Renegade

I think I understand what you are saying, however my point remains that even in many countries with large wealth disparities, the richest members will do well, perhaps better than in countries with social equalization. Emotionally charged politics is indeed a problem. It is one reason why I'm simply reluctant to trust the will of the majority without constraints. If you look back to pre-war Germany, the Jews were villified, and the government at the time emotionally charged the populace to sanction acts which by objective judgement woudl be contemptable.

I guess it depend upon what your definition of a "tax" is. In many countries it IS taxed. No! Because the money you invest with originated from the money you earned yourself.

It is interesting how you interpret that fact. The US billionaire count seems disporportonate to other large economies, and most would agree that US as a larger disparity between rich and poor then other larger economies. If your original statement were accuate, you should expect Canada (having a smaller disparity between rich and poor) to have more per-capita billionaires than the US. But it doesn't.. Yes, they are stolen from, and Robin Hood is the hero. IMV, the resentment toward the rich is more driven by emotional responses of envy than true moral justification.

Read this as well from your own link:

I'm not sure what you mean by "money spent on the fruit of your labour". Investment income should be treated no differnt than employment income. Perhaps neither employment income nor investment income should be taxed. Curiously, gambling, (ie lotteries) in our system is not taxed.

Thank-you MH. I believe that people get hung up on associating taxation with theft because of the negative emotional connotation of the word theft, rather than a variation from the definition. I do agree that some transfer of wealth should occur between rich to poor, not because of a sence of obligation or entitlement, but because it makes rational sense for the rich to do so. The issue I have with taxation as it is now implmented, is it structured as a forcible seizure, and the govenment has virtually unlimited powers to forcibly seize income and property. "Tax the rich" seems to be a popular sentiment by those, just so long as the criteria of "rich" doesn't apply to themselves. I would question this statement. Most of the most wealthy I know of are in systems of great disparity. Previously Russia, now China and India are emerging nations of extremely high-wealth individuals. The converse of your statement (ie that in societies where there is little disparity betwween rich and poor should produce the greatest wealth for richest members), I can find no evidence of. Do you have any evidience to back your statement? What happens when there is no social shame for certain urges? If the sentiment that "All the rich are bad and so it is ok to steal from them" is prevelant, then unless there are other mechanisms, it easily reinforces rather than curtials base urges.

Yes it includes investments. Investment gains are either made using capital from previous investment gains, or for the direct payment for labour. In either case their where there is tracibility to the original labour I would consider them the "fruits of one's labour". Further investments may (or may not) be gambling. A cautious investor will spend some effort to assess where is is makeing an investment before committing funding. With investment there is always some element of risk, so there will be always some element of gambling. No matter, as long as the capital for the investment or gamble is not illicitly obtained (eg through fraud or theft) then I woudl say the fruits of the gamble are also the products of the original labour.

Prove that those abiliies have been conferred by society.

Ah that explains it. Your position is based upon self interest.

And hence I'm justfied in claiming tyranny of the majority! Thank you for acknowledging it.

I think we are going around and in circles. If you read the judgement you will see that it is only because they have intervened in that right by implmenting rationing that they then need to address it by one of a number of potential options. What you have finally come around to, and I agree with, is that the government is under no obligation to provide anyone healthcare under the Charter. Boy, have we taken this thread off track!

I didn't say that they were disadvantaged, however they are a minority also entitled to rights, unfortunately their rights aren't given the same consideration as rights of those minorities considered "disadvantaged"

Society has the ability to legislate for itself it it was a single being. It is not. It is composite and made up of individuals. One set of individuals don't have any moral authority to make up rules which give them dominion over the rest. Given that the courts have consider an interpretatoin of economic rights as being "of questionable legitimacy", my case is pretty safe.

