Renegade

What does it really matter what the consensus of local people are? People pay a price on a property for a variety of reasons, the proximity to water, the neighbourhood, the schools, the size of the house, the location, etc. The priviledge they pay for is reflected in the price they pay for the house? Why should it be in the level of taxes when they don't consume any more services than a property not on the water.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. In my view, taxes should be paid based upon services consumed. If large properties consume a large amount of services they should pay proportionately more taxes regardless of if they are a "farm" or not. So now, I'd appreciate a straightforward answer, do you believe it is fair for real-estate taxes to be based upon the services consumed instead of upon the valuation of the property. It is a straightforward question, so try a straightforward answer. Yes or no? If not why not?

Did you make that up? When do we get to pass the law stoning adulterers?

Shareholders control generic drug companies too. Even generic drug companies seek to maximize shareholder value, as they should. What is your point?

Yes that is the question. And your answer is????? Viable yes, relevant no. If you are taking about recreational properties (ie not primary residences), the increase in value is taxed as capital gains at the time the property is sold. IMV, flucations in house value should not have a bearing on real estate taxes paid. Then, either they are living in homes they can't afford or they are expecting someone else to foot the bill for services they consume. Which is it? Yes I thought it was right to address the disparity in real-estate taxes between suburbs and city. While changes he made did somewhat resolve the disparity, it still did not tax based upon services consumed. IMV Mike Harris did much more good than harm, so even if I didn't agree with him about everything, I was more than willing to re-elect him.

No I did not mean to suggest it was the equivalent. Obviously Africa cannot pay the same price as a Western country, but that doesn't mean the IP has no value in Africa. The fact is that it has some non-zero value even in Africa. What the government does, is give away that value without compensating the companies who own the IP. We can dispute what the dollar amount of that value, but in essence it was not borne by the taxpayer.

Great story. But maybe you can try and address the question. Should the taxes on a house be based upon the services provided?

It was very easy for Chretien to give away what wasn't his. He basically tried to give away the intellectual property of the pharmaceutical companies. If he wanted to be upfront, he could have had the government buy the drugs at market prices and donate them to countries in need. He didn't do that did he? It would have been a cost that the Canadian public would not be willing to bear. What does that tell you? margrace, maybe people will start addressing your question, once you start addressing the ones put forth by other posters instead of avoiding them.

Why is it relevant how much a property is worth? Should two properties which consume comparable levels of services pay the same level of taxes regardless of their worth?

Maybe you can explain why you think we have an obligation to fix the AIDS problem for all the people in Africa? If we do provide assistance for AIDS victims, it will be because of our generosity not because of an obligation. Since you are on your high horse, maybe you can tell us how much you have personally donated or done to resolve the problem.

jbg, you think I violated house rules with a personal attack on Higgly?? Did I insult him in some way or threaten him? Your a lawyer, so I welcome your insight into my words. Please feel free to report my post if you think so, and I'll accept my punishment from Greg if he feels the same. In my view this whole thread is nothing but a personal attack on Rue, and thus my statement to Higgly that his actions may in fact get him banned. Not by me of course as I have no power to do so.

It would be doubtful that the state could hold her unless what she was doing was illegal, hence additional justification to criminalize such behaviour.

While generally all pregnancies may not be planned, pretty much all births are. Once a mother finds out she is pregnant, she makes a decision on whether to carry the pregnancy to term. The abuse she has put her fetus through during the time she has unknowlingly been pregnant should factor into that decision. Personally I wouldn't hold a mother criminally liable for damage if she drank at a time where she didn't know she was pregnant. However if she continued to drink after she knew she was pregnant then she shoudl be criminally charged.

The mother has no obligation to raise the child. She can easily opt not to raise the child and hoist that responsibility on to the state, foster system, or adoptive parents. And what of the father? Does he not also pay the price of raising a disabled child, who is disabled as a consequence of anothers action? Even if we assume the mother raises the child, she does so only for a small part of the child's life. The child is faced a lifetime of disability and potentially poverty as a result of the mother's actions. In my mind there is no question that the mother should be criminally charged and potentially sued in a civil action. If a 3rd party had caused the damage, there woudl be no question that they would be held liable. The same should be true of the mother. Yes, if a couple carries a known congenitical defect which they pass on to their child, they should also be held liable. If the chances are 50% then they are taking a chance. In my view the proper way to deal with this is for a couple to have some kind of liability insurance to cover the liability of passing on such a defect. The higher the chance, the higher the premium. The more significant the damage caused by the defect, the higher the premium. Thus couples who have a high chance of passing on defects are discouraged from passing them on. Depending upon the level of recklessness and alcohol, in my view, yes. If there is significant risk to the child, then abortion may be a better option. There is very little difference in this decision than one in which the fetus is found to have birth defects through an untrasound. The only reall difference is that the mother's actions can be the cause.

