blackbird
-
Posts
7,905 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:
perverse.. in other words.. it does not fit your subjective opinions. In short, all you have is opinion. It would be fact if the words were explicitly used.
"31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:31
Genesis chapter one tells how God created everything in six days. Do you think it was a fact?
-
38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
What other sins are defined by the degree to which they are committed? Which of the ten Commandments are you allowed to do a little bit?
For a guy who is an atheist, it's strange how you try to use the Bible in a discussion. Twisting scripture though.
You are not to sin period.
I never said some taxation was a sin. I already explained how some services are necessary.
Excessive taxation can be part of Socialism.
4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:Actually it is necessary for the connection to be 1 to 1 and therefore true. If not.. it is subjective and nothing but opinion.
A perverse way of reasoning and totally false.
-
33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
If taxation is theft then mandatory tithing is... ?
Not all taxation is theft. It is understandable that we need police, roads, infrastructure such as water and sewer, and armed forces. Socialism is EXCESSIVE or EXTREME taxation for the purposes of running a Socialist system and wealth re-distribution. That is theft or Communism, Socialism, or Marxism. It has nothing to do with the Jewish religion' tithing thousands of years ago to support their priests, etc. Tithing is not taught in the New Testament and does not apply to Christianity.
-
26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
If taxation is theft then mandatory tithing is... ?
Nonsense.
"Tithing is an Old Testament concept. The tithe was a requirement of the Law in which the Israelites were to give 10 percent of the crops they grew and the livestock they raised to the tabernacle/temple (Leviticus 27:30; Numbers 18:26; Deuteronomy 14:24; 2 Chronicles 31:5). In fact, the Old Testament Law required multiple tithes—one for the Levites, one for the use of the temple and the feasts, and one for the poor of the land—which would have pushed the total to around 23.3 percent. Some understand the Old Testament tithe as a method of taxation to provide for the needs of the priests and Levites in the sacrificial system."
What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe? | GotQuestions.org
Tithing was a part of the Jewish religion several thousand years ago. It applied to the Jews only within their religion to support their priests and whoever required to be supported. It does not apply today in Christianity or churches, although some try to use the Old Testament tithing law to get more money out of people.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism and government imposed excessive taxation to run Socialist programs. A certain amount of taxation is understandable to provide basic services. But when it becomes excessive as in Socialism or Communism then it becomes theft. Forced wealth confiscation or denial of private property is against the ten commandments that say "thou shalt not steal". Just because it is government, they do not have the right to confiscate people's money for a Socialist agenda. That is Communism, Marxism or Socialism.
-
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Tithing was an obligation according in old testament traditions. For you to associate that with Satanism is an incorrect interpretation.
Seriously? I am not associating tithing with Satanism.. Tithing was an old testament requirement for Jews to support their religion several thousand years ago. Tithing means giving 10% to the Jewish religion. It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism.
It has nothing to do with Socialism or Satanism.
-
43 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
It costs money to operate a government in the 21st century. To acquire than money, governments collect taxes. Taxation is the purview of Parliament. You elected your MP and MLA to do this. The fact that you are posting on this forum indicates you attended a school funded by taxpayers. Do you have tens of thousands of dollars to pay for your own healthcare? I don't. Where do you suggest governments get the money to pay for services designed to keep you and your decendents alive?
You totally missed the point. Surely you understand the difference between government taxation for basic necessary services such as roads, police, and armed forces and a Socialist system where the government taxes the population very heavily to provide all kinds of social services and spend money for everything under the sun.
This is child's stuff. There is a big difference between basic government and Socialist government that imposes extreme taxation in various forms and intrudes into everyone's life and has a huge bureaucracy to intervene and control society in every way imaginable, including all kinds of social programs. That is Socialism.
Don't try to pretend Socialism is just normal government.
Also don't make false claims that it would cost tens of thousands for a person to get health care. That is fear mongering and is false.
