Renegade

Argus, I actualy agree with you. The key is that the basic, fundamentals need to be met. Even to meet those needs requires an obligation on which the parents must deliver. For example if a sole-support parent is on welfare, and cannot afford to provide even the basics of food, clothing, or shelter, then they are not in a position to deliver on those obligations.

Let me point out the difference between the way you interpret words and I do. You said "I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem" and you expect me to interpret that to be "Yes, I recognize there is a problem.". Unfortunately, semantics is important and "not questioning" is not the same as "acknowldeging". It is clear to me that because you jump to assumptions, you expect me to as well. Because, my dear bloodyminded, we are bracketing the problem. You refuse to actually address the issue because that would actually defeat your argument. Let me slowly explain the mathematical logic to you. At at level of $0 YOU agree that no problem exist. At the level I proposed, YOU claim that a problem exist. It is therefore a logical certainty that the level at which the problem appears (at least according to you) MUST BE BETWEEN THE TWO. It matters not that you refuse to define the specfic level. Anyone even putting aside what their feeling on the issue would rationally acknowledge that there is no other logical conclusion. Yes it is a common ploy when your own words are put to you, to claim, "oh you took it out of context". Well, my dear bloodyminded, all the words are there. You are free to quote the rest of the context and demonstrate how I so abused your quote by taking it out of context. Can you quote that unsubstantiated claim? I dont' believe that I made such a claim. I do believe it MAY decrease, but even if it does not, nothing about my argument changes. What I do believe will decrease is the number of kids belonging to unqualifed parents. I have already addressed the irrefutable logic of that the level of the finanical barrier must exist. I need not address any further. Hey you already came up with a "a wantonly useless and meaningless guess" (remember the glut of hundreds of thousands of babies), if you wanted a specfic number, you can easily make another guess. That you don't want to is fine with me. I have already proved what I need to. Not really. I've proved my point. Anyone reading this thread can see that, whether you do or not is irrlevant to me. Of course it is a legitimate question. It is far more legitimate question than the nonsense you raised about feasibilty. But why raise it now, after you declared that your ONLY objection was feasability of impementation? It is a common tactic when your arguments are exhausted to suddenly come up with another objection. It would be the right objection to raise, and you should have raised it first, and I woudl have addressed if first. At this point why bother addresssing it, until we have agreed that the current objection (feasabilty) has been addressed. Yes forget it.I'll be happy to address it if another poster brings it up. It is my view you are just bringing it up to be disingenuous.

There is quite a simple fix. As part of the federal-provincial HST agreement, the province should require that the job offer by the Federal government to the employee be conditional upon the employee waiving the severance clause. IOW, the employee gets to choose between a severance and a federal job.

Yes, I realize that. As long as a relative measure is used to measure poverty, you will always have poor people and poor kids. That is not the original point of the thread. I agree that a more realistic measurement of poverty would be an absolute measurement. However even if you use an absolute measurement, to define who is poor, my premise remains: Kids in poverty is a result of poor parents having kids. If we want less kids in poverty, we should discourage poor parents from having kids they cannot provide for.

