Renegade

All rights are social constructs that only have the meaning that society chooses to give them. We have the charter rights because we, as a society, decided that certain rights were necessary to protect the integrity of the institutions of the society. Our charter itself includes a notwithstanding clause because the authors of the document recognized that individual rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the needs of society. You could make an argument that there is some old man in the clouds that hands out rights and if a society chooses not to recognize those rights then that society is violating the natural rules set by the old man in the clouds. However, that would simply turn a discussion about rights into discussion about theology. More importantly, it does not change the fact that the only rights that actually exist are those rights which society chooses to grant. I cannot think of any society that grants absolute rights to all types of property. Even societies that have property rights in the constitution do not grant absolute rights to property owner - they only ensure that the gov'ts powers of expropriation are used fairly. I certainly am not arguing that we were given rights by some devine power, but I adamantly reject the notion that society at its discretion gives us our rights. If society has the ultimate decision on what rigthts we should or shouldn't have, then by what power does an organization like Amensty International have to condemn countries for violating rights? If it is up to a country what rights it gives it citizens, and the country itself decides that its citizens have little or no rights, then an organization like AI doesn't have justification for monitoriing rights abuses. Similarly when Canada or the USA condemn China or Korea for rights abuses, what right do we have? Afterall by your argument it is up to Korea or China to decide the rights of its citizens. I don't agree with this argument. I believe every living being has rights, property rights being one of them. Because we have invented the concept of money, it lets us extend our property rights in ways which were not physically possible before, but nevertheless the intrinsic right remains.

Would you still say that if the parents were known child molesters?

You had a reason to live before you had a child. Why suddenly is the child your reason to live? Irregadless, do you believe that society should be involved in a parent's choice to procreate? If not, fine, but then don't expect society to be obligated to financially support you while you persue that choice. Seems to me you want society to let you be free to choose to be a parent but then come wanting support when you are unable to fulfill the financial obligations of being a parent. I agree, forced abortion is a better solution. However the argument that you made above still applies here. Some women would commit suicide if forced to have an abortion and the unborn baby is "their reason to live", not to mention forcing some an action against their religious beliefs. Some mothers may perfer giving their kids up for adoption over abortion. Either way it is coercion, just a matter of which action we are coercing. But its not the vast majority we are taking about are we? It's the substantial impact on the minority which we are trying to avoid. Do you have a foolproof system for determining who will turn out fine and who will be impacted? Neither do I, neither does the government, thats why standards should be set. Is it reasonable to expect that a parent should not be a alcohol or drug abuser? I think so. I'm sure you can point to a lot of kids who have grown up fine in households where the parent has been a drub abuser, and I'm sure I can point to a lot of kids who havent. But the irrefutable point is that it is a huge risk factor which should not be ignored. If your point is that he government's standards are not very good. I'm inclined to agree. My point is the society doesn't really have standards and as a result you have a lot of people who even by the most minimal standards are "unfit" parents. I disagree. Parenting ought to be a privilidge. The fact that anyone can procreate doesn't mean anyone can be a parent. You can never predict who will be a good parent. Adoption agencies have that issue now but they have created guidelines. Why create these guidelines if everyone was an equally good parent. The fact you are avoiding is that in the best interest of the child, sometimes the child is better off in an adoptive family than the natural parents. What makes a good parent is your actions after the birth, not your genes. Yes, and foster parents are regulated by the government to make sure they meet minimum requirements such as the cage for the child should be no smaller that 2'x4'.... Again, I am agreeing that the government standards are not adequate, so I'm sure you would agree that the standards should be more rigorous.

Actually almost none of your policies will work in a democracy as in every case there will be a negative impact to people, and something the majority is not likely to support. So if you assumption is that in a democracy people will "choose" the policies you have suggested above, you are being completely unrealistic.

