Renegade

Hmm, you're confused as to my beliefs. Please quote whre I've said government " should be shrunk to the point of defense...and only defense". It does appear to are formulating responses to statements I never made nor positions I hold. I see. So you agree that government has the power to quell riots, but somehow it first needs to understand the motivation of the riot? If the reasons are justifed, then the people are justified in rioting? Is that your logic? No I don't believe people get what they deserve. Some good people are unlucky, some bad people are lucky. There are many reasons for outcomes, some deserved and some undeserved. What I believe is that the state should make no judgements about "deservedness" .

You are quite right. I'm probably the poorest guy on the board. Why is it a requirement to be rich to be a Libertarian or were you expecting me to put self-interest ahead of my philosophy. I won't speak for all Libertarians, however I'm not at all pissed at having to pay taxes however I believe taxes should be for services provided not for wealth redistribution. The taxes I object to are the ones that redistribute wealth. It appears Toad, that you have met quite a few Libertarians. While you would like people to believe that this is some far-out philosophy put forth by the lunatic fringe, it would appear that it is a lot more prevlant that you would have people believe.

My point was that even programs which are originally set up a "universal" are subject to change just like OAS. My suggestion was not to quailfy the procedure on ability to pay. My suggetion was to include other qualificatiion factors to control costs. Even in our current system, the ability to pay does allow an individual to circumvent the rationing of procedures. If you can afford it all you need to do is get on a plane and get the treatment you desire. Only once criminal law is broken. That is not the case in what I am referring to. Wilber, I am very aware of what constitues a crime. That is not the purpose of my question. What constitutes a crime can change from time to time. My purpose was to understand the consistancy of your logic. Since you declined to provide an answer, it would seem you are unwilling to put your rationale under scrutiny. So give it a shot, answer the questions why don't you? As far as your opinion of me. You can't imagine how much I value it. I save the effort of typing my opinion of you, because I'm sure you value mine as much as I value yours.

One of the few ideas of yours which I woudl actually support.

Who said anythign about without restraint? The actions of the govenment should be restrained by the legal controls such as the Charter of Rights. meanining you are free to act as you like within the bounds of your rights. If you step outside those bounds, then the government is justified in stepping in, with violence if necessary. How is that tyranny, and how is that any different than the situation we have today? If you riot today, the government can use force to maintain peace, even if it means shooting you. If they rationally riot for food, they rationally accept the risk that they may be shot for rioting. Perhaps you can explain how it is different than the way things are now? When OCAP riots, don't police have the power to quell the riot using violence? Is that what you consider tyranny?

I guess that depends upon what you mean. Government budgets in the western world were sustainable, until they started deficit financing. The deficits started accumulating about the same time increased social programs were introduced, which really leads us to the situation you have today.

Neither does freedom mean the state should compel me to do whatever it deems is in the public good. Social Obligations is a flexible word. If the state wants to go to war, it deems that men have a social obligation to fight so it drafts them. In fact social obligations can be used as justification to force anyone to do pretty much anything. Yes I do believe freedom means you have the freedom to choose whether you choose to help or not help others. This should be a moral obligation, not a legal one. Your view of freedom of government enforcing "social obligations" is not my view of freedom. Tell me by what rules do you determine "social obligations"? Won out? Hardly. We exist in a constant state of transition which is a power struggle of competiting interest. No state I know is pure in its implementation of any philosophy. The situation today is a balance between libertarian ideals and socialism. That balance exist because of the power struggle between competiting interest. Even though I see Libertarianism as the ideal state, I acknowledge in reality we will likely never see a pure libertarian state, because people who's interest is not aligned with libertarianism will need to be appeased. The role of the government, IMV, and I think the view of most of our society, is not to impose morality. A government's role is to administer . Otherwise we might as well have a theocracy. I completely disagree with you, Morality is the realm of the individual to decide, not one for government to impose

