Renegade

So where is the line between conspiracy and simple hate speech you consider protected? If for example Osama was part of the planning is that considered protected free speech if he did not personally commit the actoin?

Hmm, we regulate to make sure that only qualified individuals drive or can assume a mortgage, or own a firearm, all without resorting to extreme measures, yet you seem to suggest that we shouldn't do so for a vastly more important role of parenting. It is quite simple, people should either expect complete freedom to make choices as parents and both they and their kids should live with the consequences of those freecdoms or people should expect limited choices on making individual choices if they are expecting a state support for their choices. Personally I prefer the former "hands-off" approach, however if society insists on providing support systems to parents, then society should have a say in who is a parent. So your sarcasm aside, do you think there are any prerequesites which should be enforced (aside from the obvious biological ones) to be a parent?

It is not binary. The longer an individual has been part of a family the stronger the bonds are and the greater impact of breaking those bonds, thus there shoudl be greater justification for doing so. There is no maximium age or duration. No one seems to have an issue of breeaking up a family if the child is in an abusive situation regardless of how old the child is. The same should be true for parents without capacity to bring up kids. However I woudl say that the longer the kids have been in the family, the more the justitication which is required to remove them from that situation. Indeed I am a parent. I didn't become a father when I procreated. I became a father once I acted as one. I had kids only once I had the emotional, mental, and financial capacity to do so. If I never had that capacity I would never become a father. No because either way you are bailing them out if you are expecting the taxpayer to fund them, it is only a question of degree. Quite right. You are responsible for your own choices. I certainly can discuss each of your examples if you wish, but it would probably divert this thread. Thanks!! I didn't know that you had been appointed by the forum to judge, or even what makes you qualified to judge but thanks anyway.

The area is indeed grey. If Osama Bin Laden tells his followers that Americans are evil and tells his followers that they should be killling Americans and they do, is Osama's speech protected under "Freedom of Speech"?

All of these are dumb ideas which do nothing more than pander to a subset of the population.

What I'm saying is since there is no proven causal relationship between income inequity and problems, and there are benefits of income inequity, why would we worry about addressing what seems like a meaningless statistic. If anything we should focus on areas where there are proven relationshps and address those. In addition, there needs to be an assessment of whether the fix is worth the cost otherwise it woudl be yet another case of the cure being worse than the sickness. I didn't take it that way, so no worries.

We each have our own definition of what constitutes a "civilized" society. In my view a civilized society is one which maximizes individual freedom but expects individuals to live with the consequences of those freedoms. There is no implication of or expectation perfection at all. When an individual makes a mistake or bad choice (as we all do), we suffer the consequence and thus learn from our actions. As I've said before, if you want to mitigate risk of errors, mistakes, bad choices, or acts beyond one's control, I'm all for insurance-type programs, but where the individuals getting the benefit of risk mitigation are those paying the cost and the cost is commesurate to the risk being migitated. It matters not whether it fits your definition of an "advanced" species. I fully agree that kids shouldn't bear the brunt of their parents bad choices, mistakes or luck. That is exactly why I have suggested that there needs to be proactive action to prevent unsuitable parents from bringing up kids.

I don't see that aborting an unborn child or giving a newly born child up for adoption is breaking up families. I don't have an issue with either where the parents arent' in a position to take care of that child. The families I'm refering to are onces where there is a long-duration relationship between parties. Your option 4 is the same as my option 3 minus the excuses. If you can give people a chance to bail themselves out without taxpayer finanical support, I'm all for it and I'd like to hear more. If it requires taxpayer finanicial support then yes indeed we are bailing them out. Sure I can. Where their stuggles are caused by their own actions I have no issue in letting them suffer the consequences of their actions by letting them struggle.

Yes it may or it may not. What I am saying is that don't assume one, because there is no evidence to show a cause-and-effect relationship. I have not ruled out that such a relationship could exist, but there seems to be a supposition that if we fix income inequity then other associated problems will also be reduced. That supposition would only be true if there were a cause and effect relationship.

