ClearWest

If someone is being provided for, oftentimes their goal will not be to get out of that comfort zone, it'll be to stay in it. This will lead to more government dependants not less. It's wonderful that people want to help others - but taking other people's money to do it is wrong, verging on tyrannical.

I want to get back to the main topic, if we could. What is it about Ron Paul or his policies which you find so incredible as to make a joke out of it? I'll admit that it isn't likely that he'll be elected, however, of the people running I would support him. For one thing, he was one congressman who had the courage to vote against the Patriot Act and stand up for individual liberties. What do you see that's wrong with him?

Why are you implying that Ron Paul is 'whacko'? I'd support him over most of the people running for president. Care to explain your reasoning?

When they have as much power as they do (under the dictatorship of the proletariat), they would never just turn over their power. Communism is one of the biggest lies in history. We need to give the power to the people by removing and reducing the power of the government. Jbg gives three good examples of some of the worst economic/social policies in history. I propose that we have a non-force economic/social policy.

You keep saying certain legislations are for the benefit of society, or that other actions are to the detriment of society. If the goal of your society is high unemployment, lack of availability of goods and services, and far less private investment - then minimum wage is the way to go. I like to look at political moves from the standpoint of: "what benefits the individual?" Or "What gives the individual most freedom to benefit?" And I can tell you now that I don't think it is a benefit to the $8/hr worker if you tell them they can't work for less than $10/hr - thus forcing them out of a job. A free market implies that individuals are free to make voluntary trades without the impositions/coersions from either party involved in the trade or from a third party. Someone wants money, they offer to trade their services, but BANG - gov't steps in telling them they can't trade their services for less than $10/hour. Imagine if the rest of the economy worked that way. "You can't buy bread for less than $10/loaf". It would skewer the economy. That's what minimum wage legislation does.

Wow, that's some cheap real estate. I'd buy it up in a second. If only a bit more than 50 people are employed in this town, then what are the other 450 people doing living there? Are they all on government welfare? This situation would not happen in a normal free market economy. Society is an ugly word - it implies that we all have the same goals and the same brain (Sig hail to you too). We don't. This obligation is wrong - I wish I could say it was unconstitutional, but, heh, good ol' Trudeau didn't think we needed property rights. In a way that's like holding someone by the throat so it's difficult for them to breathe - then you say "People who can't breathe are of no benefit to society". Do you believe in subsidizing industry? You may not, but I'm just curious because many people with your line of thinking do - and that seems to go against everything you just said. (Bolding added) To the contrary. It is the presence of minimum wage legislation which will increase the number of people on welfare. Minimum wage makes it illegal for people to work for less than (for example) $10 - now if the market value of their labour is worth less than that, either they'll soon be out of a job and on welfare. When I was starting out in the work force, I was more than happy to take a $6/hour job. Unskilled labour isn't worth very much - especially when they have to train you on the job. But once you become valuable to the company, usually due to your experience on the job, they will often raise your wage in order to keep you on. Eventually, you should be able to use your experience to move on and get an even better paying job. They need to make themselves worth more - not go to the government to force a wage increase.

Whos talking about $15? Perhaps you should read the rest of my post. I was posting in response to Saturn who seemed to think that the minimum wage legislation was harmless - I explained how it could indeed be quite harmful, and gave an example.

Why do you care? If people don't work for minimum wage, then it doesn't matter. Do you want a minimum wage job but haven't been able to find one because the wages are too high? Exactly! You won't be able to find a job when you're not allowed to work for what you are worth. Sure, a lot of people in Alberta (for example) work for $15/hr. But let's say their provincial government said "Let's makes sure it stays this way!", so they enact a minimum wage law, making $15 the minimum wage. That's fine and dandy for the people who already value their labour at $15 or more, but those who are working for less than that will soon be out of a job - their companies will go out of business or simply fire them because their labour is not worth paying $15/hr for. Then, after companies start going out of business, and more people are unemployed and not receiving an income, less money will be fuelling the economy. For example, the people who are now unemployed (thanks to your legislation) will no longer afford to buy bagels from Joe's Bagel Shop. Now Joe is getting less income, he has to let some of his ($15/hr) employees go, possibly even go out of business. Economic downspin. Get rid of the minimum wage legislation. I can decide how much I want to rent out my labour for - I don't want the government "helping" with things like that. They only make things worse. Their "help" will put the unskilled out of work, and ultimately there will be less goods and services to go around. When there is less of something, the price goes up. Only the rich will be able to afford the things they need and want. So, congratulations, you're hurting the poor.

