Renegade

There is a reason why it is a "pain in the ass" in both countries. It is to prevent simple majorities from easily setting rules. I agree that despite best intents, both American constitution and the Charter need a mechanism which allows change, however the mechanism implemented needs to be onerous enough to discourage majorities from making changes on a whim. Actually I don't think people are "too stupid to think for themselves". It is precisely because people DO think for themselves and will put their own emotions and self-interest first that you need these kinds of protections. Do you think that the majority is always rational? Do you think the majority will always makes decisons which respect human rights? It's called an appeals process.

I supposed it depends upon the road. It is a subsidy if the people who benefit are not the ones who bear the cost. There are not enough details in your example to determine if it is a subsidy or not.

No, what would be ludicrous would be to restrict the choice any organization has, government or otherwise, in purchasing the best goods and services. It already supports the Canadian enterprises by providing the infrastructure and services which those enterprises use to operate. That's what their taxes "buy". Nothing more. The Canadian enterprises and workers can "ensure" they get the contracts by providing the most suitable product or services, over that of competitors. Then the choice to buy a Canadian product becomes a logical one, rather than an imposed one.

I will. Thanks.

Actually it wouldn't. What it feels like is irrelevant, unless you happen to believe that morality and crimminaltiy can be judged by "feel".

Unless you can read minds, you have no way of reading intent. If indeed you can read minds, might I suggest that your immense talents are being wasted on this humble forum. Regardless, however insincere it was, I still thank you for the concession.

I understand. I just don't happen to agree with your assessment on the validty of the "consent". Virtually all "consent" we give is influenced in some way, by advertising, our environment, our friends, our cultural background, etc. Yes, you are right that those laws exist. In cases where the only harm is to the individuals themselves, I believe those laws too are not justfied. Actually you need no specific grounds for divorce at all (at least in Canada). My point was not that there are not legal repecussions. My point was that it was not considered criminal. Yes there are some states which do criminalize it, no doubt the same states which criminalize homosexuality and sodomy. Of course there are governments who criminalize adultry and impose penalties such as stoning on the participants. I'm sure you'll agree that those are not countries who we want to emulate.

YW. Good luck with your rental.

Both. In most cases the services I refer to are under Federal control.

Thanks for conceding the point. You'll get my subsidy check in the mail.

A lot of your position is based upon potential harm which may or may not occur. Moreover, that harm if it occurs, is restricited to the consentual participants. Personally I don't think the government should be making decisions about what activities adults participate in even if those activities can cause potential harm to themselves. There are some cases where the government criminializes self-inflicted harm (for example suicide), however in general it is up to the adult individual to make those decisions for themselves. It was not my intention to link incest to homosexuality, however I think there is justification to say that the same principles apply. Even before homosexuals were permitted to marry, sexual relations between people of the same gender was decriminallized under the principle that says that adults should be free to make their own decisions on sexual partners without interfernce of the state. The same principle should apply here. It may be "wrong" but it is not criminal. In general society ,adultry is considered "wrong", but it is not considered criminal even where it can be shown to cause actual emotional harm to the other spouse.

blueblood, I am stunned about how narrow a view of democracy you hold. It is apparent you see no value in a separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches or the value in having a base set of rights which cannot be overridden by the will of the majority. I don't really have the patience to convince you that the system only works because there is those checks on pure rule by majority, however, I will point out that every country espousing a modern democracy has it. Coincidence?

Changed my tune? Hardly!! Perhaps you aren't actually reading my posts. Perhaps the subsidies are better applied to remedial reading classes in your area. To refresh your memory here is what I said on the FIRST page: As to why I started a thread specificly on rural subsidies. It is because I felt that a general thread on subsidies was too broad to discuss in one topic. I have repeatedly agreed that where subsidies go toward urban dwellers, that those too should be eliminated. If people aren't "sponging off" me, and in fact perhaps I am "sponging off" them, then my position should actually be AGAINST my self-interest, no? A system based on self-reliance makes much more sense then one sponging off each other. Yep, maybe they are, and now it's up to us po city folk to figure how to get our money back.

Who is the "them" I wish to take advantage of? If you mean foreign governments foolish behaviour. Sure I'll take advantage of them, so should any other rational person. Logic, you refuse to acknowledge, shows that a subsidy is a transfer of wealth. I would encourage any individual to take advantage of the transfer to them by that foreign government and cumulatively we are wealthier.

If you see no benefit, you are correct to object to its subsidization. If the load cannot be spread over the beneficiaries, then prehaps something shouldn't get done. Yes it is quite clear and apparent to everyone except you that subisides exists. No, I am not complaining about ME subsidizing "someone else lifestyle". I complaining about a system which forces ANYONE to subsidize ANYONE else. I have no need to prove that I am not the recipient of largess any more than I have a need to prove that you ARE the recepient of largess to show you the holes in your argument. As I have said, I care little about your awarding me "credibility". And I'll keep the "cake hole" open and flowing if I so choose. As I have said you are free to ignore it, something you've promised to do in the past yet have been unable to deliver on.

Ok so perhaps my use of minors was the wrong word. I read your post, to object to the influenced that incest had around "kids" while growning up. My question is around adult individuals, say brother and brother who are in their thirties, and who have left home and are living separately. The objections you raise don't apply.