I'm not opposed to insurance type programs which parents would pay into which pay out in the event of financial disaster (job loss, disability, etc). If what you are pointing out is that there is risk in being a parent, this is true, however parents should bear the cost of mitigating that risk.

When people make mistakes or poor choices there are a couple of options: 1 Proactively prevent them from making those mistakes or choices. 2. Let them suffer the consequences of those mistakes or choices. 3. Provide an excuse for those mistakes and choices and bail them out. I don't believe that option 3 should ever be considered as an option. Onus shoudl be on people to mitigate risks (for example with disability or job loss insurance when life intervenes). It seems very few will avail themselves of such risk mitigation because it is all too easy to rely on the public dole. I am not looking to break up families. I am looking for people to take responsibiilties for their actions. The reality is that people have and make choices and should be accountable for those choices.

Er, No one should have a child if they can't afford to provide food or shelter.

Again, "link" doesn't mean "cause". No I'm not guessing when I say that an increased income gap doesn't imply that poor people are getting less healthy. That is a statistical fact. Yes poor people are more likely to be less healthy than rich ones (to a point), but an increased GAP doesn't imply that they were less healthy than before. For example both the poor and the rich can be absolutely wealthier (and by implication healthier) than they were 10 years ago, and have a larger income gap than they had before. You mention a health inequity. First, does a health inequity matter? Second, what is the health equity in societies such as Canada which provide public healthcare? I'm speculating only as much as you are. What I'm pointing out is that your contention of increased efficiency depends upon the way you measure efficiency. And as you agree, utility isn't the same as efficiency. So why is maximizing utility important to society? I've read the link. As described there are both good and bad implications of economic inequity. What is not there and we are left to speculate is at what cost are we willing to reduce economic inequity and how are we ensured that resulting effects of reducing economic inequity are worth the cost? I don't see this speculative example is valid. When wealth is concentranted in he hands of the rich, they are more likely to invest it to generate more wealth. When that wealth is distributed to the poorer, it is spent to meet immediate needs.

Not sure if it makes sense. Please explain.

I'm not sure you can conclude that. Statistical correlation does not mean a cause and effect relationship. There are many factors which influence the crime rate. But despite increasing income inequality Canada's homicide rate has been on a general decline since the 1970s. As has been pointed out the size of the gap doesn't imply that people are getting poorer or less healthy, in fact it is likely people have never been as healthy. It depends upon what you mean by efficiency. (Efficiency of consumption or Efficiency of production). In general society rewards individuals for production though higher income. A wider gap can be taken to mean that resources and rewards are being efficently focused on those who produce the most and are most valued. Why does it matter that a poorer person can more efficiently consume a dollar than a rich one? Please explain. How does income inequality have a negative effect on economic growth?

Of course it is different, but Kitch's comment didn't restrict itself to hate speech. ("Freedom of speech should be limitless.") Of course a bomb threat is not freedom of speech. One is a protected right, the other is an action. The question at hand is if the action is protected under that right. As I've said before, I think it does not and should not.

Please explain what problems it creates? Class envy or something more?

There is no shortage of housing, so why on earth would we want to build any. In my (and many other) neigbourhoods there are restrictions on turning basements into apartments or on multiple unrelated individuals sharing a house. It's restrictions such as these which keep us from have the most efficient use of current housing stock. If government wants to make more accomodation available, there is a simple fix. Remove such restictions.

Intresting opinion. Would your "limitless" freedom of speech include protecting bomb threats phoned in warning that a plane or building was going to explode?

Sounds like another excuse to waste taxpayer money.

I seriously doubt that if Jack Layton or any party offered to redistribute wealth from Canada to elsewhere, the recepient would let the border impede that largesse.

