Charles Anthony

You were justifying YOUR daughter as being properly raised. He did not define "properly raised" nor did he define "productive members of society" in terms of material accomplishments. You did. Yes. I do not. I said explicitly that when everything is equal and the only things that are different are stay-at-home or day-care, a parent must be bad if day-care is better. That is fine. Not all children are treated equally within families. My grandfather was in his forties when my father was born and my grandfather died soon after in a war. Ergo, my father did not receive the same attention as did his siblings. Reserach carrying capacity of a society and you will find out all you need to know about it.Sounds like one of those "well adjusted" any-which-way-the-wind-blows concepts.

En voici un: PolitiQuebec

If a racist-bigot assaults somebody with a pig foot or any other implement of destruction, that racist-bigot should expect to be beaten back.

Maybe I am slow but can you explain more about the inner workings of this market. How does free local calling make cellphones an expensive choice? What do you propose should be the right target?

Whatever you want. Right now, victims get nothing -- except bureaucracy. I am not saying you have to. I am saying that if a victim can NOT be clearly identified, the criminal does the time. You see: your objection is caused by a problem with crime, not with a form of justice. I do not think you have to go so far as Saudi Arabia to observe different justice for "rich" people.

Now I am finally convinced! Understood -- now. However, your reply did NOT take exception to his premise and you never offered a definition of your own. Your reply presented material accomplishments as a representation of success. Correct. However, you could have also said that your daughter- loves you - sells girl-guide cookies - plays the organ in church - reduces, reuses and recycles - volunteers at the local soup kitchen - teaches yoga at the community center - is a member of the parent-teacher-student council - rattles a Salvation Army kettle every Christmas time - sponsors Fool Trade coffee production in third world countries - spends a day at the local cooperative nursery school once a month All of the above (may certainly have questionable results but) conceivably can be done with the intent of being "productive members of society" but you distinctly described a narrow set of accomplishments. I am not trashing you but you are still not explaining what you mean by "well adjusted" for a child. Saying "well adjusted" sounds like a compromise. Is something being compromised? I think so: attention. I will say this (and I am sure you can figure my opinion out by now) to be clear of my stand: unless the parents are bad, day-care is trash compared to a child being raised at home. I personally believe that day-care is wrong compared to a child being raised at home. I believe it is wrong because a child needs unconditional love -- none of that can be provided from day care. You made it the business of this thread and you have finally expressed characteristics of your daughter which are more profound than material success. I believe parental input (even in the vast "mom dictating what they do" generalization) is a major factor. What does "dictated by the carrying capacity of the society" mean? You consume things that you do not make. You trade your labor for money and you trade your money for consumption. When you are very young and when you are very old, you depend on other people. Nobody carries their own weight. My mom will not have to think again. My dear LoneBag, Are you a$$uming my age? How old do you think I am?? Your choice of "revert" is poor. Some people continue in the same normal direction and realize that they must cooperate with other people. Part of that realization involves an appreciation for the fact that nobody carries their own weight. Some people continue in a different direction. They go from self-centered infantile behavior to selfish adult behavior. I suppose some people can remain in a state of confusion. Right now, I do not give a damn to go do any research about Buddha but using Jesus as an example in your post is foolish -- at best. I am sure that Jesus can carry a lot more weight than either of us can imagine.

MeLanie, when you say "unexpected pregnancies aren't always the result of irresponsible behaviour" everybody can agree with that. Nobody needs statistics to accept that. However, looking closely at the statistics reported by obviously abortion-friendly researchers, the actual numbers suggest that the people receiving abortions are NOT a cross-section of the general population. When the researchers say "these women report difficulty using contraceptives consistently" at the same time as saying that these "women who were using contraceptives in the month they became pregnant" is a euphemism for saying these women are irresponsible with birth control. What else could it mean??

Yes, I am. Right now, victims get nothing and "rich" convicts get to keep their money. How could my proposal be worse than what we have now????? Go back and read my original post #23 above. I am saying that the convict be sentence to two terms: one time period for his Crime Against Society and one time period for violating a victim's rights. If the convict refuses to compensate his victim to his victim's choosing, the convict goes to jail for more time. I suspect you do not grasp this salient point: the victim holds the trump card in my proposed negotiation. Your only concrete objection that you had was a situation whereby a victim can not be identified to negotiate. That is not a problem at all because the convict would have to do both terms. End of story. No negotiation.

That would be the last assumption I would ever make. What do you suggest?

-- and then what? Moral relativism will magically make minimum wage legislation the delusional pancea of all socialist problems?

You want government to get into marriage??I hate to ask: where do you need the help? Interesting concept. If only we could apply that to everything else the "government" does. It is kind of like how FigLeaf talks about everybody being involved with government without mentioning the fact that the government dominance came about through the systemic exclusion of other services.

Easy: if the poor lack money, give them money. No. That is what I would do.

Why not?

My solution is simple: do nothing. The voting population will naturally dwindle itself into oblivion and the problem will resolve itself. I think it is natural for people to look beyond government for their needs.

I am proposing that he does pay the victim. Right now, victims get nothing. Congratulations.

How else should it be? Why is any of your concerns a problem? Like I said, it is completely voluntary. If the victim and the criminal can NOT agree on a settlement for compensating the violation of "victim's rights" the criminal gets thrown in to do all of the time.