Look I want to keep it civil, however you have accused me of inventing opinions in two separate posts now. I have even quoted where I have drawn the opinions from. You provide no response about why my conclusion of your opinion is wrong. In fact I have simply restated exactly what you have said WORD FOR WORD, yet you conclude that it is an invented opinion. If I have not interpreted your opinion correctly it is based upon my MISUNDERSTANDING of your position, and I offered you the opportunity to correct it. Your repeated accusation of calling it an invented opinion is nothing more than an insult and will be treated as such. If that is your conclusion it is nothing short of ridiculous. You have concluded that hundreds of thousands of parents would not be qualified as parents, EVEN when the threshold I have specified as the financial barrier is lowered to virtually nothing. Unless you have some evidence that hundreds of thousands of parents are drug users, incompetent, or underage, your conclusion is so unbelievable that it is not worth responding to as an objection. Sure it does. I have specified what I think is a suitable target. Im open to modification to what ever seems to be the right number. I have repeatedly said this. It is your issue that you dont wish to explore this. Actually you have already been pinned down to a number. You quoted a number which make zero sense . Do you remember saying this???("I do NOT think there is some level under your proposal where there will not be more babies than "suitable" parents.". IOW, you have said even at the zero dollar level, it would still result in hundreds of thousands of unsuitable parents. I have given you at least a couple of opportunities to peg a more realistic number, but since you refuse to do so, Im fine to use you last stated position, as it illustrates how truly ridiculous your position is. In you post you admit why you refuse to come up with a number. It not as per your original objection (ie that it would end up with a glut of babies), it is specifically because you are opposed to the concept. That you are opposed to the concept is obvious. That I have addressed your original objection, is also obvious. Actually Ive suggested a couple of levels, none of which you commented on. What would you like instead? I can start at $1 and increment it by $1 until we find the point you consider unreasonably high? Your position makes no sense. If I offer to lower the financial barrier to virtually nothing, how can it continue to be a barrier? Since you refuse to actually discuss the level of the barrier, your objection is irrelevant. Well, well, I somehow knew it would come to this. I gave you the opportunity to list your objection. You indicated that your ONLY objection was implementability of the system. I somehow had the feeling that once you were cornered in your position you would raise this objection. I feel no particular compunction to address objections such as this, because if you had originally raised this, then this would have been the focus of discussion rather than the details we have already gone through. IOW, it makes no sense to have gone through the discussion we have already gone through unless we were already past this objection. I will not waste my time addressing this objection except to say that a society is perfectly within its rights to hold parents to obligations toward their child. More children brought up in environments where parents can live up to their commitments. Still want to avoid answering a simple question eh? I guess you don't want to explicitly admit to a problem.

Huh? I have no idea on what your response means. Which "hundreds of thousands of children were not instantaneously homeless as a result of the change in policy"? Which policy? Your response makes no sense to me. I don't and there isn't an easy fix. What I'm proposing isn't necessarily easy. Huh? Which part don't you agree with? The part which I said: "You also agree that having enough for a day is a rarity" This was based upon your statement: or perhaps when I said this:"there a level you consider appropriate which is not going to generate "glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies"? Which was based upon this: Sorry I'm really not understanding your position. Where did the glut of homeless babies come from? Unplanned pregnancies? Do you believe that EVERY parent who has a child would not be qualifed under my licensing rules? If so what condition would disqualify them. In my response I assumed you meant under the "asset and income" rule. If something else, please clarify. Look, I'm not trying to invent your opinions. I am trying to understand your position you claim to articulate so clearly. Well, it isn't clear to me. Perhaps we can retain as a civilized dialogue if you didn't accuse me of inventing opinions and stuck to correcting misumderstandings. OK. Then let's backtrack. What under my proposal makes parents unsuitable if not the financial criteria? Yep. And I've suggested them. My responses were based upon the presumption that you thought the level was too high. You indicate above that there is NO level which would end up with more babies than "suitable" parents. If I read that right, even a parent is required to have $1 in their account, that woudl be too high a barrier and it would cause people to be disqualifed from parenthood. Am I understanding your position correctly? Yes it is your claim, IOW your opinion. Let me understand your question. First, there are approximately 377,000 births in Canada each year. Link so you are assuming that the majority of these births would be to unqualified parents, and want to know where they will be placed?? Is that your question? What claim? That families can adopt out? There are currently waiting list for babies for adoption. There are currently a significant number of interational adoption, pointing to local demand. That doesn't make hundreds of thousands of unsuitable parents each year. In fact the vast majority, under the rules I propose would be suitable, a small minority would not. An evasive answer if I've ever heard one. (ie "I won't answer your question becuse I'm not happy with yours") I see. So you agree that there is a problem in this area?