Ultimately this is the problem with democracy. In a democracy the majority (no mattter how small a majority) can run roughshod over a minority 100% of the time. To mitigate this situation, there needs to be limits on what a majority can and cannot do. A Charter of rights is one example of such a limitation. Unfortunately unless such a charter also protected a minority's property rights and protected against wealth redistribution, there is nothing to stop a majority from plundering the wealth of the rich minority. At a country level, there is always the threat that the rich could pack up and leave but no such threat exists at the world level. There would be little advantage to Canada being part of a world democracy because its wealth and resources would be redistributed and if it resisted it would be told that it is being "selfish". The end result of a world democracy is that you would see a redistribution of incomes from the richer countries to the poorer ones. Certainly this trend would not be good for Canadians. I too have wondered this. The only conclusion I have come to is that the philosophy of redistribution ends when the philosophy of self-interest is at stake.

I made some unstated assumptions when I made that statement. I assumed that those who invest their time and money in education, see to have a payback either monetary or in intangible benefits. For the most part where monetary benefits (aka a higher salary) is sought the choice of field is restricted to those which will actually pay back the investment. A further disadvantage of subsidizing education is that it distorts rational choice. If the person recieving the education pays only a small fraction of the cost, they look at the payback only based upon the cost they themselves have incurred and not on the overall cost incurred. Thus you see behaviour where people have degrees with little or no value. I am not disputing that people can be selfish, just as some people can be selfless. I don't think policy can be made upon whether people feel selfish or selfless. What I am advocating is that people pay their fair share for services they consume. The dispute is what is considered their "fair" share. If I can be convinced of the indirect benefit of education beyond the person being educated, I certainly agree that that the cost should be allocated according to the benefit realized. A "selfish" argument would be one which rationalized mininimizing any cost incured regardless of the benefit realized. I'm not sure if I have clarified it before, so let me do so now. I believe there may benefits realized at two levels. One at in individual level and the other at the group (societal) level. What I mean at an individual level is that you get a higher level of sevice from your interaction with someone who is educated instead of someone who is not. I beleive that the cost of this beneift should be passed on at the point of interaction. (eg at the time the dentist renders you a service you are paying a price which includes the cost of him being educated). The individual who has been educated also realizes benefit at the time of interaction, because he gets paid for his service and presumably gets paid more because he is educated. The other benefit is the group benefit. You have not articulated what exactly the group benefit is. The principle benefit I see is that an educated population is less prone to civil unrest and crime than an uneducated one. But here the thing, if parents by virtue of having kids are exposing society to the additional risk of civil unrest and crime, then shouldn't they also be the ones to bear the cost of exposing the rest of society to that risk? Well, you haven't really defined what you mean by a "right". It would seem that the only reason it is a "right" is if enough people think it is, but there is no objective way to determine what is a right and what is not. Simply put without any objective definition of what is a right, rights can be given or taken at will. So what? If enough of the majority have a common view, they can impose it on the minority, is that what you are saying. In your example above, if 11 people vote that the other 9 should be their slaves, should they be allowed to do so in a democracy? Why not, after all isn't it majority rule? You didn't address the point. In your view of democracy what prevents a majority on imposing a standard on a minority, even if it doesn't affect the majority? In the case of education the effect of the majority is that they want to pass of part of the cost on to the minority. I don't want to sidetrack this discussion, but that is one of the real problems of a democracy. The majority, when they vote as a block are represented 100% of the time and the minority 0%. Since parents or would-be parents are the majority, they will always have their way regardless of any other rationalization. They could even vote that single people pay for the education of all kids if they so chose. Sorry, but minor details aside, I don't see a real difference. People's level of comfort is related to their expectations. The sole point is that with food, parents are responsible for the cost to provide it to their kids. They are even further responsible for the choice of food. Even if you take away the choice of content for education from parents, you shouldnt' take away the responsiblity for cost just as with food. So what is your suggestion of an appropriate analogy? I use the food analogy because it is necessary, easy to see the benefit, and it is completely accepted that parents are responsible for providing this as an obligation to their kids. The right to have kids is really at the heart of this discussion. I maintain that if you want to assign "rights" to kids than the obligation to fulfill those rights should fall to the parents as they make the decision to have kids. Conversely if you alternatively want to assign some of the obligations to society to fulfill those rights, then you should also assign to society the abiltiy to decide who should be parents. Actually our standards are far too low. Unless you abuse your kids the state cannot take them into its care. The obligations of the parents should be in line with the minimium level of care we expect for the kids to have a reasonable chance in life. If we believe that it takes feeding, clothing, education, and other forms of obligation, then the state should enforce that obligation on parents. Moreover, parents who are likely not to fulfill that responsiblity should be prohibited from having kids. Well, you can't easily prevent someone from driving either if they really wanted to, but society has implemented mechanisms of reward/punishment so that only those it considers qualified are permitted to drive. Actually there are likely serveral options. First there is no shortage of willing and qualified parents who would happly adopt a child and likely give that child a better upbringing than an unqualifed parent. Second an unqualifed potential parent should not necessarily be allowed to bring an accidental pregnancy to term. If people were held accountable for the kids they had I suspect that there were far fewer kids brought into undesirable circumstances. Do the kids not suffer when they are brought into this world by an unqualified and ill-prepared parent? Sometimes that parent is barely a child themselves and by NOT enforcing standards for parents you greatly increase the overall suffering kids endure. No I do not because as I've said before, policy is not made on people being selfish or selfless. Policies are enacted because they are in mutual interest of the parties concerned. Virutally all policy's are "selfish" because someone beneifts and those who benefit tend to support that policy. Where enough people support the policy it is implemented. You could view public education as a "selfish" policy in that parents support and implemnent it because it allows them to off-load most ot the cost of their parental obligations.

