Renegade

As I've said before, I dont' think you should have to pay 10 million for social services to Toronto or any other city, and if you use less services you should pay less, however for the services you do use you should pay the true cost of providing those services.

Of course, but that is not about the proper allocation of infrastructure cost, but rather more a statement on if we had or didn't have socialized medicine which is a whole different issue.

I disagree. If it cost many thousands of dollars to put in Telephone poles, cables, etc than the homeowner should either bear the cost, or decide it is not econmically viable to live there. Tell me, if I decide to put up a house in the desert, are you going to pay to run my phone, cable, and other infastructure? Absolutely, and getting more possible everyday. With technology we will be able to track everything from which roads a person drives on to how much electricy they are consuming and collect that information in a cost efficient manner. That same situation exists now on the commercial side. Business have to pay for garbage disposal based upon the disposal bins they use. They do so, because the risk of disposing it another way would be a hefty fine. There are many behaviours people could do, but don't because there is a threat of punitative action. I don't really follow what you point is. If your Rogers cable line breaks, who pays? Obviously it is Rogers because they own the infrastructure and pass on the cost through monthly usage. If the location you reside is prone to higher infrastucture costs, (for example the water line is constantly beaking), I suppose the company providing the service would charge you more for the product you are consuming. Yes I can too. It is because people would rather others bear cost that they themselves have incurred.

Agreed.Sort of. While there are generalizations which can be made about a culture, there are many individuals who claim to be part of that culture, and individual characteristics vary greatly even within that culture. What applies in general cannot be assumed to apply in specfic instances. No, because as M Hardner has pointed out "good" and "bad" are subjective attributes. No. Because unless that "bad" behaviour is infringing on someone's rights society should not be encouraging or discouraging people's behaviour.

Basic services are more efficiently provided where there is a greater concentration of people. And while you are right that the savings are small, it is the principle I'm referring to not the actual amounts. You are refering to a different price and service level discrimmination that I am. You are talking about a rural governmental discrimminating within a rural community. IMO both types of price discrimmination can be eliminated by moving to a pay-for-services model, however the entrenched beneficaries of the current model will resist any change which forces them to pay for the true cost of th services they consume.

If it was just me neediing a bridge then I doubt one would ever be built even if I was dyng. However if sufficient people needed the bridge for ambulance services, that cost would be passed on to the ambulance service and then on to me. Why would you believe no abmulance services would exist? By your logic no lawyers woudl exist either, but yet they do\. Afterall I don't pay for the set-up cost to create legal services until I actually use them.

Let's assume that a city needs a transit system to operate. The cost should be borne by the direct users of the system. Any other secondary beneficiaries of the system will pay by getting passed on the costs incurred by the direct users. For example, let's say transit cost $5/ride to reflect its true cost. That increased cost is passed on to businesses who employ workers who use the transit through higher wages. In turn the business pass on those costs to consumers of that product. I'm not sure what I said that gave you that impression but it is incorrect. I believe I should pay for the infrastructure I use regardless of if I use it ocassionally or constantly. The amount I pay should be proportonate to my use of it. If there are sufficient of us which have a demand for that infrastructre, there is economic justification for investing in the cost of that infrastructure, and it should be paid back by the users of that infrastructure. If there is insufficient demand, the infrastructure should not be built. Sure, and I would indirectly incur those cost. I may indirectly benefit from a trucker using roads, which I don't directly use, however if the cost of those roads is passed on to the trucker, he will pass it on to me through the cost of the product.

Actually in the case of services this is not true. All that is require is the government or its affiiated agencies not intefere in setting the cost of these services so that they can be set at market levels.

