carepov

Sure, I can cherry-pick too - seven top corporate people and plus one economist from the CD Howe Institute - just your average lefty crowd...

The 14 members of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth do not fit your description http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-031-eng.asp#notes You are confusing economic immigrants with refugees. The proposal is to increase economic immigration.

Yes they are, " All values in this article are expressed in 2012 constant dollars using the Consumer Price Index as a deflator. " I did not intend to discuss net worth, the point was that real income in increasing in all quintiles. However I must respond: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-014-x/2011002/c-g/c-g01-eng.cfm Also, while total debt is an important figue, more important is the debt servicing cost as a percentage of income. The best I could find was 2006 and it shows that at that time there seemed to be no concerns: "Percentage of households spending 30% or more of their income on shelter up marginally In 2006, an estimated 3 million households, or 24.9% of the total, spent 30% or more of their income on shelter. This was up marginally from 24.1% in 2001, but lower than the height of 26.6% in 1996, at the end of the economic downturn experienced in the early 1990s." http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-554/pdf/97-554-XIE2006001.pdf With interest rates so much lower and incomes higher I would be surprised if home affordability was significantly worse now.

Good questions. Of course any new government policy is a calculation of voters gained/lost, this one is no different. I have no reason to doubt that the Advisory Council on Economic Growth http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-031-eng.asp#notes has Canada's best interests in mind and I support their recommendations. Canada is doing very well relative to other countries by any economic measure. More economic immigrants will strengthen our economy. Remember these are well educated/skilled young healthy people that have saved up a lot of money for the chance to live in Canada. -One of Canada's comparative advantages is our ability to integrate newcomers - let's use our advantage! -More immigrants means a larger population and stronger economy. Infrastructure spending will be more efficient and cheaper per capita. -More diversity will lead to more exports and more tourism -Regarding the costs of settling these immigrants remember 2 things. First, AFAIK these economic immigrants pay most of their costs. Second, it is not valid to assume that the marginal costs of settling newcomers is equal to the current average costs -Regarding the downward pressure on wages - I don't buy it - Canadians in all quintiles are earning more (constant 2012 dollars) Table 1 Family income (before tax) and net worth (wealth) by income quintile, 1999 and 2012 Table summary This table displays the results of After-tax family income and net worth (wealth) by income quintile Average, Median, 1999, 2012 and 1999 to 2012, calculated using dollars and percentage change units of measure (appearing as column headers). Average Median 1999 2012 1999 to 2012 1999 2012 1999 to 2012 dollars percentage change dollars percentage change Income 63,300 74,800 18.2 49,700 57,000 14.7 Bottom quintile 12,600 13,600 7.9 14,000 14,700 5.0 Second quintile 30,400 34,600 13.8 30,500 34,600 13.4 Middle quintile 49,900 57,200 14.6 49,700 57,000 14.7 Fourth quintile 76,000 88,100 15.9 75,700 86,900 14.8 Top quintile 147,500 180,600 22.4 123,900 149,500 20.7 Net worth 319,800 554,100 73.3 137,200 243,800 77.7 Bottom quintile 79,500 109,300 37.5 7,600 8,700 14.5 Second quintile 175,100 267,400 52.7 70,900 113,500 60.1 Middle quintile 261,800 453,300 73.1 135,100 236,900 75.4 Fourth quintile 360,700 641,000 77.7 203,700 388,200 90.6 Top quintile 721,900 1,300,100 80.1 424,900 879,100 106.9 Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Financial Security, 1999 and 2012. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14194-eng.htm

I would live in your country, how about the name Altaipia? It sounds wonderful to imagine such an equitable place where freedom is maximized and suffering is minimized. In many ways is sounds like the world created by Gene Roddenberry. I agree that the basic needs of every individual should be met by the state. The world has made tremendous progress towards this goal - especially in the most developed countries. On a per capita basis, hunger, poverty and violence are at all-time lows. How did this happen? IMO, it's mainly thanks to: a) Increased productivity allowing more ressources to science and technology that further increases productivity b. Increased trade and globalization that helped increase productivity but more importantly helped to convert enemies into trading partners/allies greatly reducing war c) All the social safety nets - most of which were unimaginable 100 years ago We should keep doing these things if we wish to progress further. Money is crucial for trade and major force in uniting the world and I therefore suggest that you reconsider your plan to eliminate money.

It is becoming clear that that your mis-understanding is based on false assumptions of what religious people actually believe. Are you sure that no intelligent/accomplished/gifted people were raised by secular parents and then chose to become part of a religious organization? Also, surely some of these people would have been raised in a religious background in their early years, then would completely reject and even harshly criticize religion in their teens and 20's and beyond, and perhaps change later in life. My original point was that many of our decisions, even life's most significant ones, are made strictly based on emotion/intuition/gut feel - not based on evidence, and in fact counter to existing evidence. For example, how many people actually perform risk/reward calculations when choosing a mate or starting a business? Perhaps we are actually (mis)weighing the risk/rewards of all our decisions, most at a sub-concious level? Either way yes, religious issues/decisions are decisions as emotional or as logical as the other decisions we make. Some people decide that their greatest rewards will result from spending 20 hours a week in a drunken stupor and using their remaining brain capacity to memorize sporting trivia. Some people enjoy stamp collecting or watching cat videos. Some people choose to become part part of a religious organization in order to increase their business revenue. Some people choose to be told what to believe and some people make up their own beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be stereotyping religious people as intellectually inferior.