Maybe, I could be wrong but I thought that there is a shortage of babies and an abundance of parents waiting to adopt. Because the number of people interested in adopting infants from the United States and Canada exceeds the number of infants in need of adoption, experts have called this problem a "baby shortage."link We create standards for far less important areas, such as who can drive. I am pretty confident that we can come up with a minimium standard for parenting. I don't think society can have it both ways. They either completely stay out of parenting and let people (and kids) absorb all the consequences of that decision or society decides it has a vested interest in parenting for the protection of the child. If society believes that it should be the guardian of the childs interest it needs to take a active and sometimes coercive role. There is plenty of precedent. Look at child-support law, much is not because it is "fair", it is because it is in the best interest of the child. As far as enforcement, yes it would require some punatitive measures such as taking away babies from parents judged unfit. Or temporary or permanant sterilization, or potentially fines for those who violate the rules. We fine and jail drivers who drive without meeting the criteria. Why should parenting be different. Personally I'm ok if society either completely stays out or completely gets involved in the parenting decision, however I think the current situation where society is a just sits on the fence and ocassionally intervenes is just nonsense. Yes under parenting standards your son may have been taken away from you. But just because you succeeded in bringing up your child successfully doesn't mean we can use one case as criteria for overall social policy. I'm sure I can point to a lot of people who don't have a driver's license who would be safe drivers, and I can point to some with driver's license who are completely unsafe. Does that make the driver's license a bad idea? It is hoped that the people would starve a child to death would not meet the standard of adequate parents, but obviously there is no guaranteee. As I've said, it was my belief that there is a demand for babies. As they become older there is much less demand, so the key may be adopting them early. For some kids I would venture that even a foster home is better than a jailhouse mom.

Why on earth would you do that? If one area was overpopulated to extreme, it could potentially ravage the land to the point that it was unrecoverable. Other areas may be uninhabited and could sustain some population. This policy could acually cause huge damage to certain parts of the world. Is your plan to allow those areas to get so overpopulated and then collapse through mass-starvation so that the numbers are then reduced? This would lead to mass inefficiencies. For example if each country had to produce its own, wheat, rice, all fruit crops, etc, do you really think they could without mass wasteful infficiency? What about small countries who lack the diversity to grow eveything they need? Do they close shop? What happens to their population, since they can't immigrate due to policy 1 above? Since we are being so coercive, why not just mass sterilization? Since everything above subsistance living is a "luxury" should we then resort to subistance living? Doubtful that very many will agree to the massive drop in the standard of living which is the net result of this.

People wanted change too in the previous election, yet it wasn't enough to elect Harper last time. I dont' beleive it is ever one single factor but a combination of factors which influence the decision. He must be doing something right since his poll number are up. Conservative support rising: poll It's odd that you feel that way because the government (if you included the $1200/child) subsidizes, for middle-class families, up to 55% of the chidcare cost. That is hardly a pittance. Btw, if you don't feel you are due the money, you are free to give it back. You CAN infact donate your money back to the Federal or Provincial government. Will you? Putting the money in a trust fund is no different than keeping it. Well in that way it met the objectives. The objective was to give parents a choice on where they spent the money. If they want to donate it, they are free to do so, if they want to use it for food, they can, if they want to use it for beer and popcorn, they can. Don't misinterpret that I am in favour of this plan, I'm not. I think it is a bad idea to subsidize parents, but as a political tactic, it was brilliant. So, how many parents local to you will be taking their $1200 and donating it to soldiers? None? I though so. People say one thing but do another.

You bet. While it may not have swayed everyone, it swayed enough to make a difference. I would guess you didn't vote for Harper anyway, and you aren't the one benefiting from teh $100/month payment. The polls above don't really tell us how the policies affected people's vote. There are plenty of people who may not agree that $100/month/child is a good idea, but will happily pocket the money and support a government that gives it to them. So many middle-class voters who may not have directly benefit from the liberal plan, would benefit from the Harper plan. Yes, people do vote in their self-interest. Funny that.

