SkyHigh

With the understanding that it didn't contain any actual regulations and is simply describing that stuff costs more (which is not in debate), particularly when compared to other "less regulated economies" that were never mentioned, right? I also agree that it's most likely less expensive to build a house in Venezuela , they don't have winter either, much cheaper to insulate . So can you name a regulation that pertains to the rising cost of housing that infringes on our freedoms? Well other than how many guns I can own, .you haven't shown it to be false either Maybe you should look harder

I understand what an insurance pool is, that's why I used an electricians union when I wanted to provide good benefits at a lower cost for me, and my employees. Again, I admit my ignorance to the particularities of the US system especially since it can vary so much from state to state. Which brings up another point, I originally made about mobility,in that you can move provinces and maintain health care, in the US some insurance companies don't operate in some states, and as I understand it even with the ACA (Obama care) they do not receive the coverage we do. What I do know is for at minimum the over 50% of Americans to whom their health care is directly tied to their employment, it is measurably easier to change ones professional station without the fear of financial ruin that may arise if you or any dependants fall gravely ill. I'm sure you're aware of the many that have been forced into bankruptcy because of treatments for things as "simple" as cancer.

I'll get high either way. Hahaha

That may very well be true, I'm not completely versed on the intricacies of their system, but in my understanding changing jobs and maintaining your level of health care ( doctors , hospitals, etc as where and with whom you can get treatment is based on your plan) isn't that simple and a big part of my argument included starting a business and the expense of providing quality benefits to be able to attract people at the top of their field

If you let religious zealots dictate who can and can't receive the health care that they and their medical professional agree upon then you live in a theocracy and if that's what you want, you must accept Jehovah witnesses letting their children die because they don't believe in blood transfusions, polygamy, Sharia law, etc, etc, etc... Legitimate question when speaking with someone that often talks out their ass. Ya , I'd be praying to god too if I were as dishonest as you , but Mathew 7:21-23 will be your future. Well it would be if god were true but we both know she's not

We've had this conversation too many times, you either ignore what I say or just deny science outright. Your own definition of faith "the belief in things unseen" explains everything or just read the verse I just wrote. You know you can actually read the Bible yourself and not just rely on what charlatans tell you I says Honest question, have you ever read the Bible cover to cover, on your own? Please answer that

Nope health care is a basic human right and yes birth control is basic health care, some women use the pill for other health reasons. I believe tax free status should be reserved for those that use the money to help all people regardless of their religious or political affiliation (so not just churches) If it's true that the Obama administration tried to meddle in who any nongovernmental organization can or cannot hire, I would be 100% against that, but my guess is you're just mistaken or outright lying Could you provide the case number for this ruling?

I'm certainly not arguing that the cost of housing isn't going up (like everything else) but there are many factors that cause this. You spoke of regulations that hinder freedom, therefore the burden is on you to provide a regulation that fits that criteria, not just link to an News article that says shit is more expensive So if anyone needs to look up various regulations it's you. It's your argument.

Oh ya, I forgot, you only follow the rules of the Bible that fit the interpretation that other people have told to believe. Again, we do not have the same method to find truth. I use logic and reason , your Bible teaches the exact opposite. There are many examples of this, here's one Proverbs 3:5-6

I don't think requiring them to provide basic health care is bullying. Ministerial exceptions? If this is in regards to the tax free status of self proclaimed churchs , I don't think any religious institution should be granted, not for profit status unless they're willing to open up the books to prove they are using their money to help everyone in the community not just their flock (yes , I'm purposely making a sheep reference) If it has to do with something else, ignore that last paragraph and please explain what ministerial exception is. Cheers

Yes, newcomers should be encouraged to move to smaller towns to not overburden the resources in big cities. I didn't actually see any specific regulations in that link, more just a realization of the higher cost of construction. Ergo higher costs for those buying a house. Maybe I missed it. Could you just give me a particular, specific regulation you think is a restriction of our freedom? Cheers

I'll give you three guesses , but the first two don't count.

Stoning children and adulterers, not eating shrimp, all gods talk about what I can and cannot do with my penis. These and most of the laws of Moses are backwards and nobody in their right mind would think they should be the law of the land in a free society. You want a theocracy, move to Saudi Arabia.

No sure how to be more clear

For the purpose of this conversation, that the backwards laws of Moses have no place in a free society

Since you don't trust studies I'm not sure which half of this you believe. Hahahaha Maybe I missed it but I didn't see who the "less regulated economies" they were comparing construction costs with (did you notice) but I'd be interested in seeing the entire basket as it pertains to the "real" numbers associated with all that is encompassed in buying a house. This article also proposes solutions, so at least there are possible measures that can be taken. As far as the lack of developable land, I'm not sure that's legitimate, I think it's more a matter of people wanting the benefit of being in the city but aren't willing to pay for it. I was in Abitibi for the summer and there was lots of developable land and you could get a 2000 square foot house on an acre of land for 170'000.

Honestly I thought it pretty clear, but you may have a point

I don't share those concerns. I've started, ran and sold two different companies (the second admittedly not subject to many regulations) there was often redundant forms and such to get permits, insurance, etc.. but,not only didn't I feel the government's foot on my throat I found many gov't services to help me start up, maintain and even close my businesses. Do you have a specific regulation you're referring to? There are of course many I'm unfamiliar with.

Nah, more slowly walking away, and not from someone standing up to me, but the crazy dude standing in the corner yelling at the wall. I used a study by two right wing think tanks about financial mobility and targeted it to just one aspect, health care and you responded with, the US has EI and completely ignored everything else I said. Then when I was trying to differentiate between speech and actions, I mentioned some people I know that were disrupted by the actions of the people we were speaking about and all you had was to insult them. You sir are not capable of participating in good faith conversations. So you keep ranting, but at least give the kids their ball back

Of course I'm not for Sharia law. But those that don't believe in the separation of church and state, would have no choice but to accept it.

Oh, for a second there I thought you actually had an argument. Silly me Ones employer should have zero decisional power over the choices their employees make with their medical professionals. I believe health care to be a fundamental human right ( I seem to remember Jesus being pretty keen on heeling the sick) therefore I am 100% behind the government mandating such things. Regardless of any religious or cultural objections.

How, may I ask , can you be so confident in the intentions of the author in a centuries old book?

How so?

On a political level I agree, when I said non issue I meant that it shouldn't have seen a court room or have been some sort of rallying point to latch on to a movement that still has real issues On an entrepreneurial level, terrible business sense. Someone wants to give you money to provide the service you offer, take the cash. I of course respect a business owners choice to serve (or not) whomever they want but they're not very good at capitalism. Where I feel you may be in error, is that you seen to be painting an entire reasonable political movement, based on the actions of an extreme wing. The same way people equate the rantings of Trump to the views of reasonable conservatives

After having read this younger, I recently read something saying the prince shouldn't be categorized as political science but political satire. I'm rereading it again from that perspective. I think it might be better.