I don't think I ever disputed that we need the products rural communities produced. That need should be reflected in the cost of the product. That way the production cost is fairly allocated to the consumers of the product. If I consume more eggs, I should pay more toward the cost of the rural community which produces eggs. Subsidizing their telephone services makes no sense. I make no such asumption. My remarks was directed as the kinds of specific services such as telephone and mail. I'm sure there are others such as rail service. The evidence that these services are subsidized is that the government must regulate the prices and service levels for those services and so they are set at an artificial level. This is evidence that those services are subsidized. Hmm, cell phone and internet infrastructure seem to have been built based upon consumer need. Funny that. You seem to conclude that I want a subsidized transit system. I do not. Let us assume for a minute that you are right that a transit system would not get built if it were not for government intervention. Why not recover the cost of that building from user fees of that transit system? If the users aren't willing to pay for it, why should anyone else be expected to? Many toll bridges are funded in this manner. I have no idea how much better or worse the country is because of massive government investments in infrastructure. (BTW, isn't it that same government who invested in airport infrastructure in Montreal named Mirabel?). In any case, if Alberta's energy resources, and Sask wheat farmers are better off because of the railway, they should bear those costs. Doesn't really matter to me how much support I get. I didn't indicate I was on one side of the issue or the other. Simply that it was a good question worthy of further examination and I didn't presume an answer.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. 3 for 3. Wrong again. You can apply that logic to pretty much any fiscal issue whatsoever. In that case, why discuss any fiscal matters at all? Remind me again, why you bother to post in the Federal Politics section at all.

IMV, the rights of the individual should never be oughtweighted except is extreme cases. In any case, you have not shown in any of your examples that what the "good of society" is. Sure. And what of it? Libertarianism only make sense if its principles are followed consistantily. I guess that makes it "extreme", huh? Good question. Maybe we shouldn't.

]Of course I and other urban dwellers will pay anyway. If the cost is embedded in the price of the product, the cost is ultimately borne by whomever consumes the product most. Further, the more I consume of the product the more I bear the cost. This is ultimately fairer then a backdoor subsidy based upon the assumption that I might use the product. Again, I agree. If I want to go somewhere I should have to pay for the cost of the infrastructure. If I don't, I shouldn't. You seem to have missed the part of my response above which acknowledges that we need the products produced by rural communities. Why do you seem to think I want to wall off urban and rural communities? On the contrary, there should be free trade between communities as each will benefit. What I question is why there should be a subsidy instead if it being embedded in the cost of whatever is produced. IMO pretty well, but I have no proof of that. Do you have proof otherwise? The infrastucture would be built anyway where it made economic sense to do so. Without subsidies rural communities would be paying higher postage and transit users would be paying higher fares. So what, let them. Perhaps I will, and of course I should pay for the priviledge to do so.

They shouldn't. The only reason I can think of is that it may be more cost effective for them to do so than to spend the money on additional police and security services they would need if they didn't provide such a subsidy. You shouldn't. I'm not saying it is the lone case. I'm saying it is ONE case. I AGREE with you that there are other cases. Virually all cases are unjustified. The fact your response seem to agree with me that this subsidization is "offensive", however you seem to justify it only because there is other discrimmination.

You are simply avoiding the point I am making. I am not saying we don't need rural communities. What I am asking is why those communities need services subsidies in order to produce the things (such as food) which are essential. Why doesn't the incentive to produce those, come simply from the price of those goods? I agree, they shouldn't. Thanks.

Yes, of course I am, just as rural dwellers who find a service expensive are free to move to a city, but that is hardly a justification of an injustice. Maybe you can try and address why that discirmmination should exist.

Sure, and I fully expect to pay the producer the cost of providing those products. If it is economical to produce those products in a rural community, someone will. Why does it take a subsidy of services as an enconomic incentive to do so?

You seem to be making an argument that the cost for providing some services such as mail are the same in rural areas as for urban areas. Would you agree, that IF the cost can be shown to be different and the cost to provide rural service is held artifically low, then such a situation should not be justified? If the cost to produce grain is higher because of rural land prices, why not simply pass on those cost to the consumer? Why does a rural community need subsidized services to produce grain? You are introducing regional issues where there are none. The same rural-urban split applies equally within a province and to all provinces.

You don't address the issue of why for example if it cost Canada post 25 cents to deliver a letter in the city and 75 cents to deliver it in a rural area, should they charge everyone 52 cents for a stamp? Compare those prices to GTA or Vancouver or any large city and you will understand that the demand for land is less in rural areas.