Too be honest, I think that if society really cared for the best interest of the child, they would confiscate the child and put it up for adoption. I believe that society ought to have and enforce minimium standards for parents. If they don't meet that standard, they should not be allowed to be parents. Being locked up in jail, for me, meets ths standard of being an unfit parent. I know that there will be people who will be up-in-arms about separating mothers from kids. As a practical matter, when done early, the impact is entirely on the mother, not the child, and I would say it is a situation, for the most part, of the mother's own doing.

Funny, I always thought most religious philisophies were more aligned with left-wing groups like the NDP than with the right. I have always been curious how the alliances seem to have been made in the opposite direction.

Aside from the rant, what exactly are you suggesting society, government, or people do?

I think you are being somewhat idealistic. It will always cost us more to do the "right" thing than the "wrong" thing. It is alway cheaper to dump garbage in the local park than to pay for garbage services. The most efffective way society can make it economicaly attractive to make environmentally-friendly choices is to include the cost of environmental damage into the other choices. Yes the net result is that regardless of the choice the overall cost will go up. Yes I agree that if it is economically advantageous to choose an environmentally-friendly choice, then people will do so, however it is not economically feasible to indefinately "bribe" people into making such choices.

Sure, but that service benefits everyone producers and consumers. So everyone pays. The entire cost of this system is not in the system provided it is in the enforcement. The infrastructure to enforce such a system (ie police and courts) is not exclusive to copyright law, but to laws in general. It is only fitting that everyone pay for it.

I am not suggesting that we should suddenly impose rules which would would cause immediate disruption to people's lives, and I can see that a transition is required. However if in the end your current lifestyle becomes economically unviable due to the cost to the environment, then you should either change your life so that it is viable (eg move) or resign yourself to the economic hardship which will ensue.

Hicksey, what exactly is your point? That you shouldn't have to pay the environmetal cost for the damage you cause because you are only doing so to provide for you family? That the poor should not have to pay for the environmental damage they cause but the rich should?

This attitude from many both wealthy, middle-income, and low-income parents is maddening. When will parents lose this sense of entitlement and accept that the cost and responsiblity of raising a child is theirs and theirs alone. Anything socieity provides is generous and is something they should be grateful for.

Of course it is, but so what? What did you expect in a election campaign? In my view the plan actually goes against conservative philosophy, but tactically it was a smart move during the campaign. That and the GST cut were probably what got him his minority government.

Tax cuts for everyone cost a lot of more money. Directed programs score political points at a lower cost. Do they? I would argue that Harper's GST cut scored more political points than Liberal's income tax cut, despite the fact that the Liberals plan was more directed. I would argue that Harper's $1200/child handout scored more political points than the more directed Liberal policy. I'm not arguing for or against the merits of the policy, however I don't necessarily agree that it scores more political points. People act in their self-interest. Spreading the self-interest to the most people is the best way to score points, afterall each person can only give you a vote once.

It is clear that many of our activities have severe environmental consequences. We do not pay for the environmental consequences of our actions, nor do we factor the environmental cost when deciding to undertake these activites. In my view, the proper way to handle this is to force these activites to pay to the extent that it would cost to restore the environment to it's previous state. So if strip mining scars, the landscape, force the company to pay to the extent it would cost to restore the landscape. If manufacturing pollutes the air and land, collect a charge to the extent it would cost to clean up the mess. As to who gets the money. The environment. The money should actually be spent on cleaning and restoring the environment so that the activity is sustainable. The biggest problem is that it would take cross-border cooperation. For example it is pointless for us to try and clean the air if other countries are not doing the same.