Of course it is not cheap. I never said it was. Yes if a parent can't afford to have children including educate them, they shouldn't have them. BTW, your estimate of cost is only the post-secondary costs. Students who take on post-secondary education can and should take on those costs as in investment as it will pay back in increased earnings throughout their working lifetime. You personify society and there is no such entity. Society is made up of individuals and unless you let individuals make free choices about where to allocate their funds you have no idea of how selfish or selfless a society is. Yes there is sometimes benefit for education. What I have repeatedly stated is that benefit should paid for at the time the beneift is realized. For example I realize benefit from my dentist's education at the time I use his services and I pay for it through the cost of the service. The same should be true of all other education. Huh? What rubuttal? I must have missed it? Point it out as I have plenty to say. The majority should not have unlimited power. IMV, the majority should not have the unilateral right to force choices on the minority. There are lots of cases where we protect the minority from the will of the majority, for example, even if the majority think that only a man-woman marriage should be recognized, the minoirty should have the right to not have that will imposed upon them. Unfortunately our system allows the majority to screw the minority at will. As far as fiscal spending, the system would need to change to prevent the majority from basically spending money of the minority without their consent. IMV the best way to do that is user-pay services. Those who benefit and freely choose that service woudl pay A democracy exists even if the majority doesn't have unlimited power. See the charter of rights for examples. I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. It depends upon what you consider a "right" is. I certainly belive everyone should have access to education. I also believe that it is not a "societal" obligation to pay for that education. That should fall to parents. I'll give you an analogy. I believe that children should be fed healthy and nutrious food. In some indirect way society may benefit by having healthy members, however it the responsibilty of the parents to pay and supply food to the kids. Society simply passes laws which make it an enforcable parental obligation. If people cannot live up to that obligation they simply should not be parents. Do you belive that indivduals should have the unrestricted "right" to have kids?

Of course as more people opt out, those who want to be subsidized will pay more. In effect they are paying their "true" cost. Why should that be an issue? User-pay services. infringe on the rights of the poor? Not at all. I don't see that the poor have the "right" to be provided for. Parents who cannot afford to provide for their kids, shouldn't have kids. Those who can afford to have kids, and choose to have them should have to enroll in some kind of "insurance" program that provides for the kids in the case of catestrophic event or finanical ruin. The principle beneficiary of an education is the person being educated. The cost should either be borne by the people being educated or by their parents as a parental obligation. If in a loan program that they would be indebted for years is analogous to the rest of us being saddled with "education debt" for years and having to pay for it via education taxes. The debt goes somewhere anyway. The only question is why everyone has to bear the debt rather than the true beneficary?