You would have health insurance whereby you pay a monthly premium and if you need a health care service, you pay a reasonable or small deductible. Nobody who is in poverty would be required to pay it. But health insurance should be compulsory for most people. Don't forget everyone pays for a failing public system through their taxes. It is not free. But hopefully you would have fast and effective health care if the private sector was more involved. Not the long waiting lists where people die waiting as we have now. You should be thinking about how to get people good fast health care to give them a good quality of life, instead of supporting a failing public system that is harming countless people.
-
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
The socialism is equally to theft part is your own interpretation. I would say taxation is closer to tithing, which Jesus supported.
Seriously Michael? Give us a break. Nobody is going to swallow that one.
There is nothing voluntary about taxation. It is compulsory.
Charity is voluntary.
-
34 minutes ago, Gaétan said:
The true law is to treat others as yourself and others laws come from this law and as rich don't share with poor they don't treat others as themself then we got to take their surplus they stole to people. Take from rich is not theft it is just give back to people the money they stole.
You have no idea what the Bible teaches and just use it for your own Communist ideas.
-
2 hours ago, eyeball said:
I'll assume you mean this federally and provincially.
And what about things like environmental protection, product safety, building standards, land use practices, zoning etc? And who is responsible for enforcing laissez faire all the way down to the ground where people live, federal, provincial or local governments?
All those things are part of the reason housing is unaffordable for the average Canadian now. All of those things could be examined in depth to see if they were really necessary or are they to build a massive bureaucracy and tax and charge Canadians to death.
However, that is not the main issue. We are referring to what would fit the definition of Socialism. That would be more to do with all the social programs and government departments that seem to be growing with no end and all the government intervention in the economy. All of this is paid for by confiscating the private money of citizens in various ways. Government is growing at an astronomical rate. It increased 40% in size since Trudeau took office in 2015.
For some reason, every need of every person and everything that costs money is now the responsibility of government. What changed in society that the individual is no longer the responsibility of the person himself? I can understand support for people who are handicapped, ill, or seniors in need of care, but everyone else who is capable of working should be supporting themselves. However government has made it unaffordable for healthy people to support themselves. That is a disaster.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:
interesting how the bible can have commentary on socialism when the term did not even come about until 1832 or so. From there, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels brought into the greater light with the publication of Das Kapital in 1867.
It is not necessary for the Bible to use the word "Socialism". The Bible condemns the ideology. The right to own private property is a very basic belief that is taught by the commandment "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet". Socialism is theft.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Gaétan said:
Do you think Satan would share his wealth with poor? No, Satan is a right wing capitalist and you don't have freedom if you have nothing to eat which is exactly what would happen if there would be no socialism.
"
All Forms of Socialism Are Theft
Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment:
You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19).
This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment:
You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21).
God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property. This is inferred from the 8th commandment. The prohibition of theft assumes that people own things. Of course, everything in this world belongs to God. Yet He has delegated control and responsibility of things to individuals. We call this private property rights."
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
What has adeclaration of independence got to do with anything?
How does the BNA Act and the Canada Act have anything to do with Satan?
You should have posted this in the American section. They are going to elect the Anti-Christ in November.
"These expansions of the national federal government through direct regulation under the Commerce Clause or by the indirect influence of federal dollars threaten a concentration of power that could make socialism possible. "
Socialism Vs. The American Constitution | Hoover Institution Socialism Vs. The American Constitution
In Canada, the Federal government under Trudeau has been accused of encroaching on provincial jurisdictions. It appears Trudeau and the Federal government are trying to increase their powers over provinces and impose their ideology on the whole country. That could be a form of creeping Socialism.
Since the BNA act defines federal and provincial powers and jurisdictions, it is fair to say it has a lot to do with the Socialist tendencies and policies of the different levels of government.
-
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
I know how the devil came into the public imagination but it's not relevant to 63% of us so a non-starter.
It is understandable why you would try to distance yourself from the basic premise and say it is not relevant. Nobody wants to be seen supporting or associated with something evil, in this case Socialism.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, eyeball said:
If you're not prescribing an overt form libertarianism where there's no taxes and no regulations then what are you prescribing?
Something religious and militaristic, what exactly?
Very basic services and very limited government. Not excessive taxation and government control and intervention. Let private enterprise do its job and let the people have their freedom as much as possible.
