Renegade

I'm not sure what you are furious at. Are you furious that the people of Canada pays you a GIS, because that is the primary source of your clawback. You can always refuse the GIS and seniors benefits and keep your RRSP in its entirety. Is it unreasonable to ask that when a government provides a welfare benefit such as GIS, that when the recepient earns income, they shoudl pay back some or all of that benefit? Personally I don't think so. Yes I understand that it creates a situation, that disincents people to earn income, so I accept the argument that perhaps the clawback rate is too steep. However, when a person accepts a handout, they shoud realize that that handout is at the discretion of the payor and the rules can change at any time. BTW, there is an easy way out of your situation. Simply cash out your RRSP. Sure, you will take a one-time tax and claw-back hit in the year you cash out, but all subsequent years you will no longer be impacted by RRSP income.

Figleaf, it would seem that that your mind was made up well before you ever posted the question. If you look at other political philosophies you will see that they too do not provide specific guidance on what or what government shoudl undertake, they simply provide a mindset from which those decisions are made. BTW, what philosophy do you ascribe to that does provide this coherence you seek?

Why is that a moral issue and not a pragmatic one? Why? How do you decide what versions of tax are wrong and which are right? most governments would disagree with you. By "live off the land" do you mean not use government provided infrastructure or more than that?

Exactly my point. I didnt' agree to territorial sovereignty. The government unlaterally asserted territorial sovereignty. I don't know specificly. You used the general word "society". So I speak of societies in general. Exactly. Non-territorial societies let me freely leave so I can reasonably be asserted that when I am part ot that society I have "accepted" their rules. Territorial societies which do not let me freely conceptually leave without physically leaving cannot make that same resonable assertion. See my response above. I don't judge it solely from a Canadian point of view, I look at it from an objective point of view. From an objective point of view, the existance of barriers, if high enough, preclude me from being free. You can't 'force' a contract on someone. Blacks in South Africa opposed, repudiated, and disproved the asserted-but-false social contract of the Aparthied regime. Apartheid, existed for decades before it was thrown out. So did blacks willingly accept it for 50 years? If the blacks opposed it and repudiate it, how did they do so? If they protested is that sufficient to show that didn't accept the social contract? If I protest is that sufficient to show that I don't accept the Canadian social contrat? No, its not the issue at all. I couldn't give a damn whether another party improves my choices. What I assert is you can't call it "acceptance" then. Do you agree then if an action is practically impossible to achieve it is not reasonable to characterize the lack of acthievement of that action as a choice?

This is exactly why I think you cannot describe an anarchist society as a free society. In such a society the overwhelming majority of people will be trapped by their economic means and will have little ability to change the circumstances that life imposes on them. So this is not really a choice between freedom or unfreedom. It is really a question of balancing freedoms vs. social constraints in a way that maximizes freedom for the largest number of people. The system we have now does that. The anarchist system would simply give maximum freedom to the economic elite and deny to everyone else. RW, you seem to be arguing both sides. Earlier you said: If you characterize people as "free to leave" in our society, then they are just as "free to leave" in an anarchist society. The people who in an anarchist society are "trapped by their economic means" are free to leave to the same extent. So would you deem those poor people who actually stayed in an anarchist society, as having agreed to the rules, simply because they stayed and didnt leave?