You mean like an eye for an eye? Charter of Victim's Rights? Rich prisoners pay for their stay? Victimize society? Why make it so ridiculously complicated?!?!! I will tell you why: we want votes and we want to create jobs. I have a simple solution: Before sending a "rich" person to prison, offer them a chance to buy back some of their time by paying their victims. Let the victims and the criminals negotiate. It is not like victims are getting anything now anyway. Divide their sentence into two parts: "society" time and victim time The criminal gets to pay for their violation of "victim's rights" with money. If the victim is dead or unresponsive, tough luck for the criminal: he does both of the times.

I would like to spell out what I believe is a basic message from this thread: people insist on judging themselves by comparison with other people and their accomplishments. A half-million dollar home varies in real value everywhere in Canada, let alone everywhere within a province or a city. I will assume the "owners" of this "home" live in Canada. The title of the Opening Post says "home is worth" but it is possible to borrow money to make a purchase. Most people in the neighborhood have no idea whether a "home" is mortgaged or owned. The Opening Quote says "own their own home worth" whatever. I must assume that it is NOT mortgaged nor are there any liens etc. Every time I hear the term "home" I am reminded of a high school English teacher who attempted to explain the subtleties of language. He said the term "home" sounds comforting and the term "house" sounds cold. I could not resist putting up my hand to let him know that myself and my siblings were raised in a rental apartment. The term "house" can sound warm and the term "home" can sound like a cold euphemism. This reminds me of a story my mother loved to recount about a similar observation in Paris when she first visited in the 1960's. An immigrant (not Tunisian but from Eastern Europe) told her that she loved living in Paris because of the freedom: she could walk down the street wearing a flower-pot for a hat and nobody would stop her. I think your characterization is too kind. I would say they are neurotically jealous. They are the kid in the family who never learns to put themselves in other people's shoes. They think Mom did not like them and they never grow up to respect nor to appreciate the sacrifice made by their Mom (or by other people, for that matter) on their behalf. It is normal for children to be entirely self-centered but only up until the age of about two years. Beyond that, it is normal for children to begin to share. Quote of the week: That same high school English teacher said that sometimes when he is up all night marking papers, he envies the hoboes living on the street who have less responsibility. Your example seems to define "properly raised" by what was accomplished materially by your daughter. You referred to the concept of "love" once with reference to your daughter's daughter but not with reference to your daughter per se. You also referred to the concept of "well adjusted" with respect to your daughter's daughter. What does that mean?? Nobody carries their own weight. I will conclude this post with a comparison. Let us compare two situations: a child being raised by his parents and the same child being raised by somebody else. Which situation would lend itself to the elderly parents being thrown in a nursing home once that child becomes an adult???

Crony, why are you being rude? Your post clearly states that your belief is that the labor market is inefficient and you base your "defense" of minimum wage legislation upon that. No it is not. Minimum wage legislation is to get votes from selfish simple-minded people who are ignorant of basic economics. It is an easy sell for a politician -- as evidenced by this thread. In several places throughout this thread, the basic injustice of minimum wage has been clarified yet it still has its defenders.

I do not believe ANYBODY should get "business subsidies" but those statistics look a lot like the general distribution of the population. Very few people live in Atlantic Canada and very few subsidies go there. What should you expect?

Define 'voice' if they can't impose polcies?Freedom. The technical definition one person one vote and 50%+1 rules. I prefer to describe it as a mechanism to reach social concensus amoung millions of people. Both definitions imply that some people representing certain minorities are not going to be able to get their way.I have no problem accepting that definition -- mainly because I find it to be as illegitimate as most any other definition -- but I have a lot of trouble relating it to legitimate government. Can you justify your definition as a form of legitimate government? As an aside, I find your "consensus across millions of people" to be quite odd and I question its relevence. What does it imply if a 50%+1 result does not occur in an election? Why do you not see the majority of non-voters as providing proof to there is more things that influence the outcome of an individual's life than voting? Your vote makes NO difference. I have a question for the supporters of Proportional Representation: Who has the legitimate authority to dictate the size and the number and the topology of each riding??? I challenge you to justify your choice in the matter.

Mais, s'est-il rendu à la tête du parti par accident ou par hasard?!? Il me semble que non.

Leader of what? Dirait-on, plutôt, que le monde Libéral a donné naissance à un chef propre à soit et non pas à un chef propre au Canada? I love this thread: Stéphane Dion = Jean Chrétien? -- Same Old Sponsorship? Same old Liberals?

Absolutely nothing. Except, maybe, it sort of helps muddy the waters and give support to a straw-man argument defending government interference in the labor market. It does well to rally confused members of the electorate to support wage restrictions for the erroneous purpose of fulfilling a perceived need to correct "inefficiency" in the labor market. Hence, any incentive to learn the basic economics as it impacts the lower levels of the pay scale is killed.

Why should a minority party representing 10% of the people be given the power to impose policies opposed by the other 90%? How is that democratic?The claim was that they have a voice, not a power to impose policies. Define democracy -- otherwise, everybody is just talking past eachother. Lazy? Ten Things To Do On Nov. 5...Besides Vote