-
7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
5. 6. It's all nonsense and superstition.
That's the go-to line of atheists.
You need to do some studying to learn something about it. If you just throw out stock phrases like that of course it is just paraphrasing atheistic lines and ideology. I gave a good explanation about why Socialism is wrong. If you don't read articles that have a spiritual or biblical dimension to them, you are missing out on the most important issue of life. That sounds more like diehard atheism or Socialist ideology.
I still have hope for you my friend. I don't consider you an opponent, but as one who likes to discuss things.
-
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
2. With respect, the public is part of any public healthcare system so there is some responsibility on the public engagement model in how things are done.
I am not sure what you mean by "public engagement". Many people fear sticking their necks out will result in retribution against them personally.
Our system is not really set up for the public to engage and run the health care system. We elect governments and people trust them, rightly or wrongly. Once they are in control, the ordinary people don't have much or any control over how they run the public health care system.
You seem to think there is a way the public can control it. It doesn't exist and I don't think that is an answer to a failing system.
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:Does the public even know about CIHI ?
What is CIHI?
-
36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Satan is a fictional character.
Many would disagree with you. If you look at the kind of world we live in, you would have to admit there is something more behind it all. Perhaps you need to broaden you thinking.
"The Bible explicitly informs us of the existence of Satan. He is described as the enemy of man (Genesis 3:15), the father of lies (John 8:44b), and the accuser (Revelation 12:10), among other things. The very name “Satan” means “adversary.” Isaiah 14:12–17 explains that Satan was originally an angelic being, but he decided he wanted the honor and worship due only to God and was thrown out of heaven (also see Ezekiel 28:11–17).
Ever since he was cast out of heaven (along with the angels who chose to rebel with him), Satan has made it his purpose to oppose God and lead the people of earth into rebellion as well. Satan has a certain authority in this world; he is called “the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4) and “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). That’s why we are to “be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8)." -
7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:
Nobody's discussing your OP. Nobody's going to read it. Even if people don't immediately dismiss the post just by its title and the reputation and tendencies of its author, they certainly will when that wall of text assaults their senses.
Several people already read and they replied as did you. You are perfectly welcome to read or not read anything, and reply or not reply. It's a freedom we still have. If atheists had their way there would be no freedom of choice.
You can close your eyes to truth, but that doesn't prove or mean it is not a fact.
You would be much wiser to read all sides of any subject in order to understand other points of view.
Closing your mind to other views is not going to give you much opportunity in the world to enlighten yourself.
-
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Satan is a fictional character.
That requires a longer reply, but just to let you know briefly, what you say is exactly what he wants you to believe. If you believed he really existed, he would be concerned but the fact you don't believe he exists gives him great assurance that he can operate much more freely without hindrance or opposition.
12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:So this is a thought exercise but not done for any reason of exploring or discussing with people who disagree.
Why not? We are discussing it right now. Nothing stopping anyone from discussing it in any way. You just stated your reason for disagreeing.
-
On 4/21/2024 at 4:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:
Because the arguments and public input Are absent and Canada does not have a management mindset. We discussed Public services in terms of should they exist or not?
So does that mean you believe the public health care system can be reformed to provide good service for Canadians?
Polls show the overwhelming majority of Canadians don't think so.
"
Perhaps most shocking of all, almost everyone agreed that private health care would be more efficient. Seven in 10 respondents agreed that “private entrepreneurs can deliver health care services faster than hospitals managed by the government” – against a mere 15 per cent who disagreed.
“People understand that the endless waiting lists that characterize our government-run health systems will not be solved by yet another bureaucratic reform,” was the conclusion of the Montreal Economic Institute, which commissioned the poll. "
-
This is an interesting news article which is of wide interest right now:
quote
It’s been among the most volatile and untouchable third rails in Canadian politics: The adoption, at any level, of a private health-care system.
In the last federal election, a Conservative statement about “public-private synergies” was all it took for Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland to brand it as a right-wing assault on the “public, universal health-care system.”