I disagree 100%. Property ownership is a natural right in the same way the freedom of religion is a natural right. Our society does not "grant" us these rights, it simply acknowledges that we have them and guarantees their protection as was done in the Charter. It is unfortunate that we did not address property rights in the charter. We should have. Other countries have done so. We pay taxes for operational purposes. (ie to pay for the services provided and consumed) not because they are part of the rules of fair play. I disagree. Society has no such duty to create a level playing field. If it did it would enact laws saying that parents couldn't send their kids to private school, or for extra music lessons, or pay for braces to straighten their teeth. As a practical matter society provides basic education because it feels it is an investment which will pay off in a more productive workforce, not because of an obligation to "level the playing field" What you and I are both presenting are our opinions and perceptions. These are not positions which can be substantiated with evidence on either side. If you feel that United Way is too general, substitute "Daily Bread Food Bank" or "Run for the Cure" or any other charity who's target is more specificly directed. Either way, the point remains the same. Gates has already paid society back for the protection of the copywright by providing society software which makes it more productive. Beyond that the obligation to pay taxes is no different for Gates than anyone else. He pays taxes to pay for the services the government provides.

That balance already exist in the laws which protect intellectual property. Most of those laws only protect its exclusive use for a period of time, during which the inventor or patent holder may financially benefit, beyond that society may have free use of the invention. There is no further obligation on either side.

That person owes me nothing. You may have both a moral and legal obligation to pay that person for the discovery, depending upon the discovery. One other thought, suppose an inventor discovers something that causes society harm. Say some terrible virus, or Albert Einstien's theories which let to the nuclear bomb. In these cases does the inventor owe society something for the havoc he's caused? Society sets up "ground rules" to incent people to produce discoveries and inventions. These "ground rules" are in the form of Intelectual Property laws, and Patents. Under this incentives the inventor is allowed to gain financial advantage from the exclusive use of his invention. This arrangement benefits both parties. The inventor makes financial gain and society gains a valued product. It is both fair and necessary or no one would invent anything. In generally the wealthy are forced to contribute not because there is some underlying moral justification, but because as a practical matter it is more effective to collect money from those who have it than from those who don't. We fool ourselves into believing this coercion is morally justified. We tax everyone's success (ie income tax). The more successful one is, the more they are taxed. The key is the right level of taxation which is not so onerous that it cause the majority of inventors to stop their efforts. In once sense we have already put in barriers to success. In many industries, individual inventors are unheard of. This is not just because of the complexity of the invention, but in order to protect the invention, it is no longer feasable for the individual inventor to do.

Let's look at an analogous situation. A charity (United Way, let's say), does a yearly drive with its constituents. It set targets, it creates a campaign to educate people, and mobilizes to create sufficient justification so that people donate. There are not the huge swings you describe despite the fact that people indepandantly decide what they will contribute. Moreover, when they do fall short of their target, their constituents are in fact giving them a message that they must cut back. Agreed. But there is a symbiotic relationship. Just because society benefits from the innovation stimulated by intellectual property rights does not mean that Gates owes nothing to the society that made his personal wealth possible. Why does Gates owe more than the usefull software he provided? What does society owe Bill more than the price paid for the software?

This sounds very much like the argument that the mafia makes to the local proprietor. The proprietor is only making a profit because the mafia lets him keep his money, therefore he ows them a cut. Frankly this argument does not reflect reality. People in society exist in a symbiotic relationship. Society sets the "rules of fair play" and people play. Some win and some lose. Society benefits in that the things the winners create are generally useful for society. For the "winners" the prize is riches. Neither is acting because of a sense of obligation to the other and neither has any. It is idealistic to believe that all members have equal opportunity. Some members have the benefit of family riches, some have talents, some have intelligence, some have physical beauty. All this results in some having advantages over others. All that society needs to do is ensure that it does not impose additional barriers. It does that through legislation such as the charter of rights which ensures no group is discrimminated. Beyond that, I don't see that society has the responsibility to ensure equality of opportunity.

To remove the dependance on growth you have to restructure the programs which depend upon increased population. Programs such as CPP, and OAS, and healthcare depend upon larger and larger population in order to support the programs. Only once we fix the programs so that we are paying the true cost of the benefit received, and not depending upon future working generations to fund them, will our dependance on growth cease.