Renegade

OB, I'm not sure who that is directed to. If it to me, I've both made statements and answered question. About time for reciprocation, n'est pas?

... and low labour rates in China. whowhere I don't understand your premise. You want harmonization with minimium wage rates in the US. But why stop there? Why not harmonize with China and other countries around the world, since surely it has been demonstrated they too are a source of competitive labour?

The problem I have is that values are extremely subjective, moreover I don't really see much of a differece between values and morality. I do however see some distinction between rights and morality. I think that society can all agree on basic rights. These rights would be derived from the basic presumption that we own our own bodies and by products of our bodies, such as our labour. I don't see this as a moral question. Limits beyond the establishment and enforcement of rights, fall into the domain of morality. Fundamentally I don't see it as the domain of government to enforce morality upon everyone, even a morality that most people agree with. This is the issue I have with your position. You are justifiying your position in that you and I make different "value" (i.e. moral) choices. My position is that moral choices shouldn't come into it because a government shouldn't enforce moral choices. Because you have this long list and depend upon your value system to determine which ones are permissable or not, you will no doubt run into more inconsistancies. Moreover, the more your choices depend upon a subjective value system, the more others may disagree with your choices becasues everyone may have different value system. We are not homogenous. My position is more clear in determining what choices are premisable. Bad decisions are always allowed so long as they don't violate the fundamental rights we have agreed on. If you look back on history you will see that there have been numerious disasters which have ensued because of it. The way forward is to severely constrain the role of government to what is minimaly necessary. What I attempted to show, and I believe is that everyone has a shot to succeed in life. I don't even maintain that everyone has the same shot. IMV, all that is required is that people be guranteed a baseline shot, as dictated by their basic human rights, anything beyond that (such as advantages provided by parents) is simply a bonus.

So, since when has having a kid ever NOT been a gamble? Even with the best technology some babies die. Even with the the best technolgy some mothers die in childbirth. Your contention that it can somehow not be made a gamble is ludicrous. As I said that is my obligation to my kid, not yours or anyone elses. Interesting now you are backing off your suggesting that I would "sentence your child to death", because if I did that would make me a killer, wouldn't it. I'm really glad you have finally come to realize that your suggestion that eqating my position that others do not have an obligation toward my kid, is like "sentence your child to death", is indeed asinine. Well willie, I would tell you but since you refuse to answer my questions, I'm done answering yours.

So yet again no answer to my questions, eh willie? What a surprise. My child is not my property. My child is my obligation. Wow that is quite a stretch you are trying to make. According to you if I don't support healthcare I am a murderer, killing my child, did I get that right? There are a lots of things I potentally *could* do but wouldn't in order to save my child's life. For example, I could forcibly takes some else's organs if my child needed them but I wouldn't. I guess that too makes me a murderer. Yes when we have children we gamble. Even with the best healthcare it is still a gamble, isn't it? I'm not reckless in my gambling with my child's life. For example, if there was a 50-50 outcome that my child was going to have a fatal desease, I would not have kids. I'm satisified that when I have kids I can take care of their needs, including healthcare needs as much as reasonably possible. If you want certaintity of outcome, don't have kids. Now that I've addressed your questions willie, how about you be a sport and address mine?

If I did I'd be an anarchist. Yes I do believe some form of government is necessary at least to govern codes of conduct and enforce them. I'm not convinced that a government is necessary or desired for mutual assistance.

Well Willie, I'll indulge you with a response to your question even though you have not shown the courtesy to answer the ones I have put to you. As a parent I undertake some obglitations to my kid. I do so by virtue of making the decision to become a parent. It is a "contract" so to speak. If I am unwilling to undertake those obligations I should not accept to become a parent. Those obligations include to provide as best I can for the health care for my child. If my child suffered from some ailment it would my obligation to spend my own funding I have access to insure or address the health of that child. That obligation doesn't extend to other as they had no part in undertaking the responsibility of bringing a child into this world. If others wanted to donate voluntarily toward my child's health, I would happily accept it, however they are under no obligatoin to do so. Would I be sentencing my child to death? Not as I see it. I woudl have done everything in my power to ensure my child's health, however that power would not extend to forcing others to keep my child alive. That needs to be their choice. I believe that my kid has the right to care that I provide him. Such is the contract. Any other care provide by others should be voluntary and is not his "right". The problem with you socialists is that your field of vision extends to other's wallet. They don't stick their hand in your pocket, and ask that you don't stick yours in theirs. Seems fair doesn't it?

I'm not sure what you are asking TB. Government is simply an adminrative structure which implemnts policies. IMV, those policies should be based upon some fundamental principles, not morality. Explain what your asking and I'll try to articulate better my position.