There are numerous agencies which will do a credit check for a nominal fee. Here's and example for Ontario: Complete Tenant Investigation You obtain proof of income in the same way a bank does. A salary stub, or letter from his employer on the employer letterhead from their HR. If in doubt, call the employer and ask to speak to that person to verify details. Yes, you could get former landlords which are shams, but generally a short conversation usually is enough to see if they are authentic. For example generally you should have asked the tenant the dates of his previous tenancies, the rent he paid, the address. Verify these details to ensure consistency of the story. If you are unsure of the references, move on to a tenant where you have better confidence in the references. As guyser pointed out, this is not likely to work.

Parents having sexual intercourse with their kids SHOULD be illegal for the reasons you state. Even if it we not illegal, there are enough cultural taboos around incest that I can't see that people would suddenly have an expectation that it was "OK" and that would cause akwardness. Agreed. That is why I think it makes more sense to cover all relationship restrictions between people in positions of authority and those in their care, in one law, A law which covers parent-child, doctor-patient, teacher-student, etc makes sense because it all encompasses the same principle. You should distinguish between it being legal and it not being a taboo. Regardless of if it is decriminalized, I suspect our human instincts which have evolved over many generations will always make it a taboo. Most of your post deals with incest where at least one of the participants is a minor child. It is understanable that consent cannot be given by minors, or would be invalid in circumstances where one holds a position of authority. But what about amutually consentual relationship between adult participants?

I'm going to guess that even though they aren't coming out and explictly saying it, it is their own religious and belief system which makes it immoral.

I'm not sure if this is true or not. I suspect it varies from judge to judge. If true, I would find it very troubling. A judge is supposed to uphold the law, and the principles enshrined within the law and make legal rulings. It should not waver based upon societal attitudes and acceptance. No doubt many judges are influenced by community opinions and being human cannot separate themselves from being influenced from the community even though it is their duty to do so. Many rulings which upheld civil rights were made by couragous judges who did so to uphold a principle, in the face of public opinion and acceptance. In the US, segregration, abortion, come to mind. In Canada, same-sex marriage. In many cases public acceptance followed judiciary rulings. And what of the slaves who payed the ultimate price until the majority decided it wasn't ok anymore? Demoracy only works as a system when the underlying individual and minority rights are protected despite any laws passed by the majority. It would seem like you are confusing being in the majority with being "right". That doesn't mean that a judge makes law. A judge interprets law and validates its legality against principles enshrined in documents which override any law. If a law doesn't conform to those principles, that law should be invalidated. A judge is accountable to the law and to the court heirarchy. That is how the system is structured to work. How else do you prevent the majority from bullying the minority ?

Wow, great logic. I did not say that getting free stuff makes one prosperous, I asked if it made on MORE prosperous than before they received it. Substitute "wealthy" for prosperous if it helps you understand what I am saying because clearly you do not. Since you seem to understand that only those who are prosperous can afford to give away free stuff, why are you so incapable of making the logical leap that when you give away free stuff you are giving away some your wealth? Credibility from who, you? I couldn't give a damn if you assign me any credibility. It is irrelevant if I am the most indispensible person in Canada or I'm some unemployed chump on the street. What matters is the argument I present and if that argument is logical, rational and supported by evidence. Your attempts to goad me into providing personal information, so that you can mount personal attacks are laughable. No my position is absolutely consistent. I think subsidies are foolish, regardless if it is the Canadian government that provides those subsidies or some other government does so. The only real difference is that the Canadian government does so with my forcible participation. While I think that foreign government subsidies are foolish, why would I discourage them from their folly? On the world stage, they are competitors and we should take advantage of thieir folly. Indeed you are quite right, that I am quite happy that foreign governments want to subsidize goods that we have available to purchase. Good for us, bad for them. That is not at all hypocrisy, and in fact it is the only rational position. You don't like the idea so much? Why not? According to you position, you should be overjoyed that the government is attempting (at least in your view) to prop the regional economny. I think you are only half-right. If you mean that I have a view centered on the individual, I would agree. I have a position which deplores subsidies, even those which would benefit myself, so it is not accurate to state that it is centered on "me". As far as what you think, I don't lose any sleep over what you think.

Not sure what you are asking. For a landlord the most effective way of checking out a tennant is to do a credit check, get proof of income, ask for personal references, and for previous landlord references. For tenants, it is to get information from current and previous tenants, and to actually observe the condtions of the property. This is not permitted in some provinces. For example in Ontario, No Pets clauses are not permitted, and if included can be ignored by the tenant even if he signs that agreement. You are not allowed to do so in Ontario. It would be great if landlords and tenants were free to negotiate their own agreements. Unfortunately government legislation inteferes in what terms can be set.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is the relevance of a family that "works 24 seven in the summer and 12 to 16 hours in the winter" to the topic of subsidies? Personally I'm all on board with a concept that says that we should not intefere with how others run their lives. Subsidies are a form of "interefernence" in people's lives.

The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and LimitsNow go prove why you think this is a myth.

I suppose you are right. The majority has decided it should be illegal simply because they say so, and they are the majority. IMV that is poor justification. Majorities decided that slavery was ok because they said so. I guess we have not evolved enough to a level of thinking that does not depend upon the emotional reaction of the majority to decide on the legality or illegality. It would be interesting to see a court challenge on this.