Except you haven’t looked at your own posted definition of misappropriation. Misappropriation only occurs when the funds are used without authorization. Again, no law has been broken. No one has been charged. If you believe there is illegality, press charges, launch a suit. Good luck with that. So you make claims, and when asked to provide evidence, refuse to do so under the guise that you don’t want to educate me? LOL. I’m not surprised you don’t have a cite. It appears that you have nothing but opinions but nothing to back them up. BTW, I’m not surprised at your response. If I had as tenuous a position as you have staked out, I would avoid giving an answer too. I see, I did not realize that your comments were restricted to only EI and CPP programs. I will focus my further responses on those programs. So no cite eh? What a surprise! Why are you even here if you wish to make claims without any backup when called on? BTW, I don’t stake my position on the basis of morality, and morality should have nothing to do with it because morality is completely subjective. If anything my position should be classified as amoral. With respect to CPP, rules and structure has been put in place to make it difficult for government to use the funds for another purpose. I agree with that, however that doesn’t prevent the government from changing the rules of the game. What I have proposed in the original post doesn’t change the purpose of the funding. Changing the retirement age for example, doesn’t change the purpose of the funding, it simply changes the amount to be contributed and collected. It appears that it is YOU who cannot read. From the link I provided earlier: So you might allege misappropriation, however the Supreme Court disagrees with you and unless your opinion is somehow more qualified than the SCC, their opinion is the law. I sympathize with your position, I really do. The unfortunate reality is that there are very little constraints on what the government can legally do. You are opinioning on what governments *should* be held accountable to. What I am pointing out is the only recourse you have is to replace the government in a general election. During their time in power, they have lots of flexibility in their ability to reallocate funds as the EI example has shown. Opinions without some supporting evidence are nothing but hot air. You have made allegations without supporting evidence and refused to provide any when asked. How seriously can we take your opinion without any supporting evidence? No William, thanks for your offer, but I seriously doubt you have anything to teach me. I have provided both a position and cites to back it up. It appears that it is I have provided a free lesson for you. You’re welcome! While I more or less agree with your statement, the constitution and charter govern the limits of what a government can do. If a law prevents a government from reallocating funding, the only thing which prevents the government from changing the law is limits set in the constitution and charter.

I'm not out to solve their problems for them. Each specfic situation is differnt, but I am satisified that we exist in an environment where individuals have the tools to better their conditions. If they don't have the money to move, flip burgers at two jobs while you save up. You know when I was a kid, I used to shovel snow from driveways for a couple of bucks. It probably worked ot to less than the minimium wage at the time. Today, I can't find anyone who would shovel my driveway for less than $20 an hour. My guess is that welfare and social services are at a high enough level that there is not sufficient incentive to induce people to take some unskilled jobs. The net result is that there are quite a few jobs which, if the labour rate were lower, I would contract out, but I end up just doing myself. So in the end we end up with an economic enfironment where those who work, work twice as hard as they woudl like, and those who have labour capacity, sit idle.

You don't think it is fair. I do. I never stated I though everyone should start at the same place. It is not just wealth that differentiate where people start from. Some people are born smart, some dumb, some beautiful, some ugly. They wealthy have every right to pass on their wealth to whomever they choose. Who exactly created this concept that all people should be equalized?

They are not in the position to negotiate higher wages because either they are unwilling to make the changes required or for whatever reason are unable to do so. They don't need to take that forty cents an hour more at Walmart, they could move to a location or profession which has a scarcity of workers.

"fair" according to who? You?

They should earn exactly as much as they can command by offering their services.

Sure. If needed. Define free or liberal? If you consider a free society one in which one is free to riot, than that is a differint definition of freedom than the one I have. Charity is a moral determinaition, best left to indiviudals to determine for themselves, not governments to impose.

Yes, "we" didn't want it to be run like insurnace, so the proof is in the outcome. The way "we" wanted it run has resulted in a system that is not fiscally sustainable. Not as far as I know. It has only been income based since the law was changed in 1985. Prior to that it was not dependant upon income. Perhaps the we shoudl allow a private parallell system. Virtually every country in the world outside Canada, Cuba, and North Korea allow private care. Why? Even the current system would be selective in who it funds for what procedures. Yes sometimes the consequence of funding decisions is death. There is no way around it. But I maintain, no one has the "right" to impose the cost of their life on someone else. Let me ask you some analogious questions: Would you forcibly extract blood from one indivudal if another needed it to survive? Would you forcibly extract a kidney from one indiviudal if another needed it to live? Would you force one human to host a pregnancy because another indiviudal needed the womb to live?

