Renegade

It's not that simple. The productivity is not distributed equally. There is little relationship between who pays and how much they pay from the productivity benefit received. I can agree that education should be mandatory, but the way to distribute the cost is that it is recouped when a service is provided which adds value because of the educational component. Further if your only justification is about "productivity", perhaps the way to optimal productivity is to invest in "smart" kids who will benefit most from education and "disinvest" in "dumb" kids.

I don't consider it a "RIGHT" in the same way you do. I consider it an obligation that parents undertake when they choose to have kids the same way that parents have an obligation to feed and clothe those kids. Do you consider being clothed, fed, and sheltered a "right"? You argument amounts simply to a statement that "that's democracy, so too bad". What I am saying is that even in a democratic society there should be policies implemented which maximize each individual's freedom, otherwise all your discussion that you want a policy that is "fair that everyone" is irrelevant. What it simply amounts to is that the majority can pass any policy which it is in it's self-interest and will do so regardless of it is "fair". In fact I think that is precisely how we have come to many of the programs now in place including education. If your reasoning on why non-parents pay for education is simply that the majority believes that they should, then I agree but what I dispute is a rationalization which tries to justify it as "fair". Really, most people are parents or plan to be and it is in their self interest to support such a policy.

You seem to think that parents and society are "partners" in taking upon the responsibility for children. If that is true, how is it that parents choose to be parents whereas society has no say in the matter and should accept even the most unfit and irresponsible indivduals as parents simply because they choose that role?

There is a perfect way of "charging" people for the benefit they receive through another's education. That perfect way is through the cost paid for that interaction. For example if I benefit from a lawyer's education then I pay the price when I pay for the lawyer's services. If I didn't pay upfront for his education then the incremental cost woudl be added to the cost he charges me. Similarly if the garbage collection guy provides the same service regardless of if he is or isn't educated, why would I pay an incremental cost to that service. That way instead of paying upfront people pay exactly the value they get in the education as it is built into the service provided. The difference Kitch, is that you seek via majority use of force to impose that value on everyone even if they don't value the service. If you simply left it to each individual to pay as they saw value, it wouldn't be a forced imposition of your preference over mine. So the difference between my view is that I don't seek to impose it on you by majority rule. I want you to have a choice, something you would deny me. Again, it is not a binary determination. What I'm suggesting is that there should not be a presumption of value. A presumption of value occurs when the education is paid for up front. If better education provides better service, then charge for that service and people who see value in that service will pay for it. There is no better evidence of where you see value in education than in difference in starting salaries between people who have simply a high-school education and those who have not. If there is not significant difference in wage rates then that effectively shows that the people buying the service assign it no value.

Sorry but you misunderstand. I accept you belive this. I ask for evidence of why you have come to that conclusion. If you don't have any reasons for coming to that conclusion other than your life outlook, that is fine. But you should care. Certainly I do. I don't happen to belive population growth is a good thing. While Canada may be vast there are large tracts which are virtually uninhabitable, further it is pretty much certain that population growth would not occur in the vast empty tracts in Canada but rather in the already overcrowded cities, further increasing pressure on the environment and scarce resources. So what you and the government are promoting with these subsidies are a detrement to society. It may be of value to you but it is of very little value to me. I have lived in places where the bulk of the population was largely uneducated and I can tell you that the quality of my interactions was just as great there. I'm really trying to understand what value you get from your interactions with someone else being educated instead of being uneducated. To me it is somewhat like my neighbour painting his house and then sending me a bill because when I look at it, it is no longer the eyesore it once was. Yes everyone should be educated, but that responsibility is a parental one to undertake and fund and if they don't wish to undertake that responsiblity they are free not to be parents. Do you not see that when parents argue that kids education should be socially funded they too are arguing in their own self-interest and are likely clouded by that perspective. That is precisely why I asked for evidence and facts to support your perspective. Opinion is clouded by self-interest, facts are not.