My original response was that society doesn't have to be restricted by territory of residence. (A point you seem to agree with). Since you can't infer my point, I will directly state it. Governments have put huge barriers around any of our abilities to choose which society we form a social contract with. Most of the obligations in the social contract are to societies which define themselves by geographic boundries (aka countries). If I want to form a different social contract with another society which is not defined geographically, (say the Catholic church), the Canadian governemnent will not "release" me from my social contract, if I continue to reside in Canada. This requirement for residency precludes a free choice of which society to belong to. Uh no. This is the first time you have even mentioned "free western countries". Go back and check. I'd love to here more about how you think this is possible. Let's take Canada as an example. Let's say I do not agree with the social contract imposed by Canada. Please tell me how do I conceptually "leave" without physically departing. By "leaving" I mean no longer having any obligations nor benefits imposed by the social contract and no longer considered part of the Canadian community. By "leave" I'm going to assume you mean leave Canadian society but not necessarily physically depart. And what I'm saying is that for you to assert acceptance of the social contract, you need more preconditions to be met than just Canada letting you leave. Those preconditions to assume acceptance should be that there are other societies avaiable to you, and it is relatively easy to transition to those societies. Blacks in South Africa were free to leave during the time of apartheid. For the ones that didn't leave (the vast majority), do you conclude that they accepted a social contract that made them subservient to their white masters? I don't. I conclude that a contract was forced upon them in a situation where they had very little choice. I'm not sure if you really being obstinate or you really believe that. The choice to buy or not , where there is the lack of alternatives is a choice to die or not die. No one else would consider that a choice, and it woudl seem ludricous that you do. An armed robber puts a gun to your head and says "your money or your life", so you give him your money. When he is caught, he argues in court that you "accepted" to give him the money, because aferall you had a choice, so it wasnt' robbery at all. That justifcation would seem analogous to yours. Certainly not. For years it appeared to be impossible to scale Mt. Everest. But it was not prohibited. Then someone did it, and no-one stopped them, or punished them. Difficulties are inherent factors, prohibitions are deliberately applied by external agencies. Wow. I've concluded that you really are just being obstinate. Perhaps probibition is not an appropriate word. Let me try and rephrase: "Do you agree that when the difficulties in completing an action are onerous enough, you can reasonably call the action practically impossible to achieve?"

Good. So, are there are there any available societies that you are aware of which I can join and form a social contract with (in lieu of Canadian society), but yet not have to change my place of residency? No I haven't ignored your comment. You comment was precluded upon residence ("any society in whcih you reside...") so I question why. Apparently now you concede that residency is not a criteria. Apparently then, we are discussing different issues. I don't remember saying that Canada was unfree. I'm not even saying that's an issue. The issue I'm discussing is your contention that we choose our society, and so we choose the social contract. Am I misinterpreting your statement? What I am contending is that it isn't choosing if there aren't available choices or that the barrier to effecting the choice is high. No, I have said nothing about liking or disliking the available choices. You seem to have inferred that. What I contend is that I can't practically make a choice at all. If I go to the store in the middle of the desert to buy food, and the only food they have is figs, and no other stores are reachable, then there is a pretense of choice, but no real choice exists. Clearly you don't see the issue that very little if any choice exists, so you are unable to grasp how the example addresses the issue. You avoided answering my question. Do you agree that at some point when the difficulties are onerous enough it is in effect a prohibition? By your reasoning, someone in slavery actually has the choice to be free, he just has to overcome the "difficulties" of escaping his bonds of slavery, and take the risks of being shot as he tries to escape. I don't think I brought up Canada once. I didn't say Canada wasn't free. (If I did, show me where.). Understand my message because you are misinterpreting it. If you either don't have available choices or the the barrier to making the choice is high then in effect you cannot be said to "choose".

Why do you impose the constraint that I must "reside" in a society? Is geographic boundary and separation the only way to distinguish a society? For example, if I am Roman Catholic, I belong to that society and it is irrelevant where I actually reside. I accept their rule, and responsiblities and in essence I choose to be part of that society. Residency is not a requirement. My objection appears perfectly reasonable to me, based upon your theory that I choose my society. My objection is that my residency prevents me from freely choosing a society, and I have shown examples of societies where residency is irrelevant. Of course the state I`m leaving wouldn`t care a damn where I choose to live; I didn`t say it did. (Actually in some cases it does, but that is subject of a different thead). What I said was that because a new society has to accept me, and their standards exclude me, then I don`t really have the choice you seem to portray, do I? Let me give you and example. Let`s say I have some serious medical condition, one that needs lots of expensive care. Now, let say I am a non-resident, non-Citizen of Canada, however, I feel very much in agreement with Canadian values, and responsiblites and obligations of that society. Even if I choose Canada, Canada won`t choose me because my medical condition will likely make me ineligible for immigration. Ìt`s not really choice if the barriers to choice are quite high. The theory is not moot just because you say so. At least you acknowledge that there are risks and costs associated to the person departing. Do you acknowledge that if the cost to leaving was high enough, then in effect that precludes the choice of choosing a society? What if the cost was $1Million to leave? What if it was $1 billion, is it an obstacle?