Did you miss this part of your quote?: Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care

Yes, it is worse for me because I hold a minority opinion in a system where majority opinions are forced on the minority. Really, I don't dispute the need for governments to be funded. What I dispute is the unlimited power they have to raise funds through what in any other circumstances would be call theft. That the do it with the sanction of the majority, doesn't make it any less of theft, but now I'm repeating myself. Yes, I acknowledge that you are probably right in this respect. Why afterall would the majority want to agree to change a system in which they can enforce a tryranny over the minority?

yes, all it has to do is "nothing" in order to provide the conditions for the right to life. It is only when it inteferes by implemnting rationing systems does it intefere with the right to life. But you have not refuted the distinction, and all we have is your opinion.

your quotes do not help your position. "There are some who feel economic rights..." Sure, but what "some" feel is irrelevant unless they are on the SCC, and is not a ringing endorsement for your POV. "Canadian courts, however, have been hesitant in this area, stating that economic rights are political questions and adding that as positive rights, economic rights are of questionable legitimacy" How does this quote help your POV at all. In fact it seems to say that your view of positive rights is "of questionable legitimacy"

It is only "legalized" and "legitmate" because the organization commiting the theft calls it so. There is another remedy. The remedy is to limit the power of government of taxation and confiscation of wealth. Even by your own quote "Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care." the govenment doesn't need to provide health care in order to respect Charter guarantees to the right to life. IOW, they cannot take both a half-step to provde healthcare and at the same time restrict the right to get healthcare by alternative means. Also IOW, the govenment can respect the charter's "right to life" by providing NO HEALTHCARE AT ALL. This is distinctly contrary to your earlier statements.

You are wrong in your interpretation of SCC support for your posiiton. In Chaoulli v. Quebec the SCC ruled that in order to preserve the "right to life" the government simply had to permit alternative (private) care. It DID NOT mandate that the government had to provide that care itself.

Wow, I knew at some point this weak justification would come up, I never expected it so soon. I guess anyone who has their rights violated has consented to do so since they contiue to life here. Really, really, weak smallc. I know you can do better. Great, Let's start with that. Point me to the defintion on what a "right to life" in the Contitution which supports your interpretation.

The definition of theft is "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent". The only distinguishing feature between theft and taxation is the adjective "criminial". And what makes it "criminal"? All that is required is a government say-so to make it criminal or not. IOW, the government defines taxation not to be theft but designating it as not "criminal". In every other way it is analogous to theft. Your apology for the government-sanctioned theft doesn't make it any less of theft. Why? Because you say so? See my explaination above and feel free to refute it. Actually, I wasn't asking for a explaination you made up on what a "right to life" was. Pretty much anyone can make up their own "rights". What I was asking for is some justification of how this right is arrived at? Is there some universal consensus on this or is this a made-up right you have pulled out of thin air?

We have some. We don't have everything we should be entitled to. And while I accept that it is near impossible to remove, it is also near impossible to add. I'd like it fine if I was the majority because I'd get to bully the minority. I'd like it less if I'm the minority being bullied. If a robber steals only half your money is it still robbery since you still have some money? Renaming theft to call it taxation doesn't make it "perfectly legitimate". Neither does justfing theft on the basis that someone else needs it. BTW, where do you draw upon this definition of "right to life" as a one in which a person has a right to have other's provide him with support for his life?

Right the right of the miniorrity is protected by the whim of the majority. That is great assurance to the minority. Actually in a demoracy, a majority can get their way, not the majority of the time, but ALL of the time. The minority can get screwed 100% of the time. This is really the weak point of a democracy. Well there are a lot of minority rights we can discuss which need "fixing". In the context of what we are discussing, it is the right to income and right to wealth. None of these are protected by existing rules. The current rules will allow the government acting on behalf of the majority to confiscate income and wealth of the minority.

You seem to be agreeing to what I'm saying. The majority have the power of tyranny over the minority. Please tell me how the rules should change to prevent that?

What you mean is that you have missed the point. Both government and the Constitution are artifical constructs created by man and are imperfect. They have good intentions, but good intentions and bad implementation go hand in hand. Your contention is that all government policies represent "us". It is a presumptionus "us" because it only represents sufficient of "us" to allow the government to assume power. A blanket statement such as you have made that the government acts at our behest is naive at best. Again, do you have any issue with any government policy? Why should you, afterall according to you it is "our" will.