I'm presuming htis particular paragraph is directed at me. An opinion is only credible if it is supported by evidence and facts. I'm assuming that you came to your opinon through some rational conclusions and so I'm asking for how you did so. If as you say, your opinion is simply a preference like "bacon on my pizza", then it would seem reasonable to conclude that your opinion is based on nothing more than something that caters to your own self-interest. So if all you are looking is to state your opinion, have at it. If instead what you seek is to have a credible argument that your posiion is based upon evidence, provide the evidence. So would I. So would millions of other parents. Your position exemplifies my point. That many parents would have kids regardless and there is no threat to the human race dying out because of lack of tax incentives to have kids. So why incent behaviour which will happen anyway? The question at hand was whether others are being forced to subsidized parents or if the others recieve some value for providing that subsidy. As you have admitted there is little or no value to the individuals providing the subsidy. In my opinion it is fine to consider the interest of others when providing funding, but it should be the role of charities to do so. Each person at an individual level can decide which areas and how much he wishes to support the interest of others. Government taxation is a forced march support of others based upon whomever the government decides is worthy of that support based upon both rational and irrational criteria. It make much more sense that that choice be left individually to decide. You think you should support schools? Fine, pull out your checkbook and make a donation, but why do you believe you should force others to do the same using the enforcement of government? Whether it is "nickel and diming" is a matter of perspective. If it were truly nickels and dimes we were discussing than it would not even be worth the time to discuss it. What is the amount threshold before it is no longer "nickel and diming"; is it $1000, $10000, or $100000?

Why is it " nice if our species carried on"? I'd argue that the human species has been the plague of the earth and is on a path to destroy it. If you look at it simply from a species perspective, I contend that the world is better off without us. Please explain what tangible beneift I get by the species being around a few generations from now? If it is simply the warm and fuzzies, then from what I understand about your contention is that you want the rest of society to pay so that some of you feel the warm and fuzzies. KItch, would you have kids if the monatary incentives wern't there? How would you know if it is "close enough to equal" if you can't measure that value?

I look at children in a utilitarian way because the arugment made was for the utilitarian use of children. I don't believe the argument was made that somehow the human race is heading toward extension and so we should provide financial support to stave of extinction. In the unlikely case that this were true, I would sell to whatever market there was. Presumably the aging like myself or external markets. You have stated a personal opinion. Fine, the question is why I should share that opinion. I'd welcome facts to back your opinion. Not exactly. My assumption is that there are sufficient incentives already and even if there wern't and somehow there were a labour shortage there would be finanical incentives to address that. Here's the thing, a lot more than labour is required to run society and the economy. Capital, equipment, etc. We don't need to incent the creation of those, yet they appear because they are necessary and someone creates them to fullfil a need. There are many examples of societies in the world which provide no additional incentive for having kids, and yet people have an abundance and sometimes an overabundance of kids. So the theory that somehow we would run out of labour because our population would disappear is pure conjecture. There is plenty of labour which could be imported if required. Of course it is selfish. Selfish is another way of saying self-interest. The exact same thing holds true the other way. Parents who are looking for society to help support their kids are selfish and their argument that it is for the good of society is pure nonsense and a way to mask self-interest. BTW, I am a parent, so I make these argumnents despite the fact that it is against my self interest to do so.

This logic makes no sense to me. We need the services kids will eventually provide. So what? There are a lot of services we need and we rely on the free market to provide those services. IOW, if the services like cops, firefighters, doctors are of value to us, we will incent them with high enough compensation that it will make sense for people to have kids to fill those professions. In any case, nature doesn't need us to help. Nature has provided sufficient incentives within the population to ensure people will have kids for some time to come. The population crisis we have today is proof of this and would have happened whether we incented people to have kids or not. People should not be incented by the rest of society to have kids. If they choose to have kids it should be a free choice and with that choice comes the responsibilty of supporting those kids.

Actually I don't think there is any question about the legality. The Election Act says that the prohibition is clearly illegal and cannot be enforced. Election Canada was simply ignorant of the law and later once they realized their mistake back-tracked. I think the landlord would lose if went to court because the law is not on his side (unfortunately). Idiocy would only occur if he persued an unwinnable case.

I thought it was you who said that you wouldn't honour contracts.

Then why ask it as a question? Sorry I posted an update after you responded. Let's leave aside the question of signs with commercial content. What about signs of personal positions such as being pro-life? Am I correct to assume by your response that such a sign can be restricted because it may not be temporary and is not associated with a political party during an election?

