Renegade

Personally I don't see tax contributions as a measure of someones worth or as a guage of intellect. I dont' know if somehow I've implied that I did, but that is incorrect. I see tax contribution as a gate to participate in the fiscal decisions of government, which is very different than measuring their worth or guaging their intellect. More than citizens have a stake in the actions of government. For example foreign investors have a stake. Residents of other countries recieveing Canadian foreign aid have a stake. Do you think they should get a vote too?

Are you sure you want government? No I absolutely don't, however, I'm not convinced that government can be completely eliminated. I'd settle for minimial government.

It is not binary at all. A government decision to raise taxes or cut taxes has a greater financial impact in absolute amounts on those who contribute more. Those who contribute nothing, in essence pay no price for the largesse of government, and so should not be given a say until such time as they can contribute. As an aside, just because one makes more, it is not automatic that they contribute more.

And I explained why they are. In essence they are more fit because they have a financial stake in the system

That is why, outside of some broad guidelines such as limiting the incitement of violence, they should not control the content of any media, nor should they subsidize it. You shouldn't, and as far as I know, you aren't subsidizing road system. Gas taxes and other "road" taxes collected outweigh what is spent on roads. But that is for another thread.

Us?? Which "us" do you speak for besides yourself? Or is that the royal "us"? And, yes, I'm serious. Parents bear at least to a certain extent responsibility for the actions of their children. If my child dents my neighbours car, I am liable to pay for it. We do not expect the neighbour to have to sue the child. We entrust parents to make some decisions on behalf of their children, but also they must bear some responsibility for their actions. My point on having kids vote is that kids are members of society too. Their interest are not represented proportionate to their numbers. Today, their interests are only represented by the single vote each parent has. Let me phrase it another way, even in the one-person-one-vote system parents should have proportionally more voting power because they represent the votes of more individuals than themselves alone. It was an analogy. The example was not intended to cover evey case. Of course a resturant will have a set of prerequisites of its customers. Those prerequisites are that you come dressed appropriately that you behave appropriately while you are there, and I'm sure there are others. These requirements are so BASIC that they are assumed. When you call a resturant to book a reservation, they don't list prerequisites such as you must come clothed, they assume it. Of course if you didn't you wouldn't be served. Similarly there are basic requirements for voters which I didnt' mention, such as a voter should be sane and alive. I didn't mention them because they are so basic as to be assumed. Perhaps you can explain to me what fitness test we have today for voters and why imposing the additional condition of making a financial contribution via their taxes, makes them any less fit as a voter?

Do tell, why should the government be in the business of making quality programming? How about cars? Should they set up a comission to ensure that that manufactures only made quality cars? How about we try the novel idea of letting consumers decide if they want quality or crap?

We should.Is that conditional on a tax-contribution-based democracy or would you have them vote now? My answer was predicated on it be based upon tax-contribution. Even foreign tax payers have a a stake in our government, so they too should have a say. While I see some justification that they should vote now, I think the system as is is so flawed that a small incremental change such as this does little to adress the overall issues. Here's another thought: Kids should have a vote. They are stakeholders in the system and have interests which must be protected, so give them a vote. However, since they are not deemed sufficiently capable of making such a decision, my view is that the parents or guardian should exercise that vote on the kids behalf.

Incorrect! It is indeed a international human right. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Note that it doesn't state that is restricted only to hetrosexuals but is a right of everyone.

Yah but does Toronto have more pull on Federal matters than an entire province???? A province has far more power than is ever accorded a city, no matter how big the city, now matter how small the province. Proportionate to its population Toronto has a lot less pull than PEI.

We should. Not true, at least collectively. Most of the tax revenue is contributed from individuals not corporations. Seems to me that what you are suggesting is akin to inmates running the asylum. Those who likely have had no success accumulating wealth are suddenly responsible for making choices which affects the wealth of those who have been successful? Sounds like madness to me. I'm curious on how you guage how "strong" a country is. Is it militarily, economically, or morally, or some other measure? It is broke. It needs fixing. Proof that it is broke is that it wouldnt have accumulated mountains of debt in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. While we are recovering, we still live with the hangover.

Their financial contribution in itself is proof of fitness. When a diner goes to a resturant, do we need evidence that they are fit to be a diner, or is the only requirement that they pay the bill? When an investor buys stock in a company, do we need evidence that they are fit to be a shareholder, or is it only necessary that they pay the going price of the stock? Ultimately those that pay are the most fit, because they have a financial interest in in ensuring that the government is properly run. Ultimately for financial issues, they will be the ones paying the price if if it not. What more justification do you need? Why? I'm not following your logic. Who exactly is it you think would revolt and why?

If they are workers they should absolutely get the same wage conditions as workers on the outside. Of course in order for them to "be better prepared to resume their lives on the outside", they should also have to pay for accomodation, board, dental care, and all other services provided. After paying for all that, I doubt that they woudl have anything, let alone $6.90 left at the end of the day. (That too, will condition them to "be better prepared to resume their lives on the outside".

