Renegade

tfb, this is exactly my point. I don't know for certain whether criminal penalties are more effective than civil ones, but irregardless, IMV, violating someone's copyright is not an act that should be consided a criminal offense, despite what the music industry thinks. I'm fine with the fact that the copyright holders have the ability to sue, and even that public resources are used to enforce judgements. IMV, The ablity to redress for damages is sufficient protection for the copyright holder.

Excellent. You have finally started to address the estimate. True, but many people don't work for 40 years. Some retire early. Some never enter the workforce at all. So if you can cite a better number than 30 years as an average, I'll use that. Not true. I assume that an average individual pays 25% of his income in taxes. This is all taxes not just income taxes. If you have a better average tax rate to cite, I'm happy to use that. All valid criticisims except I wouldn't count corporate taxes and resource revenues as worker contributions. I look forward to you correcting the estimate and including the factors you have indicated have been missed in the estimate. Let's see what you can calculate the new estimate to be.

TFB, if we accept the presumption that criminal penalties are more effective, why not have every statue covered under criminal law instead of civil law? Why have civil law at all?

Software companies are moving towards online databases with activation keys. Some games will not run without internet connections that are used to verify the license key. This trend will continue in the future as the cost of managing these online databases drops. I don't particularily like it when my computer software 'phones home' but I don't have many choices in some cases. IOW - it is a mistake to say that software companies have abandoned copy protection - they have simply moved on to different types of protections which are much harder to circumvent. No I did not mean to suggest that they have completely abandoned all copy protection. They have abandoned the restrictive copy protection mechanisms they used in the past. It is all a question of degree of determining what are reasonable means to protect their right to be compensated for their work. IMV, activation keys are reasonable and acceptable. Rootkits, copy-protection which prevents consumers from making legitimate backups, and throwing people in jail are not.

If you don't dispute the facts I put forward, what do you dispute? I get that you don't like my proposal. That's fine. I don't care much one way or another. But the facts I put forward are sound and correct. Think that if you like, but I think you don't know me very well or even at all. You volunteered the statement, but then refused to back up your claim. Without further evidence, you statement is nothing more than hot air. If you want to make a statement have the courage to defend it. I'm prepared to defend any statement I made. IMV you are a naive in your expectations. Programs can be unilaterally cut and changed. Witness the EI program. Some people paid for years without collecting. Changes were made in the 90s which made eligibility much harder. When it was time to claim, the tightened rules meant some who were previously eligible were denied benefits despite having paid their whole working lives.

Who are those people and if they are paying less, who is paying the rest? Most health care funding comes out of general revenue, either from provincial taxes or from federal transfers. In some provinces people pay monthly premiums and some they don't. You have no facts, only a dogma, assumptions and opinions. I've already answered this question. Young workers now make up the difference, and they do so simply because they are much larger in number than those who consume the most (ie those over 65). The health care system would collapse (something you concede you are worried about) if there was not an ever increasing contributing base. Ironic, that you accuse me of having no facts. You haven't proven any number of conclusion you've jumped to. I'm still waiting for how you've arrived at your half-million estimate of what you've contribued in income taxes to healthcare.

I'm trying to find a file for this article that show civil law has been shown to be effective for property rights only in countries that have been former colonies. The rest have often required criminal law to do the same thing. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g75411004568h54h/ I am interested in the article if you can find it. It is interesting to understand why the difference between former colonies and others.

Excellent. What does it tell you? More likey to obey a civil statue than what? Not obey it? Actually you've make the following claim first: so can you please show me your cite first.

This kind of goes back to the thread we talked about when I said people would opt for free whenever they could. I did not dispute that given identical products, one with cost and one without, that people will chose the one without. What I said is with most of the content being copied, the content being obtained from the internet is not identical to one provided by a licensed provider. Even if the actual content is the same, brand, convenience, support, and reliability are all differentiating factors.

I'll respond in that thread.

No they would buy it because it wasn't worth their time to photocopy and they value the end product more than the photocopies. Yes, and some ignore civil statutes, most don't.

Actually no, you in fact provided the link which showed that people consume more as they age. That's not my opinion, that is supported by the facts you provided. When something is my opinion, I have clearly identified it as such. I have made a statement that people pay less into healthcare than they consume, and shown you the calculation by which I came to that conclusion. I have challenged you to dispute any of the underlying facts or assumptions which lead to that consclusion. You have declined to do so. My personal circumstance is irrelevant. You have this slightly wrong. It is "wrong" that others are a burden on the system. It is equally "wrong" that I am a burden on the system. However, I have no problem taking full advantage of being a burden if the system lets me do so.