That's essentially the point isn't it? If one doesn't honour a contract they have signed, then can they be held to that contract? Maybe you can explain what the use of a contract is if one cannot be held to the terms of it. It's his property. In an ideal world, he can offer it for rent under whatever terms he so chooses. It is up to the tenant to negotiate satisfactory terms or refuse the lease. Who knows? I can't read the landlord's mind. It is irrelevant whether he has a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason. The issue is whether he can impose a restriction, and if agreed to can it be enforced. Contracts don't generally require that you understand the reasons why terms were put in, simply that you follow terms you agreed to.

Yes obviously you don't. The issue is can the tenant agree to restrictions to his right of free expression, and if he agrees to that restriction, should the landlord be allowed to enforce it. If for example, in his lease agreement a tenant agreeded not to harrass passers by, and the landlord felt that shouting "Vote Liberal" was harassment in contrevention to the lease, why wouldn't a landlord have the right to enforce those provisions?

The ones I get but obviously you don't. If you haven't got it by now I don't have the patience to explain it to you. Why is an election a special case? For example if a tenant posted a sign "I am Pro-life" would that be permitted? why?

Let me translate it for those obtuse enough not to understand the implication. Does the content of the sign make any difference whether free expression should be allowed? If it does, what content is permissable and what is not?

You mean something like the landord who started postig signs all over his property? Hmm, there seems to be no indication that the landlord did that.

You seem to favour the right of freedom of expression. The reason I bring employers into it is to undestand why you would be favour of allowing freedom of expression in one case but not the other. Is your non-response an attempt to be deliberately obtuse?

eyeball, why do you think it is ok to force landlords to permit freedom of expression on their property but not employers. (or do you think that employees should also be allowed to post political signs?)

In my view the government should avoid interfering in a private contract between individuals. It seems that landlords are subject to no end to rules about what they can or cannot do with their own property. Usually those rules are from provincial bodies, in this case it is from the Election Act. Pesonally I think it is irrelevant why the landlord wants the sign down. Would you feel any differnt if the tenant were hanging "white power" and Nazi signs?

No quite incorrect. The landlord holds title to the property. The only thing the landlord rents from the bank is money. The bank can and does enforce stipulations which the landlord is forced to follow. The landlord has property rights. He only assigns a subset of those property rights to the tenant. In this case the right to occupy the unit. Why should the landlord be forced to also assign the right of using his property as advertising space (because essentially isnt that what electon signs are)? Actually perhaps what the landlord is saying is: "do what you agreed to do when you signed the lease or move out".

Doesn't prohibiting advertising also infringe on a person's freedom of speech? Why can a landlord prohibit advertising by not electoral signs? The other point is that people give up their rights of freedom of speech all the time. For example many workplaces prohibit political signage as part of the conditions of employment. If the person willingly undertakes a contract which gives up their freedom of speech, why should the government intervene?

CBC Story This is an interesting case. On one hand doesn't the landlord have the right to assign to the tenant only a subset of his property rights (in this case the right to occupy, but not the right to use the property as a billboard)? On the other hand, the tenant is in no way damaging the property by posting the signs and if prohibited from posting is denied freedom of speech. I am aware that it is illegal for a landlord to prohibit a tenant from posting political signs, but should it be?

There seems to be a presumption that increased population is a good thing. Is it? There are many serious negative consequences of never-ending population growth. There is also no indication that there would not be stable population growth even without this initiative. Maybe no incentive is needed. Why would we want to incent people who can't afford to have kids to have them?

Yes. I continue to find my own information but I have stated I have yet to find any that supports the statement you made. Apparently you don't have any evidence to offer either. Still, thank-you for the suggestion to find it myself. It's something I have been doingand will continue to do. Of course, and I fully expect you to, as I will. What I had hoped was that you had some evidence that your view was supported by factual data. It doesn't appear you do. Neither do I, presuming we can agree on what "fair" means. Also please elaborate on your postion. You have stated that you will pick the party aligned wth your views. You have also stated that it is YOUR view that people should be helped out via social programs. You now seem to say that you have no problem with a government that sees thing your way forcing others to pay based upon what you think is fair. Do you realize that what you think is "fair" is not necessarily what others do? I'm pretty confident that they would support my position, and I can state that for the most part that I support theirs.