Higgly, I think the question you should be asking yourself is if you will be allowed to stay after pulling a stunt like this!

I think the bigger question is what are the obligations of parents to kids, and can they be sued if they don't fulfill the obligations. Prior to being born, the mother has a set of obligations to the child once she accepts the responsibilty to carry it to term. If she abuses that responsiblity, should she not be made to bear reprecussions? For example if a mother abuses alcohol while pregnant, and the child is born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, should the mother not be charged for negligence?

That is quite a generalization. While there are no doubt radical Muslims, there are also radicals in virtually every religion. I'm not sure how you can make a generalization on behalf of ALL Muslims.

Sorry, no, it is still not the right people. Your original comment was in reference to retribution for policies adopted by Saudia Arabia. Show where there is a connection between those who enact laws in Saudia Arabia and those who advocate for Sharia law or object to being profiled? The only thing they have in common is being Muslim. I can certainly debate with you whether it is reasonable to apply Sharia law or religious profiling is acceptable, but that that is not the point of this thread.

For at least a couple of reasons: 1. One of our fundamental beliefs is freedom. We do not violate that belief simply because someone else does too. 2.Because you are not "punishing" the right people. They people who would suffer are the non-majority religions of our country. These people have had nothing to do with practices adopted in Saudia Arabia. You would simply be punishing them for the crime of having the "wrong" religion.

Yes it is a large part of the problem. Another issue is there is no incentive by the individual to avoid costs. For example if it cost an individual an additional $1000/year to eat healthier, and in doing so they can avoid $5000/year in health care costs, they have no incentive to do so since the $1000 is from their pocket but the $5000 is from the communal pocket. How do you know the treatment was worthwhile? What is the criteria to determine this? If she had lived only a month after the operation was it still worthwhile? How about if the operation cost $100 million, was it still worthwhile? The issue is that it is impossible to adopt absolutes such as "we can't place a price on a human life". Because we have finite resources, we are forced to make those tradeoffs everyday. Unfortunately where those decisions are made is ill-defined and are often made by doctors, and hospital administrators sometimes under pressure from family. What we need is public debate on the issue, but unfortunately it seems to be a sensitive issue, and one which politicians and public alike, shy away from discussing.

The problem is not that I can't find a state of my preference, it is that there are huge barriers to being able to coming to agreement between me and the state on accepting reciprocal obligations. Here are but a few examples: 1. I have to be physically present and reside in that state. It would be great if I can just delcare myself a citizen of Cayman Islands but not have to physically move there. I could pay taxes to the Cayman government and I would accept obligations of that society and they in turn would accept obligations toward me. Unfortunately that's not the way it works. I would at substantial cost have to move myself, and posessions to be physically there. This requirement also means that I would have to make non-monetary sacrifices as well, such as not being in proximity to extended family. In addition, my spouse may not wish to make the same state choice as I would. 2. The state has to accept me. It is not simply a matter of me "choosing". The state has to choose me as well, and the process of the state choosing me is far from painless. While in theory you are right that I can choose a state of my preference, in practice the barriers to choosing are so high that it makes the theory moot.

LOL!! I guess you are SOL then, short of starting a revolution or moving away to your own private island. Good luck with that.

Sure, no problem: link Have you somehow drawn the conclusion that because the majority of Canadians would affiliate themselves to a religion that somehow makes our society non-secular? That is completely false! I have no doubt that Canadians, even religious ones, want a separation of Church and state.

You mean that the government is "screwing up Canadian society" by unilaterally creating "laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right"? Exactly. How can government possibly dictate something that overrides the 'Declaration of Human Rights' in a unilateral way involving only the forces of government and law. This method of government unilaterally dictating human or legal rights (based on the premise of equality) could represent government imposing internal political motivations rather than dictating rights solely for the country of Canada as a WHOLE. This is VERY DANGEROUS. I really don't understand what you are saying. It makes zero sense to me. In a democracy a government doesn't act unilaterally. It is empowered to act by the people through an event called an election. If sufficient people disagree with the actions of a government, the empowerment can be recinded within a set period of time through a second election. If you feel your government has taken actions which overrides the "Declaration of Human Rights", you DO have recourse. Either recind the empowerment you gave them, or file a grievance with an International Human Rights body.

No, I actually don't. Falling apart morally by who's standards of morality? Yours? Of course tolerance has limits, but the limits of tolerance aren't governed by morality. They are governed by the extent to which they contrevene someone else's rights. I disagree that morals should even play any part in rules dictating our actions. Morality is a personal standard, not a state standard. Given it is our personal standard, it is up to each's own conscience to enforce that standard. What if religion is the law of the land as it is in Saudia Arabia? The majority there supports that their law is governed by religion. Frankly, I'm surprised by your position here, in other threads you have advocated there cannot be a separation of church and state. IMV, hetrogenous societies are best governed by maintaining a secular nature and imposing a strong separation between religion and state.