It does appear Michael, that you have made a general statement and then you have layered your own subjective set of values to distinguish interventions you agree with from those you don't. IMV, your rights to hold wealth are analogous to your rights to have children. You clam that "Having children just isn't the same thing" but you don't justify why. If you want to justify society intervening to remove freedom to choose in order prevent bad decisions, I don't see any difference in the intervention to prevent "bad" decisions people make by becoming a parent. BTW, I don't think the only reason someone shouldn't be a parent is affordability, but it is one. Even if life is not mathematical, rational logic is. You are trying to dismiss the breaks in your logical sequence by dismissing it as "that's life". I guarantee you that virually any opressive action by the state can be justified by a rationale of interventing to prevent people from makeing bad decsions or acting in their best interest. In my view it is a dangerous path to follow to allow the state to determine what is a "good" or "bad" decisions and then give it the power to intervene to coerce behaviour. I find your statement not consistent with either what I have read or what I have experienced. I reacall that I did some interesting stats on the influences of wealth. I can't find that info but here is some relevant info. Unfortunately it is only the cached link: The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of American's Wealthy

Well TB, I agree with your analogy that Social programs are like insurance. The problem is that you don't seem to believe that people are able to make their own assessment of what "insurance" they need. Sure there may be on chance that someday that I will use the "insurnace" , but if I percieve the cost of the "insurance" premium too high, it is completely rational to take the chance and avoid the high premiums altogether. The problem with government provided social benefits is they are are a monopolistic provider. They charge what ever they choose, and more over don't give anyone the choice to pay. Moreover the government will choose to discriminate among its subjects as to who will carry the burden of payment. For a large part of the middle class the benefits are not worth the "premium" cost and many of the services provided by many of these programs can be more effectively privately if the government didn't actively prevent their availabilty. If you accept that premise that a person's body is is own, then it should also be quite reasonable that the fruits of a person's body (ie his labour) is also his own, and yes any forcible removal of what is one's own is theft. Much as I'd like to TB, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into a debate on the fundemental beliefs of Libertarianism. However, let me say this, there is NO society I know which is exactly implemented in line with an ideal theroetical philosophy. Libertarianism is no different. Your central argument to discredit Libertarianism is that it cannot be implemented in its ideal state. Tell me, which philsophy can? What is the philsophy you espouse and where has it been implemented in its ideal state? Our society today is a balancing act between different philsophies, and goals directed by self-interest. It is by no means "pure" or immune to change. Implemented philosophies change with each election, and each generation changes its philosophy. I use Libertarianism as my guiding goal to where I see society should evolve to, while still understanding that because of constraints and self interest, not all Libertarian ideals would be realised. That doesn't stop me from advocating for a more Libertarian society. I have no idea of whether I would fit your qualification of a "full-blown Libertarians". Certainly I understand the philsophy and generally agree with it. You seem to argue that I should abandon Libertarian principles because it would result in policies which are not in my self-interest. Your stance make me speculate that perhaps your philosophy is driven out of your own self-interest.

Sure, at least the we agree that even the basic tenents of a program are subject to changes. Perhaps next time I should add fine print to may statements so that they are not taken out of context. Or perhaps, I'll just save myself the trouble and ignore the nonsensical responses which result. So Willie, still don't want to answer the question but want me to answer first? OK, I'll oblige. A person should be under no legal obligation to give up any of his person , property, or wealth, nor should he be subject to assult in order to save the life of another. Such decisions should be made voluntarily without the coercion of the state. Perhaps now you would have the courtesy to answer?

Society gets richer beause those with potential realize some or all of that potential. Many at the bottom who do not rise by themselves either do not have the potential or for whatever reason do not realize that potential. Tieing the bottom to the gains made by the top, only serves to restrict the top and gives a free ride to the bottom.

Hmm, what makes having children a right that the state shouldn't intefere with but having property one which the state can (and should according to you) intefere with? It would be impossible to come up with a "pure" example, since it is always a question of degree of effect as I don't know anyone who lives in an environment so isolated that any action couldn't have some potential effect somewhere else. If you make a blanket statement that you believe that the state should intervene to prevent the effects on other or bailing people out, then that is pretext for pretty much any intervention at all. The state can even try to control my thoughts on the pretext that it could influence my actions and that would effect others. IOW, your premis is a recepie to justify complete state control of people's lives. A lot will have to do on how success is defined. China too is trying to set itself up for success, but not necessarily with policies that most Canadians would accept as part of a govenment mandate. In any case the lowering of trade barriers has led to a lot of the wealth we now see, I see the lowering of labour barriers as a natural extension.

Yeah, kind of like I see the potential for wealth within each individual.

I see. In many cases when their decisions impact others, those others have willingly entered into arrangements with that individual which lets their lives get impacted. (For example through marriage). In that case, no I don't agree that the state should step in to mitigate the impact of foolish decisions. In other cases where the impact is involuntary, eg children, and the individual is making foolish decisions which impact the children, then that individual is acting irresponsible, and is not living up to commitments and the possible state intervention should be to remove responsiblity for the children. Since you believe that that "society has a right to stop people from making foolish decisions that we will have to bail people out of later", do you then agree that under that pretext the society has a right to prevent single mother from having kids they cannot afford to take care of? Also, you never answered the question of if it is ok for people to make "foolish decisions" in which the only impact is to themselves without society's interference. Isn't it the responsiblity of domestic labour to ensure they are competitively priced relative to alternatives?