But a new Ipsos report shows that “two tier health care” is not the threat it once was.
Among respondents, 52 per cent wanted “increased access to health care provided by independent health entrepreneurs,” against just 29 per cent who didn’t.
Perhaps most shocking of all, almost everyone agreed that private health care would be more efficient. Seven in 10 respondents agreed that “private entrepreneurs can deliver health care services faster than hospitals managed by the government” – against a mere 15 per cent who disagreed.
“People understand that the endless waiting lists that characterize our government-run health systems will not be solved by yet another bureaucratic reform,” was the conclusion of the Montreal Economic Institute, which commissioned the poll. unquote
For the whole article:
FIRST READING: Canadians are so fed up, they’re abandoning political sacred cows (msn.com)
Tragically Liberals and NDP are committed to a failing health care system with its long waiting lists. They prefer ideology to helping Canadians with serious medical issues.
-
5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
You're dealing in gross generalities based on ideology.
No, it is you that support the ideology of government intervention and taxation, which is Socialism.
You should have learned from the past number of years that the government has caused great harm to the economy with their policies.
They created the high real estate prices and now you trust they will fix it with more taxation?
-
You say "haha". So you essentially laugh at the article.
This is a good article refuting Socialism.
"Socialism is a societal system in which property, natural resources, and the means of production are owned and controlled by the state rather than by individuals or private companies. A basic belief of socialism is that society as a whole should share in all goods produced, as everyone lives in cooperation with one another. Various theories of socialism have been put forward from ancient times, including a form of Christian socialism.
The most prominent philosopher to argue in favor of socialism was Karl Marx, who taught that the driving factor behind all of human history is economics. Marx was born to German Jewish parents in 1818 and received his doctorate at age 23. He then embarked on a mission to prove that human identity is bound up in a person’s work and that economic systems totally control a person. Arguing that mankind survives by labor, Marx believed that human communities are created by the division of labor.
Marx saw the Industrial Revolution as changing the basic lifestyle of humanity, because, in Marx’s mind, those who had freely worked for themselves were now forced by economics to work in factories instead. This, Marx felt, stripped away their dignity and identity, and now they were reduced to mere slaves controlled by a powerful taskmaster. This perspective made the economics of capitalism the natural enemy of Marx’s brand of socialism.Socialism seeks to do away with private property. Karl Marx surmised that capitalism emphasizes private property and, therefore, reduced ownership to the privileged few. Two separate “communities” emerged in Marx’s mind: the business owners, or the bourgeoisie; and the working class, or the proletariat. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie use and exploit the proletariat with the result that one person’s gain is another person’s loss. Moreover, Marx believed that the business owners influence lawmakers to ensure their interests are defended over the workers’ loss of dignity and rights. Last, Marx felt that religion is the “opiate of the masses,” which the rich use to manipulate the working class; the proletariat is promised rewards in heaven one day if they keep working diligently where God has placed them (subservient to the bourgeoisie).
In the socialism Marx envisioned, the people own everything collectively, and all work for the common good of mankind. Marx’s goal was to end the ownership of private property through the state’s ownership of all means of economic production. Once private property was abolished, Marx felt that a person’s identity would be elevated and the wall that capitalism supposedly constructed between the owners and working class would be shattered. Everyone would value one another and work together for a shared purpose. Government would no longer be necessary, as people would become less selfish.
There are at least four errors in Marx’s thinking, revealing some flaws in socialism. First, his assertion that another person’s gain must come at another person’s expense is a myth; the structure of capitalism leaves plenty of room for all to raise their standard of living through innovation and competition. It is perfectly feasible for multiple parties to compete and do well in a market of consumers who want their goods and services.
Second, Marx was wrong in his socialist belief that the value of a product is based on the amount of labor that is put into it. The quality of a good or service simply cannot be determined by the amount of effort a laborer expends. For example, a master carpenter can more quickly and beautifully make a piece of furniture than an unskilled craftsmen can, and therefore his work will be valued far more (and correctly so) in an economic system such as capitalism.