You are stereotyping all religious institutions. Have you heard about the United Church with an atheist minister? There are plenty of examples of critical thinking and healthy debates flourishing at religious institutions. Also, guess what, there are plenty of secular groups that want to format critical thinking to suit their agenda.

"Crutch" is a bad analogy, we are talking about some of the most accomplished and gifted people - they are not handicapped. Also, I doubt that these people would susceptible to indoctrination. I think that it is you that is avoiding the reality that many people seek answers to questions that cannot be answered scientifically. Some look for guides in forming a purpose for life. More generally, if people did not "suspend critical thinking" once in while what would the world be like? No alcohol, no extreme sports, no falling in love?, far fewer business start-ups... In extreme no, but in moderation it is good and for some people needed. What isn't good for society is to stereotype and prejudge people as you seem to be doing.

It is good that you agree that religion can and does co-exist peacefully with critical thinking and knowledge. Taking it a step further, given that it is true that some very accomplished religious professionals claim that they gain personal strength through their religious beliefs and customs, could it not be true that: in some people religion enhances their critical thinking and knowledge? p.s. IMO, to lead a balanced life one should suspend critical thinking and scepticism once in a while....

I do not disagree that there are plenty of religious people that are stupid. However you should realize that there are there are also plenty of religious people that rank amongst the top percentiles in practically every field of study and profession. Is this not proof that religion can at least co-exist peacefully with critical thinking and knowledge?

Here' show it's done: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18121914 Great results: "16% re-offending rate", at lower costs.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are a follower and proponent of the ideology of liberal humanism, most notably guided by the idea of human rights as described in the UDHR. I did not mean to imply that there should be a single ideology/religion that embodies the whole truth and nothing but the truth. People have multiple stories and even conflicting stories. IMO it is futile to harp against religion/ideology as I understood you were doing in your OP. Instead we should promote the "good" stories and criticise the specific "bad" stories while we accept that "stories" will always be part of our human nature.

You are using ideological constructs to argue against ideology! IMO, the problem is not excessive ideology/religion it that most people have the wrong ideology/religion. The only way to unite and lead vast numbers of people towards a common goal is to construct a better story (ideology/religion) than the one they currently have.

There were a total of ~ 20,000 - 40,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan from 2002-2008 With these numbers there was some success in rooting out the Taliban. There were some early signs of progress in human development. During this time there were over 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq. Imagine if all these resources (troops + money + international political cooperation) would have been focussed on Afghanistan.

Surely you would agree that with better management NATO could have at least: 1. Eliminated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan 2. Made life for the average Afghani better than what it was under the Taliban 3. Given the country a chance at "long-term success" I agree that there are challenges to overcome and these challenges were greatly underestimated. I but disagree that they are insurmountable. Almost any nation was at one time "rife with tribalism and regionalism". Afghanistan also has massive mineral reserves with the potential for revenue stream.

Big Guy, there is a great deal of your OP that I agree with; I left the points where I disagree. Understanding history is important and yes there are lessons missed. However IMO every war/conflict is unique and must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. You have cherry-picked examples of failed occupations but IMO these are exceptions. Nations and empires have over history grown is size and this growth has had permanent impacts on the "conquered" peoples and has shaped the world. Afghanistan was a failure, but IMO the invasion/occupation would have been a success if it was better managed. The main issue was a lack of resources, troop levels and supports were way too low. NATO allies should have sent more and the US should have used all the troops that went to Iraq instead of starting a new front. America is one of the most, if not the most flexible and adaptive nation/empire ever.

Faith, like almost anything taken to the extreme is dangerous and should be challenged and should not be modeled nor taught to children. I think that we will agree on 95% of the ideas that fall into this category. Here are some more non-religious examples of faith, what do you think of them? -Teaching children about Santa, tooth fairy, etc... -Vegetarians that believe that "killing and consuming flesh is morally wrong" The Bible is but a small part of Christianity. There are plenty of texts that have clarified and refuted the old Testament. Much more important than the scriptures are the current positions and even more important is the actions and behavior of institutions and individuals. Most people do not have faith that the Bible is the word of God. Most harmful ideas have already been cast aside and are buried along with ancient myths. Judging an organized religion solely by their ancient texts is similar to judging a country by their original constitution. Sure it is important but more important is what is happening currently.

Article 1 of the UDHR: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

There are good religious ideas, bad ones and benign ones. They cannot and should not all be painted with the same brush. IMO, faith, like other virtues such as pride, is only a virtue in moderation. The poison is in the dosage.

I am not saying that religious faith and the creation/belief/faith of Human Rights are the same thing. They are similar however, part of the same family. Both involve the acceptance of ideas without evidence. You have both said that the evidence for the existence of Human Rights is their enforcement. This is not at all what we teach people. The message is that all humans are born with these rights, even if you are born in a part of the world where your rights are violated routinely. There is no evidence that a girl born in a remote rural under-developed country has any real Human Rights. In fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Many people choose to believe that this girl has Rights that must be defended.

What about the authors of the UDHR, don't you think that they took a leap of faith?

I don't disagree with you. I am arguing that Human Rights would not exist if people did not have faith.

The same as you, some humans made up stories and laws, wrote them down, and crucially, enough people believed these teachings (had faith) followed, defended and spread the ideas. You have provided evidence that people believe and follow the idea Human Rights but you cannot provide evidence that Human Rights exist anywhere but in our collective imaginations.

There is as much evidence for the existence of Human Rights as there is for the existence of God.

Is there any evidence for the existence of Human Rights?