Well it is reasonable to assume it is illegal since the article says so, and presumably the NP is a reputable source. There is no evidence that the condition is critical. It woudl seem your standard of establising illegality is far more rigourous than the one you have for determining the criticality of her illness. If she played that game, of doing everyone in her power to avoid deportation, there is a simple answer. Do nothing. No treatment, nothing. If you read the article you will see that she has an even greater fear than dying, it is the fear of dying here, away from her homeland. As soon as it was clear she was not getting free treatment, she would be on her way. I didn't quote it because I had no issue with it. It is more than a slippery slope it is a precedent.

If your decision on whether she should or shouldn't be entitled to free healthcare depends upon her intent, then you open a much more subjective determination than one of status. How will you determine intent? Will you put everyone on a lie-detector to determine if they are truly here and just happened to get sick? What woudl stop from people from masquarading as tourists and staying to get expensive treatment? Nothing seems to indicate that the woman is in immediate danger of dying. Have you flown any airline to St Lucia which has done anything to accertain long-term health as a prerequisite to flying? If you do so, brace yourself for the flood of medically needy illegals who will demand the same treatmetn.

If we let this person "purchase" healthcare, why should we not let anyone purchase healthcare? Isn't a common complaint that resources are in short supply? If so, why set a precedent by selling medical services to foreign nationals? An alternative is to raise funds, and send her home to be treated in her own country, or if medical care is not available there, in a country such as the US.

blueblood, you seem to point to "trade deficits" as a problem which will arise if we don't restrict foreign reports, but you don't have any support from economists in that area. linkIOW, a prolonged trade deficit is a symptom of a problem rather than a problem itself.

No one in either article disputes that she is illegal. If you assume she is illegal, were do you stand? BTW, even a person visiting Buffalo for a day, would not and should not be entitled to free healthcare.

If you look at the National Post story using the link I posted: You see that she pretty much admits that she is illegal.

The woman is no different than the millions of people outside Canada who don't have access to the Canadian health system. No one doubts that those others should not be entitled to access to free Canadian healthcare. The only real difference with this woman is she happens to be in Canada. No she should not get free helathcare. There are absolutely ways of showing compassion for this woman. For example, those who wish to, can donate funds to pay for this woman's medical treatment. ---------------------- The national post story: Lack of OHIP may kill St. Lucia migrant

I would agree that it is beneficial for society to provide a means so that parents can fulfill their obligations, but ultimately IMO the obligation still lies with the parents. Yes we are repeating ourselves, so lets agree to disagree.

Of course. That is why I previously said that it is a parental obligation to make sure their kids get at least a general education.

Yes we disagree. Yes in their early years individuals have their parents act for them in executing their responsibilites. As they grow however, that responsibility becomes the individuals directly. How much of the skills they bring to market depend upon the decisions their parents make vs the decisions they make on their own, is an open question, one I'm not sure can be answered.

Through their proxy, their parents.

Ultimately people bear their own responsiblity for the skills they bring to the market. It is not "someone" else's respnsiblity to educate them, that responsiblity lies with the individual.

IMO it is done by market forces. If you look at the example of Alberta, there are labour shortages resulting in high-wage rates. In Newfoundland the opposite is true, there is surplus labour and high unemployment and correspondingly low wage rates, thus many Newfoundland workers move to Alberta to take on jobs. The redeployment would be greater if there wern't artificial incentives (eg EI) to stay.

Well, that's probably not more than 150,000 people. Not nearly enough. Once you get them trained in those professions, then what? Besides, are we now expecting Newfoundland to provide the primary education for the rest of the country's work force? Newfoundland's population is declining as it is. There is employment mobility so that labour is free to travel between provinces. If not for barriers, excess labour in Newfoundland and other provinces would freely move to where the need is. This is a mutual benefit for both parties. We should not expect a single province to supplement the resource shortages of other provinces, however we should expect that the excess labour from any province is redeployed where it makes sense.

I would suspect that this is one of the big reasons why the void is not filled. By limiting apprenticeships, the government creates artificial barriers to filling the job requirements. Further our immigration system does a poor job in matching between skill needed and those supplied by immigrants. In fact the immigration system seems to give preference to "white collar" skills, even when trade skills are in shortage. In short, where skills and resource shortages exist, it is government interferences and government-erected obstacles more than any other reason which prevents those shortages from being resolved.

Why would you care when you don't believe anything I say.

And why do you think that is?