No, it wouldn't accomplish anything. It would just create an incentive to sell of a business before the owners death or the business would be run into the ground since the owner has no incentive to see that it remains viable. The only incentive we can count on for an owner is the desire to preserve wealth by passing it on to his heirs. The relative contibution is irrelevant. The absolute contribution is what is important. It does not matter that the poor 18 year old son of a welfare parent "trys hard" but contributes very little financially, or that the 18 YO wealthy heir expends little effort but contributes a lot financially. Society benefits a lot more from the larger financial contribution because it proportionately funds more services and so the larger contributor deserves more votes. No we use it because it is simple, not because it is the "least subjective". The count of absolute dollars contributed is not subjective either. BTW, you are naive to think that we have a one person-one vote system. It is only superficially so. An Toronto voter's vote has a lot less weight than a PEI voters vote.

Inheritance is welfare? Why? Unlike welfare, the wealth which make up an inheritance is earned and willingly passed from one individual to another. No actually we didn't. In the middle ages, the fedual system the serfs were the biggest contributors to the taxes being collected. If they did back then as I proposed, the serfs would have had the largest say in who ran the system of government. Unfortunatly the middle ages relied on blood lines and physical power to determine who controled the government.

Oh, please! Who is "society" anyway??? I gather you prefer anarchy. I see you didnt' answer Charles' question. So let's ask again. Who is society?

I agree, but then your statement implying that a punishment should be "fair" is meaningless. As I've said before there are multiple reasons for punishment. You as a victim may forgo restitution and retribution, however the state may still act to ensure rehabilitation and deterrence. I understand that some states (Pakistan or Saudi Arabia I believe) will forgo punishment if the victim (or the victim's family) request it. Don't know if there is a general answer. I assume that that is why the state sets "guidelines" on punishment and then leaves it to individual courts as to where the proper punishment falls within those guidelines. Good question! Not sure I have a good answer.

Libertarians will say that you are free to make your deteminations that generosity trumps greed when you are talking about your generosity and your greed. Others shoudl be free to make their own determinations as well. You shouldn't be free to make those determinations on behalf of others.

If you speak of my proposal, rich people who don't work, don't vote on fiscal issues unless the contribute taxes to the system. IMV it is perfectly valid that they have a say in the system relative to their contribution, regardless of how the came about those funds, whether earned or inherited. I didn't say that voting depending upon effort contributed, I proposed that it depended upon fiscal contribution which is very measurable.

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights. The real selfishness exist in those who want a say in spending other people's hard-earned money. I take it you view greed as merely a hypothetical construct. Not at all, it is very real and even necessary. Without greed, there would be no motivation in our system.

I'm not saying it is automatic. I'm judging the specifics of this case. What is your guage what is a "fair" punishment? With respect to restitution, you do not understand. Just giving back the same amount of money is not necessarily enough. The rich-victim could develop agoraphobia. If my rent and grocery bill depend on that $1000 just before the theft, I can be out on the street and starving. I could have lost my job or missed my bus to the next job interview or I could be sick in the hospital and dying with pneumonia and grieving over my child that just died of cold-exposure. Giving me back $1000 is not restitution. That is my point. Yes I agree with that. The minimium restitution is the return of the original $1000, additional restitution may be required. I think you are interpreting the eye-for-an-eye concept too literally. IMV the concept is that the perpertrator suffers the same extent of damage as was inflicted on the victim. If you are a one-eyed man and I intentionally destroy the sight in your one eye, then the penalty for me should be blindness in both eyes under my interpretation of an "eye for an eye" concept.

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights. How unreasonable to want to a say proportional to what one contributes!!! Wait a min, isn't that how many public companies work? The real selfishness exist in those who want a say in spending other people's hard-earned money. Some don't contribute anything at all.

How about if we have two separate governing bodies and separate out social issues from fiscal ones? Issues such as the legalization of abortion, the criminalization of drugs, etc can be decided by the "social" governing body. Anything requiring financial intervention would be decided by the "fiscal" governing body. Every legal resident would get equal votes to elect the "social" governing body. Votes for the fiscal governing body would be allocated according to tax contribution. Yes, yes, I know that most times that social issues are dependant upon financial support. But then isn't that justification that says that you shouldn't pass any legislation unless the financial issues are considered?

Seems fair. In our society, and in Hugo's 'anarchist utopia'. It would be wrong to take more.Wrong. It could certainly be fair to take more. The value of that thousand dollars to me is not likely to be the same as it is to you. Disagree Charles. It is true that $1000 may have different worth to different people, however if the $1000 meant a lot to the perpetrator, then confiscating $1000 would mean an equally large loss to the perpetrator. This is just retribution for the act committed. It does not matter if the $1000 meant less to the victim than the perpetrator. In addition to returning the $1000, for retribution and restitiution, the perpetrator should have additional penalty applied for the original transgression (for deterrence ).

I think there is more than one reason we punish criminals: 1. Deterrence 2. Retribution 3. Rehibilitation 4. Restitution Punishments generally must satisify one or more of the above to various degrees. The logic for punishing someone for driving drunk but hurting no one, is the same as punishing someone for posessing a banned firearm even though they don't shoot anyone. In essence the logic is that by driving drunk they are a threat to others, and being a threat is in essence a form of violence or assault on others. So, assault being a criminal act, should be punished.