I see we are turning this thread into a debate of libertarinism. Not what I intended, but whatever.... Since you both seem to be echoes of each other I will respond to you both at once. Libertarinsm would provide for peace and order in perhaps a different way than you would propose. You would propose to appease those who disrupt peace and order with social services. Libertarinism would justify the use of force to maintain peace and order. Personally I don't take a moral view on it, I take a practical one. If it requires less resources to provide social services than to use force, then I'm for social services. If it required less resources to maintain peace and order to use force, I'm fine with the use of force.

There is nothing in Libertarianism which conflicts with peace, order and good government. Libertarianism seems to maximize indiviual freedom. I see nothing wrong with that.

Canadians also "believe in" a free society which is at the core of Libertarianism. In any case, I'm not concerned what anyone else believes in. I focus on what I believe in.

I have no particular fondness nor disdain for public healthcare. If a single payor system of healthcare reduces overhead so that medical care can be deliverd more cost effectively, I can accept that. I can even see a rationale that savings gained due to efficiencies in a single payor system are distributed among the population. However if single-payor system results in higher cost healtcare (through taxes) than one would pay through private care, why would I want to support it?

Really I'm not looking to debate Libertanism. I agree that the Canadian voter won't accept libertarianism, because a libertarian philosophy looks for people to provide for themselves. Those who would like to be provided for will never agree to a libertarian philosophy.

Actually, "You're free to die on your own dime." The arguments have a solid rationale. People don't accept the arguments because they are blinded by self-interest.

Yes I think non-medical aspects should have a veto on funding. If you are on the wrong side of the line, your appeal is to go raise funding by other means than state-supplied funds. Yes.

No they have no moral obligation to accept the imposition, only a legal obligation. So, unless the people have the power to enforce their moral obligations, they will likely have to sucumb to their legal obligations.

Ok. I thought you were stating fact. My mistake. But where you call something "criminal" or "illegal" this is a statement of fact. I have asked you to cite proof of this and you have been unable to do so. It doesn't appear that your "opinion" of illegality has any facts to back it up. Great, then we are on the same page. Then take this opportunity to show how wrong I am, yet you show nothing. Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Yes government has to follow budgets, and legislation, however what is to stop the government from changing legislation and creating new legislation. Ok I'll bite. How about some cites to the cases you reference? CPP has constraints on how the money is used. CPP is operated as an arms-lenght organization. CPP operation is covered by legislation drafted by the government. What stops the government from changing the legislation so that CPP rules are changed? It can change payouts, it can change retirement ages, and has done so. EI is similar. EI funds may be earmarked for unemployment, however by changing the rules the government can use the funding for other purposes. You can see for yourselves that courts have ruled for the government in its use of EI for debt reduction and other general spending. No need to refund EI surplus: Top court. You may not like it, and certainly I don't, but the court hasn't said that it is illegal. Yes, budgets usually allocate for programs over multiple years, but generally the government also sets the constraints by which it can change those funding commitments in future budgets. Spending priorities change all the time. For example, Harper scrapped the accord to spend 5.1 Billion on aboriginals. Is he in jail yet? Yes that is your "opinion", however that you consider it a "social contract" doesn't bind the government to obey it. I have shown a couple of examples of this. You have yet to show one. I accept that you have an opinion, and personally I would agree with you that perhaps the constitution should be change to prevent government from changing the "rules of the game", however what I am contending, is that in the current state, the constitution doesn't support this as courts have ruled.

I would call national defense an insurance program if it fit the definition of an insurance program, and it probably does. It is a system which is generally not to be used unless some unforseen events occur. It is really not relevant whether I want to label healthcare as insurance and you don't. What I am contending is that it should be run like insurance. Clawbacks ended universality. There are many differences. Universality is just one. Single-payor is yet another difference. Simply because a feature exist in the US is not sufficient reason to reject it. My contention is not to compare our system to the US, my suggestions is to change the system so that it is fiscally sustainable. So what if doctors refuse to go along? Unless they wish to work for free and provide their own facilities they are subject to state funding. I'm not suggesting that doctors can't live up to whatever their oath calls for. I'm suggesting that the taxpayer, through its proxy the state, doesn't necessarily have to fund it. A "faceless bureaucrat" can make rules on whether or not the state will fund a medical procedure. If I am not haappy with that funding decision, I should have the option of raising funds on my own. I can live with frightening you and others, because we are headed to a frightening situation.