Pretty much every set of regulations we have today started as a "thought exercise". All it really ends up taking is one or more series of events which are preventable and catch enough public attention, in order to pressure legislators to turn "thought" to "action". I'm sure at one time any movment in the US to license firearms was simply a thought-experiment. With time and changing conditions, thought started to become action. More food for "thought" Moving Toward a License to Parent Should we need a license to be a parent? Should You Need a License to Parent? In case you think there is no support among the public, the last link did an online poll: Sure, a day might be extreme, but clearly there are significant number of people having kids they cannot afford and then asking the state for help to support them. If you allege that there are existing laws in place to deter this behaviour, then why are they not working. Protecting children after they have been brought into the situation is not enough. Some measure of prevention is necessary. Again, making the current situation more efficient doesn't do anything to prevent people from having children they cannot afford. It simply tries to remediate after the fact. You seem to have created an estimate (out of what, I have no idea) based upon my proposal of assets for 1 year. You also agree that having enough for a day is a rarity. So somewhere in between is there a level you consider appropriate which is not going to generate "glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies"? What is that level? Since you seem capable of doing an estimate of how much of a glut is created based upon requring a year's worth of assets, simply work backwards and estimate what level is required so that you have no glut and current adoption channels can handle placement. Parent who are not qualified parents have the option of aborting or if they are fundamentally opposed, adopting out. Again, I don't know where you got the "hundreds of thousands" number. If your number is based upon requiring a too-high level of assets and income. Great, let's reduce it, or require some proof of additional guarantees of support (eg parental support). You have not identified the level you are ok with. Fundamentally, I don't thank moms on welfare without other means of financial support ought to be having more kids.

Look, if the words "are comfortable" makes you uncomfortable, I'm happy to substitute "have not considered". A unplanned pregnancy has 8-9 months (give or take), from coneption to apply for a licence. If they think that they might keep the child, even in the first 3 months, they should apply. There is no issue if the pregnancy never comes to term. The necessitiy for a license should be sometime prior to birth. Application for a license doens't really affect the woman's privacy. We file our income, and expect the details to be kept private. We take blood test and expect the results to be kept private. I realize tht many babies are not born to married couples. That is why implementing any kind of controls during marriage licensing is an outdated concept. The doctor is under no obligation to report a pregnancy because up to that point nothing has been done to break the regulations. A license is required by the time birth comes around. A parent who doesn't get a license even though they qualify, should face some kind of penalty (eg a fine). Further the parents are taking a chance that a license may not be granted and they could face additional consequnce. This is stong motivation for them to get a licence prior. If you don't like the driver's license analogy, simiply look at any other licensing analogy. If there are significant penalties for qualified people to practice without a license, it is a strong motivation to get a license, and the vast, vast majority will. There are very few unlicensed doctors practicing pretending that they are licensed. The license should also be a prerequisite to further program enrollment. 17 is what I think a reasonable number is. I would accept that 16 could be or 18 could be, however I strongly doubt 14 year olds are old enough to accept the responsibilties of parenting. I'm not sure what issue you have with implementation. It is easily measurable. I define drug-use as illegal drug use. You may be correct that a child is better off with a conficted pot-user than a perception drug addict, but the issue is one is easily measurable and the other may be harder to measure. Your argument here is analogous to saying that a sleepy driver can be more dangourous than a slightly intoxicated one, and so we should not set a standard for intoxication. The state presumes someone is competent. They are only legally incompetent once someone petitions the court and has them declared incompentnt. (for example through mental disease). My suggestion is relatively benign, however it allows for the case of perhaps a mentally undeveloped indiviudal is set on having a child. Their guardian can petition the court to have them declared legally incompetent. No you still have a problem with this one. Without licensing you would not act to prevent a child being born. Even after birth what would you do? Take away the child before molestation occured? As I understnd the law now for known child molesters, in most cases they have to give notice if they intend to move to a new neighbourhood. Licencing is the quivalent for notification and permission for parenthood. It seems your problem is centered around the level of assets required. I'm ok to moving it to whatever is a reasonable level. If it is not 1 year, how much is it? 6 month? 3 months? 1 day? Clearly if potential parents only have assets to take care of a child for 1 day, they are not prepared to have a child, nor do they have support systems in place. You are guessing that the number of babies would outstrip canidtes for parenthood. My guess, is that we would have less babies.

Hey I'm always up for examining my actions and if an apology is due I'll give it. Let's look back at the first exchange that set you off on your little tirade: You said: And I responded: How is that a misreading of your statement? I even used the word "seem" to indicate that it was my interpretation of the consequences of your statement. It still is. It is neither an insult nor as far as I can tell, inaccurate. If in all circumstances you are unwilling to act proactively, as your statement indicated your position to be, the logical conclusion I made is correct.