You may not, but I do. Why should an urban dweller care if a rural dweller has telephone service as cheap as the city? You may complain that cottage owners are taxed beyond the services they use, however they must feel strongly enough that their cottage is worth it or else they would not own the cottage. Alternatively they can mobilize and if there are sufficient numbers advocate for a user-pay system. Why does it matter if they dissappear? What benefit does its existance hold to the urban dweller? Any urban area is not uniform. There are rich and there are poor. Same with rural areas. You may not be bothered that a rich urbanite subsidizes a poor rural person's phone service, but should what about a poor urbanite subsidizing the telephone services of a rich rural recreation property? So? Is the service subsidy going to make the cheap labour any cheaper? or the wood any cheaper? What exactly does them being "fine people" have to do with a reason for a subsidy?

For years, for several consumer services, urban consumers have subsidized rural consumers. In most cases the cost of these services are cheaper to provide to urban consumers than to rural consumers, however urban consumers have been forced to subsidize the cost of providing those services to rural consumers. Some examples include local telephone services, and Canada Post mail delivery. Increasingly there is discussion of the digital divide and the argument that high-speed internet service should fall into this category. A couple of points: 1. Rural consumers choose to live or to stay where they do, should their choice not reflect the true cost of providing those services? 2. There is less demand for rural land, and this is reflected in the costs. The cost of living, especially housing is substantially lower in rural areas. This more than offsets the cost of these services. Rural dwellers are not expected to subsidize the housing cost of urban dwellers so why should urban dwellers subsidize the cost of services to rural dwellers? 3. Subsidizing rural consumers provides them unnatural incentive to live where it is least efficient to provide those services. Why ecourage such inefficiency?\\\ Thoughts? Is there some benefit urban consumers get for subsidizing rural consumers that I am not aware of? If not why should we continue these subsidies.

"fair" by who's standard of fairness? Income-splitting doesn't do that. If you want to do that, you should advocate taxing family income instead of income splitting. What is the difference? If you taxed family income, famlies with a single adult would also benefit from the reduced tax on aggregated income. Yes I agree, the government should at least be consiistant.

That's true, however what is the contract of sale if I happen to hear the song played and sing it to myself. In this case I have not make a specific contractual arrangement with the creator of the song. Sorry August but I disagree. If you look at how society percieves and punishes trangresssions, you will see that at least part of the severity of the punishment is based upon the impact on the victim. If the victim is not deprived of use of the property in question, there is far less impact than a physical property theft. Personally I feel the word "property" has been misappropriated to apply to ideas and invention. No doubt those should be protected but they should be considered different than property. BTW, ideas and inventions (at least in the context we are discussing) are not sold as property. They are licensed for use. Use without compensation is not so much "theft" as it is a license violation. Thanks August. I was concerned that I was one of very few who shared my viewpoint. Certainly it benefits everyone, both idea creator and idea consumer, that copyright protection exist. It would be a much more productive discussion if the discussion focused on how to ensure adequate compensation of idea creators in the face of technology advancements which remove barriers to use of ideas.

Actually if I understand how AA works, it does nothing to look at their "backgrounds", it simply looks at their race, gender, or other categorization. It doesn't matter if someone has been raised in a priviledged background so long as he/she is in the right category. So a rich black young woman is entitled to a AA position where a poor white young man is not. Isn't that the way it works?

What exactly "belongs" to the artist? Only rarely is a work completely original. It is generally built upon generations of predecessors who have created ideas, riffs, musical ways of expression, and other inventions. If the artist was "inspired" by those before him, is he not also "stealing"? If you hum the latest Justin Timberlake song on your way to work, are you also stealing? Why not? There is a difference. One deprives the original owner of the use of the item, the other does not. It is easy to define "property" when it is something tangible, it is less clear that ideas are "property" in the same sense. Exactly! The sole purpose of copyright legislation is to give inventors sufficient incentive to continue to invent. The purpose is not to protect property in the same way as other physical property is protected. Afterall, why do we expire copyrights and eventually move ideas into the public domain, something we don't do for physical property? The essential question to determine if we need better protection of copyright, is "Is the incentive enough to continue to produce invention?". Personally I don't see much evidence that more incentive is needed, but given sufficient evidence I could be convinced otherwise.

Despite what the goal of Affirmative Action, the PRACTICE of Affirmative Action is to treat everyone UNEQUALLY because of their backgrounds.