Well at least you have started qualifying your post to say that it is only fairness in your opinion. That's a start. No I don't think it is accurate to say that I think it is fair to "give" more advantages to those born to wealth. They already have that advantage. That is what their parents and ancestors strived to get. I think it is fair not to intefere with the advantage their ancestors have given them. When you say it is "not better for people", I guess it despends upon which people. It is not better for those born without the advantage, it is better for those born with advantage. In my view trying to equalize wealth at birth, while it may be easier (because money is redistributable), is no different conceptually then trying to equalize other advantages at birth (eg beauty, intelligence). Perhaps in your "fair" world you would provide free cosmetic surgery for ugly people paid for by a tax on the beautiful

Please explain how it affect others wrt minimium wage. Do you agree that they are entitled to make foolish decisions which affect themselves? Yes I know. Perhaps we should not limit it only to certain industries.

Yes some are born rich and some are born poor. I don't have an issue with that. Difficult? Possibly. So what? No one is promised an easy life.

It is a good question. Perhaps there are some, but I can't find them. If my experience is reflective and people won't work for low wages, why even bother with a minimium wage? Perhaps it makes more economic sense to import low-wage temporary labour when there seems to be a scarecity domestically.

But you have layered your own interpretation on what a "fair society" is. I don't have an issue with dipariy, and I don't agree that less disparity means more "fairness". IMV, what people are entitled to is as you have quoted: "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". I certainly don't agree that they are entitled that the government or society provide them the "best chance to get ahead and rise to the top". That is up to them to secure for themselves. Maybe it would be better if you didn't try and extrapolate my philosophy since you are only guessing in any case and it is likely to be inaccurate. Yes some people are born with advantages and other are not. I believe that people are born with some specfic rights which they maintain through their lives. I'm really not sure how you have extrapolated that I believe that they should be born into slavery. Being born into Slavery would imply that a person doesn't own their own body at birth. This is completely contridactory to my beliefs. Yes, and I'm fine with that. That all men are created equal means that no one is surperior to the other and all are treated equally, the ugly, the beautiful, the rich and the poor. It says that people are inherently equal. It doesn't say that we should try to equalize what we percieve as a lack of equality

Geez you miss the point. The point is that any progam can change when circumstances change. I gave OAS as an example. You were adamant that OAS was always income driven. That was clearly wrong. You don't think comparing OAS to healthcare to be "apples" to "apples", then tell me what restricts a a government from changing the fundamental tenants of a program? Since you refuse to answer questions, I will answer for you. It is the threat of losing power. As long as people want it to be universal it is, as soon other factors make universality less of a priority it is subject to change. You act as if nothing can ever be changed about the healthcare system. You admit to "challenges" but offer not constructive solutinos. Then it is you who likes to compare apples and oranges. Then let me ask you more generally. Where is it ok to draw the line between what you can do to one person to save the life of another? You seem to indicate that assault is going to far. How have you determined what is too far? I am estatic.

Didn't you just finish trying to convince me that I should not support Libertanism becasue it is not in my self interest. So which is it, should I be looking at my self-interest or not? Great you don't care about my moral inspiration and I don't care about your predictions for Libertarianism. I did because you asked, but I think you sought to label me even prior. Well I bet you a few hundered million of the 300 million don't even have a political philosophy. And if there are a few thousand, it seems that you must have run into every single one. Lucky Libertarians who have had you enlighten them,

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So IOW, my believe system should be constructed to maximize my self interest. I take it you would characterize anyone who has died for their beliefs a belief system that not worth its salt. Why would you even care if I even have a moral inspiration? You tell me. You are the one who seeks to put labels on me. Yes, look at all of those "very few" of them.

Ironically, I probably agree with you. But my reasoning may be different. It makes sense that people have their basic needs provided for because it probably cost a society less to do so than to invest in force to quell the riot. IOW prevention probably is more efficient than reaction. Having said that, to give the poor more than is necessary to appease them and keep them from rioting, is not necessary. I'm not sure what level of benefits are needed to keep poor people from rioting, however I do believe it is considerably lower than what is currently provided.

So your argument is that I should modify my belief system out of self-interest? I'm glad for you that Asimov is your moral inspiration. He is not mine. I accept that there will be some redistribution of wealth. You call it the human condition, I call it a power struggle. Whle I agree that it is probably impossible to prevent redistribution without revolution, what I would support is to minimize the redistribution. Gee Toad, for the very few Libertarians, you seem to run into an awful lot of them.