Ok, so you agree that the rescrictions are reasonable, and as you put it "already on the books". What is not "already on the books" is the preemptive qualification (ie the parents must be qualifed to meet the conditions prior to allowing parenthood). You are "open to a cautious, conservative change" great. Your issue is that it is not implementable. How about this "cautious, conservative change": 1. In order to have a child a parent's are required to obtain a parrentig license. 2. A license is not given unless both parents are at least 17 3. A license is not given if the parents has a conviction for drug use unless they can prove they have been drug-free for at least a year. 4. A license is not given to anyone who is not legally competent. 5. A license is not given to a previously convicted child-molester or peadophile. 6. A license is not given unless the parent has sufficent income and assets to provide for a child for a year.

You're coming along. So you agree that it is reasonable for the state to intrude and you agree on at least some of the conditions are reasonable conditions. Nonsense. Perhaps you can give your theory or quote the source on why rules were enacted which were unnecessary. I see. First it was no restrictions, now you admit that there were a "handful of very common" restrictions. Good job, you're coming around. Can you please explain how you came up with the "million-fold increase" estimate? Since you haven't even adressed the specfic suggestions I've made, I'm curious as how you came to this estimate. Great. You finally got my point. --------------------------------------------------------- No. The were simple questions. It seems that on one hand you don't think marriage licences are necessary, yet you believe there are "two of the three rules in place". Unless you are holding contridictory positions, how can you have rules without implementing an enforcement system such as licensing? The reason I ask you explicit questions, is because you don't answer them, and you object when I infer your position. If you want to make it a snarky pissing contest, I'm more than happy to oblige. If you don't I will refrain as well. Your choice. BTW, in disputing Marriage Licensing, you haven't manage to respond to the post on restricting parenting. I provided suggestions, you did not respond. Please respond to this post #46

No the Church didn't simply sanction any two individuals who got married. Whether you agreed with them or not, they had standards. For example it would not sanction the marriage of close relatives, or same-sex indiviudals, or people who were already married. You presumption that "the church nodded its benign head" is quite wrong. Just time warp to the Middleages, and take your same-sex underaged lover to the local priest and ask that the bless your marriage. See what happens. That they wern't necessary is your opinion. You have agreed that it was accepted. That was my point. Enough people from society believed it was necessary and so implemnted such rules. I can certainly demolish your argument, what I am pointing out is that EVEN if we accept your premise, (which I don't) it still doen't make any sense. The state implements controls when necesary. If it was necessary back then to establish a age of consent to marriage, it woudl have done so. It did not do so becasue nature established a minimium age for a father so an explicit law was not requred. Today as we no longer require fathers to consent and the consent is delegated to the individuals participating in the marriage, we cannot count on nature to dictate an age of consent. --------------------------------------------------------- I'm still trying to figure out your position. What is it? Do you think that marriage licenses are necessary? Should anyone be able to get married without regard to ANY qualification?

Perhaps you should quote what you mean. What it says is that "For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families." And that may be true, but that doesn't preclude the fact that the contract was sactioned by the state of the church. "Marriage licence application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-1800s with many available dating from the 1600s in colonial America." Even if you hold that marriage licenses are a "recent" phenomena, for the last several hundred years they have been accepted in modern socitey. Well even if what you say is true, since in today's society the state DOES interevene in setting the standard on who can enter into a contract, what the state did (or in this case didn't do) in the past is virtually irrelevant.

Depends upon what you mean by "recent". Marriage Licenses have been issued since the Middle Ages. Before that the Church (which at the time had many of the elements of government) sanctioned marriages no later than 1215. Marriage licence The vast majority of our laws are "recent" by scales, so I woudl argue that state intervention in parenting has at least as long a history as many of our other interventionist policies. True, nor did I claim as such. The laws didn't prevent them from phyiscal harm from parental actions, but what it sought to do was preemptively prevent them from genetic harm due to parental inbreeding. Yes, traditionally the daughter was thought of as property of the father. If we agree at the time the state sanctioned this position, it was the father who had to agree to let his get married. The question of consent becomes was the father able to consent. Nature dictates that the father woudl be an adult of at least in his 20s. So even if we use age as the only criteria to determine that an individual can consent, the indivudal agreeing to marriage, was able to consent. Today, as the idea of a daughter being a father's property has been rejected, we still need to look at whether the person entering a marriage is capable of consent. Most state marriage laws have minimium ages for marriage. There was a historical correlatoin between marriage and parenthood. As this correlation weakens, their is no minimium age of consent for parenthood.