Funny enough that you should mention that. Check out the latest polls: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0301?hub=Canada Greens tie NDP.

No one has commented on this, and I haven't come across any specific federal place that pays less than $10. It would appear to be a pretty safe proposal to set the minimum at $10. Or it would be entirely pointless. If that's really the case then I suppose they're just compulsive regulators.

Minimum wage isn't regulation? It is regulation when they say "you can pay your employees no less than ___ dollars per hour". Wikipedia defines regulation as being "a legal restriction promulgated by government administrative agencies through rulemaking supported by a threat of sanction or a fine." Funny enough, it then goes on to list examples of regulation, and 'wage' is the third one mentioned. "Common examples of regulation include attempts to control market entries, prices, wages..." (Regulation - Wikipedia entry) "just more money for business to pay low income earners", you say. If you're running a business, and can afford to pay your employees more than ten dollars an hour - that's great, go for it. But to tell someone else how much they must pay? With all due respect, that's a control-freak who does that. Jack Layton, control freak. I can decide how much I will pay for labour, thank you very much. Just as I can decide how much I am willing to pay for a loaf of bread or for a pair of jeans or a set of drapes. There should never be a minimum price enforced by a third party. It should always be set/negotiated by the parties involved in the trade.

See full article here. First of all, I'm skeptical of their statistic: One in six Canadians live in poverty? What on earth do they think poverty is? Poverty is when you don't have basic necessities like food/water/shelter/clothing. People living on less than a dollar a day.Here is a chart found on Wikipedia's page for poverty, and Canada isn't even on the chart, let alone batting at some 17% (1/6) that the NDP claim. The minimum wage is economically dangerous. People who want to trade their labour, but are worth less than $10 on the market, will be out of work - simple as that. Personally I'm disturbed by the recent socialist ignorance and/or deviousness that is going on in this country. After they put a lot of people out of work, they'll claim that we need more money for the unemployed, or more housing. This is another scheme to draw us more and more into government dependency. Let's stop asking the government to do things for us before it's too late. The good news is that it probably won't pass. They're going to vote on it later this week. Thank heaven we don't have an NDP majority - I would leave the country and/or devote my life to anti-statism. Let me know what you think.

What difference does it make if they don't get in? You're still just one bean being added to a pile of a whole bunch of other beans. Your vote is worth the same no matter who you vote for. Do you think one of the big parties needs your vote? Not unless one vote will break a tie. I selected other, but I would consider green. I will likely vote for one of the smaller parties if only just to protest the never-ending reign of the big 3 (4 including BQ).

Libertarian - scored 100% for both categories! Great quiz, and they bring up great issues. We should elminate the draft, end government trade barriers, etc.

Uh...do you even know what "government" means? 33 out of 79 seats does not a government make. Yeah, but they certainly (God forbid) have a chance of regaining majority status - it's not like that 'right' has been taken away from them.

News flash: They lost their right to govern years ago. Uh... they have 33 out of 79 seats in the legislature. That's a gain of 31 from their previous standing. This tells me that people have short memories or are quite forgiving of their favourite parties.