Third, Marx’s theory of socialism necessitates a government that is free from corruption and negates the possibility of elitism within its ranks. If history has shown anything, it is that power corrupts fallen mankind, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People do not naturally become less selfish. A nation or government may kill the idea of God, but someone will take God’s place in that government. That someone is most often an individual or group who begins to rule over the population and seeks to maintain their privileged position at all costs. This is why socialism has led to dictatorships so often in world history.
Fourth and most importantly, socialism is wrong in teaching that a person’s identity is bound up in the work that he does. Although secular society certainly promotes this belief, the Bible says that all have equal worth because all are created in the image of the eternal God. True, intrinsic human value lies in God’s creation of us.
Was Marx right in saying that economics is the catalyst that drives human history? No, what directs human history is the Creator of the universe who controls everything, including the rise and fall of every nation. God also controls who is put in charge of each nation: “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Daniel 4:17). Further, it is God who gives a person skill at labor and the wealth that comes from it, not the government: “Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God” (Ecclesiastes 5:18–19).
Socialism, for all its popularity in some circles, is not a biblical model for society. In opposition to socialism, the Bible promotes the idea of private property and issues commands to respect it: commands such as “You shall not steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19) are meaningless without private property. Unlike what we see in failed experiments in socialism, the Bible honors work and teaches that individuals are responsible to support themselves: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The redistribution of wealth foundational to socialism destroys accountability and the biblical work ethic. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:14–30 clearly teaches our responsibility to serve God with our (private) resources." -
13 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Price of homes is determined by supply and demand. You don't have to build older homes since they already exist, and yet they are also higher in cost. Sorry but more people bidding on homes because there's a lot of people wanting to buy them as investment properties is part of driving up the price because that increases the demand. There are other factors involved in supply and demand for housing, but if you lower demand you will lower the price of homes. IMO they should also lower the annual immigration intake that has spiked under the Liberals to lower demand. The number of new builds is near historic highs, I see it as more of a demand issue than supply issue since demand has vastly increased while supply also has risen, just not enough to match the larger increase in demand.
Also, I am aware that capital gains hikes as proposed by the Liberals will very likely inhibit investment and economic growth, which is why I only agree with raising capital gains for 2nd properties besides cottages. It will also make more people invest in the Canadian stock market rather than investment properties since they'll still want to invest their money somewhere.
I agree supply and demand affects the prices of everything. But government interfering by taxing is not the solution. You are asking for government to intervene in the economy and put higher taxes on people that invest in homes or rental properties as if that is a big sin. That will not increase the housing supply or make lower prices for homes.
Free enterprise has to be free, not government-controlled, i.e. Socialist. You can't pick and choose. The reason why the economy is in a mess and why there is such a shortage of housing is because of government intervention at all levels.
I agree there is too much immigration.
But if you want lower priced homes, taxing people that invest in homes is not the way to do it. That leads down the wrong road completely. Government interfering and taxing is harmful not helpful to the economy in a free enterprise system.
Canada going downhill in every major category
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by blackbird
Dumb comparison. Do we need hundreds of thousands of civil servants in the federal government to manage a few departments in this country? Do we need a massive pile of building codes and regulations to build houses and keep your septic system clean. If you are out in the country it is a fairly simple process, but you seem to miss the point that municipalities, regional districts and all levels of government have gone overboard with regulations and control of everything.
I could give you lots of insane examples just in the B.C. fishing regulations to show how bad things have become.
I wrote to the government to ask why they close a local river part of the year to freshwater trout fishing. The answer I got was because the water temperature gets high and the salmon migrate up the river. I wonder how a few people trout fishing on that river have anything to do with that. Insane regulations.
I also asked why there is a 10 HP maximum for boats to fish on a remote lake. The answer was the federal government doesn't want boats with more than 10 HP fishing on that lake because salmon migrate in it. I have an old 15 hp motor and when I fish it runs very slowly. So what difference does it make if it was 15 or 10 HP is you are trolling slowly? No difference.
The BC freshwater regulations are full of unnecessary and useless restrictions. That is how governments act.
Another example is they don't even allow electric motors on a little lake. Now why would an electric motor make any difference to anything?