don't pass so long as the ones impacted are themselves. Once they impact others, they should expect their decisions to be scrutinized and judged. Perhaps not, and perhaps those who didnt have the means shouldn't have had them as you have agreed "people who can't afford to raise kids shouldn't give birth to them. We can all agree."

I am indeed confused. I have not brought up a 60 year old having a baby nor am I referring to it. My point is that if a parent birngs a child into the world and that situation is determental for the child, that parent is indeed acting irresponsibly just as a parent who neglects a child would (for example by leaving a baby in a hot locked car). Maybe you can clarify your comments because I dont' understand what you mean. Then why even bring up criteria since it is irrelvenat to you what the criteria is? We first need to estabilsh that there shoudl be one. I don't only advocate that the child be removed, I advocate that the parents penalized. Just as with repeated transgressions in society, penalties should get more severe with repeated offences. IMV the penalties should extend as far as sterilization for those not responsible enough to control themselves. Ok you don't and I do. I have explained why I do. You have not provided any explaination why not or how you propose that irresponsible parenting should be limited. Sure, until some point society decided that someone could get killed by an 8-year old driving. If as you say taxation was the reason, then provide a cite and explain why it doesn't maximize revenue by licencing anyone who wants a license despite whether they are qualified or not. Please explain why not. Are the rich exempted form all other licensing systems and if so does that invalidate all licencing systems? They "may" or "may not" suffer harm. If data shows that bad parenting is a strong causitive factor to negative behaviour of kids (eg crime) then that is sufficient justification. It doesn't have to be the case that every kids with bad parents will turn out bad for society to step in.

No what I'm looking for is consistency. I'm fine to have no government interference, but since we have government interference today, it shouldn't be a half-measure where it only impacts one side of the equation. I'm fine for anyone to have as many babies as they choose, and bring them up under whatever conditions they choose as long as they are fine with state non-intervention, however when people expect state intervention in daycare and welfare and other support systems, they shoudl also expect that the state intervene in making sure they make responsible choices especially when those choices impact the state.

Huh? What does the age of the child have to do with it? If a parent introduces a child to an environment where the child is determentially impacted the parent may be negligent, regardless of the age of the child. Well the criteria is up for discussion. First you have to accept that we should as a society indeed set criteria. I'm sure when cars were first invented and the idea of licensing drivers came up, someone asked by what criteria, and whether deaf people should have licenses, and if one handed people should? All good questions, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't limit who can drive or who can parent. Me too. I certainly don't think that money is the only criteria of a good parent. There are many, however being able to afford a child is probably a miminimal one, just like being able to see is a minimal criteria to being granted a driver's license. So what. I can show you many people who drove drunk but didn't crash into anything either. If you accept a premise that growing up poor is a substantial risk to the child and society then you accept that even though some people may be thrive inspite of the poverty, that society should mitigate the risk by limiting who can be parents. If you don't accept the premise to begin with, then why bother to address poverty at all? How so? Leaving kids with irresponsible parents is penalizing them. Removing them from the situation is not and on balance is probably better for them.

Exactly! So perhaps instead we should not let parents who do a poor job raise kids, both for the kids sakes and our own.

The parents should be penalized. If a parent subjected a child to neglect, the child woudl be taken away and the parent penalized. This situation is no different. What is missing is a set of rules on who should be allowed to assume the responsiblity of parenthood and then enforcing those rules. We license driving of cars to ensure only qualifed people drive, shouldn't we limit parenting to permit only qualified people parent? "We" don't make sure, "they" made sure by their choice. However your point is valid. Should the children be penalized for the poor choice of their parents? IMV, no, however since the parents have demonstrated irresponsibility they are not qualifed to be parents and the kids should be removed from their custody and placed with parents who are responsible. That way the kids are not penalized, only the parents.