Hmm. it sounds like you are saying that you can't disprove my position unless you can mount a personal attack on my motivations. Funny, I haven't relied on your personal position to show the flaws in your position, I've only relied on the statements and facts and assumptions you've provided. I can see that you assume what makes sense to you. I can also see that you do it without facts.

Only if all other things are equal, in most cases they are not. No one I know would go through the trouble of photocopying an entier book, even if it was free to do so, simply because the effort is not worth their time. IOW, the content provider provides additional value by providing the content in a form which is valuable to the consumer. Who are you talking about? Consuming drugs is a crime yet many igonore the criminal statute.

Yes, really. And by that statement you asume what? That I'm a boomer or not? That I've benefited or not? I'm not sure who the "we" you speak for. Certainly the assumptions I make are the ones I'm prepared to defend. You have been unable to answer what your assumptions have been supported by.

How do personal attributes demonstrate whether or now I'm "prepared to live with its consequences"? For the record, I am willing to live with the consequences of my position, though I have no way to demonstrate that to you.

Credibility comes from the supporting reasoning and facts behind my arguments and position. Feel free to attack them if you wish. As CA has pointed out, my personal attributes are irrelevant, as are yours. Feel free to assume what you like, as it seems that you freely jump to conclusions that suit you without supporting data.

You say you might be a boomer, you might have contributed, you might have benifited. Well, which is it? No, I didn't say I might be a boomer. I asked how you knew I wasnt since you seemed to jump to those conclusions. Same with the other questions. Is is somehow crucial to making a case for your position to know my personal attributes? If not why is it relevant? I have no intention of disclosing personal attributes on an intenet forum. I fail to see how that is dishonest. Have I somehow lied about it? None of my arguments have depended upon my personal attributes, so I keep them private.

That's correct. I not suggesting what I propose will provide universal care. I intend to freeload off the system, just like the rest of the aging population until enough taxpayers get fed up an put stop to it. ok. Are you suggesting I or someone else has been dishonest? If so how? Put up what? The "we" you refer to, was the government 40 years ago. That is vastly different than the population today, so I don't think you can cliam that "we" decided anything. Further, policies and opinions change as evidenced by the changes to many programs like the CPP and EI. I think you are right about one thing though, I'm in the small minority. That's ok, though. I've not minded being in the minority before.

Yes, as I said. it is MY estimate, so the link is to my post. Go ahead and challenge any one of the assumptions I used to come up with the estimate, or go ahead and challenge the math. Just because I provided it doesn't mean it is wrong. True you provided a link, but it didn't prove anything you claimed. It simply proved tha old people consume more health care, something I always agreed with. I'd propose a system of risk-based premiums with the addition of health-care savings accounts. You seem to know a lot about me. How do you know I havent been supporting the system for 30 years. How do you know I'm not a boomer? Hmm, a lot of assumptions thrown in here. How do you know I've benifited, and to what extent? Maybe I have, maybe I haven't. Your own stats show that as people age they are a burden. I've challenged you to show that the system that they supported for "all those years" will equal the burden they put on it. You have yet to show any evidence of that.

Yes, by my estimate. I have yet to throw one fact into the discussion, but will provide the basis of my estimate now: link Exactly. The only reason the system has worked so far is by either incurring deficits as was done in the 70s and 80s or by growing the contribution base in a pyramid scheme. If the contibution base stopped growing the system as it is now, would collapse. This is exactly what some people are worried about when boomers retire. Ok some contributed more, so what? It still doesn't support your contention that somehow the contributions made over "50 years" justify the burden they will impose through their lives.

That's an interesting estimate. How did you arrive at it?

Check the link. I did. It shows that people consume a lot as they age. OK I agree with that, but it doesn't show that the obese or smokers consume similar amounts as the rest of the population. Afterall, many obese get old and still consume substantial healthcare costs.

Do you know how much they paid? Do you know how much cost they imposed on the system? The system hasn't even been around for 50 years. By my estimate people, even contributing their entire working lives, contribte far less then the cost they impose on the system.

Unfortunately I can't accept a a "truth" evidience which cannot be challenged. I don't think it is a given that everyone at some point puts a substantial burden on the system. Many do, some don't. I disagree. I think there will be a wide variation in cost incurred within the population. People with severe, chronic but not-life threatening aliments will impose a heavy cost on the system. Healthy individuals who die young from accidents will not. If people age and then impose heavy costs on the system, why should they too not be required to pay higher premiums than those who impose low costs on he system?