Ok then, it seems that is your only objection. Fine I have proposed some ideas before. I will repeat them here: Perhaps you can tell me which of those are not implementable and I'll be happy to withdraw them. Is it your contention that none of them are implementable as a standard. If you don't agree that they are measurable or implemntable, please tell me why. How about we save ourselves a whole lot of typing on arguing the rules of "fair" debate if we just stick to responding to points directly? Agreed? So your position is that the state pre-emptively remove a baby from a known child-molesting parent (even if there is no proof that they have molested this particular baby), using EXISTING rules specficing that child molesters stay away from children. Did I get that right? Really bloodyminded, a poster who demonstratably uses name-calling wants to define debate civility? Give me a break! Please tell me how. By taking away their kids?

I would like to address another issue. It seems based upon some of the conversations I've had that some posters believe that society categorically rejects the idea of controlling who becomes a parent. I would submit that society has no such aversion and actually historically has implemented such a mechanism, however historical mechanisms are ineffective today due to a changed environment. The historical mechanism I refer to is a Marriage License. There are likely a number of reasons for state sanction of marriage, however one of them is it sought to restrict who could marry and thus procreate. One example was to establish the couple didn't pass on gentic defects, and the they couple was capable of consent. The disconnect between such a mechansim and current society is that while in the past,extreme soceital pressure was excerted to force parents to also be married, today very little such presure exist. Thus today even the most unfit individual can become parents with the only minimal requirements being set by nature.

Look, I'm not trying to avoid going into details. In fact I'd be happy to have that discussion. I simply want to clarify where you stand. So as I understand, you objection to having in standard is that you don't believe it is implementable. Did I get that correct, or are there other objections I should be aware of? If there are others, let's get the on the table. If not, let's get into the details. I'm looking for you to take a position. It took a while but you finally did. Unfortunately you had to lose your temper before you did. If you are explicit about takeing positions, I will no longer have to interpret your position. It is great that you support such a rule, but there is no current mechanism to prevent them from having kids. Registering their place of residence doesn't prevent them from procreating. So what happens in the current system when they procreate? No, just trying to get a straight answer out of you. If you don't think I have anwered explicitly, all you need to do is ask a direct question. No, an implication is not the same as a direct answer. So your position is to use "surveillance methods already in place" to prevent known-child molesters from having kids? Actually I am not aware "surveillance methods already in place" watch a child-molester in his bedroom with his partner and somehow prevent them from becoming parents. Are you aware of such surveillance?

You did what? Agree that there should be a standard before people are allowed to be parents? Yes, I know you agree that parents should be held to a standard, AFTER they are parents, but that is not what I'm asking. Your two-word sentences, do very little to clarify your position. There is a wonderful irony when the poster who relishes in calling me such terms such as "mean-spirited little pussy", "thunderously ignorant knuckledraggers" starts giving lectures on what constitues civil discourse. Keep it up, it really adds amusement to my day. Great, but you haven't addressed the rest of the question. How do you propose to prevent it? I mean in situations where a known child-molester who has history of child-abuse to his or other kids, proposes to have more kids. Please explain. Hey, unlike me, you never asked me my position. Since you asked I will tell you. I am against allowing known child-molesters having access to additional kids including their own through procreation. I think I have already stated that, but I have no problem stating it again. I am fine with a policy which uses the power of the state to preemptively prevent such an indiviudal from becoming a parent again and thus having access to additional kids.

Pretty much the topic we are discussing here: Ontario budget to focus on child poverty

There are at least a couple I can think of. An individual should achieve a minimium age before becoming a parent. A parent is responsible from keeping a child safe from harm. A history of child negligence or violence could render a individual unfit to be a parent. Continued illegal drug use could render a individual unfit to be a parent. Not having mental competance to undertaing the role of parent. For example through a medical condition such as dementia. The issue of why population growth is requred is tied to how social programs are structured. They are structured as pay-as-you-go pyramid schemes which depends upon ever larger populations. Sooner or later, that is not sustainable because the population cannot grow indefinately. The real solution is to fix the social programs so that they don't depend upon population growth.

I'd be happy to debate what the details of the standard should be, by why even bother since you don't even agree that there should be a standard. If you agree that there should be a standard, then lets move to the next step of examining the details of the standard. Actually you did not. You simply took offense at my statement. That is not the same as correcting it. I have to hand it to you, you really do give me a chuckle. I've asked you to explicitly deny that your are ok with a policy that permits even child-molester to have children and potentially molest again. You refuse to deny it and talk around the issue. If it is not your position, all you need to say "No, that is not my position" and explain how you would prevent such an occurance. You inability to do, leads me to conclude that it IS your position. I thank you heartly for your invitation, and I may take you up on it, but whether I do or don't will reamain a private matter.