Barrack Hussein Obama? Don't Americans find this alarming? Seriously though, I definitely do not think that the Republicans are out of the running. Voters have short memories - and they're more willing to forgive a party's faults if there is a new leader on board. Why else would our Liberals still be in the running? Why else does the BC provincial NDP still exist? They should have lost their right to govern years ago. Bytheway, he has a smaller chance at winning, but it would be awesome to see this guy get in: Ron Paul, running for the Republican party.

mtm, Hang on - if this was a free society, what gives them the right to take my money to use for their purposes? There is a large difference between freedom and democracy. In democracy a large group of people can take the property of a small group of people. I do not support democracy as interpreted as majority rules. I support freedom and liberty where an individual alone has the rights to his/her own life, liberty, and property. And no one else can take it from them. I also agree that foreign wars like Afghanistan are not in the interest of Canadians. It is wasting a lot of taxpayer money and is ending innocent lives. I say pull out. Is re-distribution of wealth not a socialist policy? If so, then taking money from one group of people to fuel the economy (or for whatever purpose), to me is a socialist policy. Yes, it is socialist to give subsidies directly to companies. I'm not sure what you'd call it - it looks like socialism to me. I think it is necessary to 'label' certain policies, and to analyze whether they're right or wrong. For instance, when Hitler started rebuilding his military and creating a race of superhumans, that was great for their economy. But it wasn't right. No, I would still recognize it as a socialist move which is potentially harmful to the economy. The Conservatives are just as guilty as high gov't spending and taxation as the rest of them. No, they offer a service, and we voluntarily pay for it. Banks aren't taking our money the way the gov't does. They have to get us to give it to them, just like many other transactions that occur in the free market. I disagree. I think you simply need to refamiliarize yourself with the meanings of these 'labels', because they are still very much relevant.

There was also a Nobel Prize winner in economics (in 1976) named Milton Friedman. He advocated free markets and warned of the economic downfalls of government intervention.

Exactly! Free market economics in action! People trade money for a post-secondary education. If the student did not derive a benefit from this transaction, it would not occur. That's why it is silly that the students are now saying they want the gov't to pay for their tuition fees when they agreed to pay tuition in the first place. See what I mean? It's like buying an expensive sweater and then complaining that the price is too high. Worse than that, you're actually going to the government to force other people to fill the cost for you. If these people are in post-secondary education, then the transaction has already occured! They have already agreed to the trade. I don't understand. It sounds like you're saying that if post-secondary education resulted in higher salaries and better quality of life then no one would get post-secondary education. ???. Please explain.

Even if the better-qualified candidate happens to be a man? Oh well, I guess it'll mean he'll have a lot of less-qualified people running for him. With any luck it'll backfire on him and they'll lose a lot of seats. Then perhaps they'll realize that indiscriminate competition is the best way to go.

(See the rest at this link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=TopStories) Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but wasn't there once a time when people didn't expect others to pay for everything for them? This is yet another sign of a growing socialist movement in Canada. They expect the taxpayer to pay for their tuition, their childcare, their ATM fees, not to mention all the socialist programs that are already in place. Personally, I find their arrogance frustrating. The world doesn't owe them a favour. What are your thoughts on this?

You bring up an interesting point, Jester. If vaccinations can prevent serious diseases, perhaps the parents who refuse to get their child immunized are neglecting or even sacrificing their children. We should get the government to intervene! Make them all wards of the state. I find this one hard to make a clear decision about. But if it means giving more power to the government, I'm gonna lean towards no. I wouldn't make the same decision that these parents made; however had it been something else that the state wanted to do to my children which I found objectionable, I would be fighting against it just as much as these parents are. It's a similar story with abortion. I don't believe in it, I'm technically pro-life. But I oppose banning it because that is a form of state intervention which in many ways can cause more harm than good.

Realistic proposal? Step one is admitting that there is a problem. Maybe it's simply a matter of electing different people? You'd think that we would have learned by now. That's what makes me think there must be a problem at the heart of the system. Any suggestions from the rest of you?

Has democracy become a team sport? We watch and participate in elections in the hopes that our favourite team will win. The work in parliament becomes a game where each team is trying to 'win' in some way. The problem is that when they win, Canadians lose out. Representative democracy - elected elites with full pensions and high salaries, playing the big debate game for their respective teams. You know what, a good debate can be fun (it's why we use this message board). I bet some of us would love to watch a good verbal duke-it-out in the house of parliament. It's entertainment. But when they're using our tax money to conduct themselves in such a way? That, to me, is very questionable and wrong. Democratic reform, anyone? Seriously, this is not acceptable. Something is wrong.