Actually I would suggest a prevenative approach. Eg Parenting should be licenced so that only qualified individuals should be given official sanction to be parents. If individucals undertake parenting without regard to licensing requirements, then they should be assessed, and if deemed incapable or unsuitable, yes they risk that the child woudl be immediately placed in adoption. No. I don't think even unfit parents should be forcibly sterilized. However in extreme cases, where an indivdual repeatedly trangresses and is never likely to ever become a suitable parent, then sterilization may be the only option. At at brutal level of enforcement, yes it does. Your question is somewhat like asking if we shoot all potential bad-drivers, would be have safer roads? The answer is yes, however it is a loaded question. I believe a system to qualify parents can enforce compliance can be implemented so that in the vast majority of cases doesn't need to rely on forced abortions. No I am not saying that the wealthy make better parents. In fact in some cases they may be worse parents. (For example the parents may be so busy with jobs that they really have no time to parent). I am suggesting that ONE of the obligations of parenting necessitates a finanical commitment and the wealthy by definition are able to fulfill this commitment, however there may be others they do not fulfill. No I don't propose free fertility nor do I propose giving any additional funding to "qualifed" parents. I am not suggesting that the government intervene to encourage population growth. The economic barriers the government imposes aren't a deterrent to the rich. They are a deterrent to the middle class who except for government interference would be able to fulfill their parental obligations. The type of interference I am referring to is for example, the government imposes rules which makes it difficult and expensive for a middle class family to hire a foreign nanny or child-care worker. In many countries middle-class families rely on easy and cheap access to these domestic workers to help deliver on the obligations of parenting. The government has introduced barriers which make this option only available to the wealthy. No. You seem to assume I am out to encourage wealthy people to have kids. I am not and nor should the government. It should be up to individuals to decide of their own free will whether or not they will assume the obligations of parenthood. However, if they do, they should be held to those obligations. Hopefully I've helped answer. If not, please ask.

The intent of putting rational rules in place is to extricate emotion from decisions such as parenting. I don't propose rules based upon emotion, I propose that we debate the rules for what constitutes the responsibilites of a parent supported by hard evidence. You say my idea is "emotional argument at it's core". Which part? What emotion? I have no idea what you mean. I hold my argument to the same standard as yours. So if you believe my ideas are driven by emotion. I'm all for exploring it, but I don't see it. At least part of what you said I agree with (ie child molestation crosses all socio-economic boundaries). I already know that the state scrutinizes child molesters. My example was if there is an individual who had a history of molesting children (including his own), should the state prevent him from having more? This has got nothing to do with wealth or socio-economic boundries. It can be a wealthy child molester just as easily as a poor one. I didn't imply that you are ok with child molestating, I implied that you are ok with known child-molesters becoming parents and thus being given additional opportunity to molest again. If this is not an accurate reflection of your position, please feel free to correct me. Show me that it is not rational. It is predicated on two premises. That first premise is that parents knowingly take on an obligation to their children and should be held accountable by the state to fulfill this obligation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to agree with this. The second premise is that it is justified for the state if there is reasonable cause that the obligations will not be met, to intervene in allowing the individual to undertake those obligations. All of my ideas are rational outcomes of these premises. If you believe otherwise show it. To date, all you have demonstrated are your emotional responses ("you're disgusted", "repugnant to you"). You seem to claim emotionalism in my responses, I challenge you to point it out.

True, but the part that concerns me is what the constitution fails to address. MH, I am complete supportive of the idea of objective measurement of government. IMV it would have to be against goals the government itself sets. For esample if the goal is to reduce poverty, then a cross-political group can likely come up with measures of the extent to which the government is achieving this goal. It is much harder however to agree on whether the goal is "good" or "bad", as a cross-political group will have differing ideologies on the role of government and consequently what its goals should be. it

Not at all. If you earn money through employment and spend the money on a car, the car is yours, in the same way the wages of your labour are yours. IOW, the act of exchanging the direct wages paid for your labour for another article of value, doesn't change the notiion that you possess it.