Kitch

The point of helping people with children is to help the children, not the parents. The parents get a free/cheap ride, yes, but that's an unavoidable side effect. Or, you could take the children away from the parents, and make the children suffer. Quit crying bud! I live in Toronto too and I too and it's not how you describe it. You see one family on TV and think that all poor people get a free ride?? Habitat for humanity might be able to help a very small number of people, the government doesn't provide enough for people to live lavish lives... maybe just enough to properly take care of any children. If that money is used by the parents for selfish reasons then that is something that needs to be addressed, but welfare isn't intended to give anyone a very comfortable lifestyle. Think of this family as though they just won the lottery. Some people need help and deserve it. Some people take advantage. Your beef should be with people who take advantage and mechanisms that should do a better job of preventing it. Quit sounding like a kid complaining because you had to clean your room and your little brother/sister didn't.

I WISH that was more true than it is! It depends on the field your post secondary education gets you in to. As a teacher, I'm lucky. But had I stayed in research I would have made relatively little money. Back to the topic at hand... zeitgeist: the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era This word wouldn't exist if society couldn't have a 'mood'. But, I did make a huge generalization. I'm often guilty of that... especially when the tone of my voice can't be heard to give people an idea of the level of sincerity in my hyperbolic words. What I mean is that some people can be so selfish. This conversation, being one of the more logical ones, is a drop in the bucket of the conversations I've had with people who complain about having to pay taxes. Who LIKES paying taxes? Nobody. Who likes getting health care, education, garbage pickup, maintained roads, clean water... all the people who dislike paying taxes. You are discussing one particular program that you don't want to have to pay for... that's not to say I know anything about your outlook on all taxes... but I wouldn't be the least surprised to hear somebody out there cry about having to pay for water because they follow the mantra 'if it's brown flush it down, if it's yellow let it mellow.' I could be wrong, but I don't remember you saying that there is a benefit. I'm often wrong. Well, I think there's much to investigate about the effect of your proposal on prices and on an individual's ability to 'get ahead' (I hate that phrase... as if I'm competing with everyone out there in terms of standard of living!) because of the debt they may be in after paying for that many years of education. But, I don't really want to go down that road because I think it's irrelevant. I see education (up to a certain level) as a human right and you do not. That's an impasse, I believe. My rebuttal was about the nature of democracy. And you acknowledged it in this post. Although, your basic argument is, as you say, the majority shouldn't have unlimited power. Well, the majority represents different people on different issues... ideally. I'm not referring to a majority government. In the hypotheticals of this conversation, we could be referring to a group of 20 people who have diverse opinions about a number of issues. So, to use this for what I said before, let's say 11 people vote for publicly funded education and 9 against. The 9 want to be able to choose themselves, but the nature of democracy doesn't allow for this or else the whole concept is useless. This is not to say that the same 11 people should get their way on any issue. Maybe on abortion the group votes 15 - 5, maybe on legalization of marijuana it's 13-7. So the 'majority' having unlimited power is a bit off the mark as the 'majority' is comprised of, presumably, different people each time. On the marriage question, do we know what the majority opinion is? Let's assume that the majority is against same-sex marriage. The will of the majority would be to impose something on the minority which does not affect the majority. It's nothing more than a religious belief that tries to limit marriage. In our debate, if the minority was allowed to opt out of funding public education, the majority is affected. That is not the case in same sex marriage. I'm about as sure as I can be that there can be no valid argument against that. (But, I'm often wrong!). The point is, a decision is not made democratically if the majority opinion doesn't prevail. There are situations, such as the one you brought up, that there is no valid reason to even put it to a vote... if two people want to marry, then who is ANYBODY to deny that? When we get in to polygamy, I don't know that we have a right to deny people that either... if everyone is a willing participant (maybe it's up to society to determine who's willing and what constitutes willing... or maybe we're not), then what's the problem? Maybe I'm a blaspheme for saying that, but the point is clear, I think. You can't deny the majority or else it's not democracy. Sometimes you can accommodate the minority without affecting/infringing on rights of the majority, sometimes you can't. In the case of public education, the majority, if it was ever put to a vote (referendum?), the majority would necessarily have to rule. Decent analogy. The problem is you can't compare education and food. Food is as diverse as peoples' preferences for it. And few people would feel comfortable with the government being in control of food supply. Many would see it as a form of control over the population. The same could be said for education... in both cases, and I won't deny it. It's just easier to mass produce 'educated' kids and not have it viewed as a form of control. Also, what people want to learn is often accommodated for in public education... so they say. The preference a lot of people have in terms of education is more focused on excluding certain subject matter rather than including some. Inclusion is sometimes accommodated but our education system makes (or tries to) people eat their intellectual vegetables. But, education and food are very different metaphorical fruits. So your analogy doesn't hold. Should people have the right to have kids? I don't know. We're really talking about the rights of the parents and the rights of the child when we go in this direction. AND, if we deny people the right to have children, we're really denying people the right to have sex unless they meet certain conditions. Or we could make people take birth control pills unless they and/or their mate make a certain amount of money. The reality is that people do have the right to have kids but have an obligation to provide the kids with a certain standard of care or else the kids are taken into state care. What else can we do? What's funny is that this part of the conversation has been framed from the point of view of people who may have to pay for another couple's child. Not from the perspective of the child who is relatively helpless in some respects. I think it's clear that, while it may not be a person's right to have a child, you can't easily prevent that from happening. And if it does, you can't make the child suffer the consequences. And that child will suffer consequences in a lot of ways if the parents are punished. So, do we let a kid suffer because of those in society who are selfish? The expected answer is... let that be taken care of by charity. I want to choose whether or not I care about that child's life. To throw another question your way, can you not see the detriment to society, to the lives of everyone, when people take the selfish approach?

By that logic, North America should be given back to North American Natives.

I want to comment but don't have time now. I just want to say that I got that figure from a former super intendant from one of the GTA school boards when he was talking about the cost of education in the public system.

I want to comment but don't have time now. I just want to say that I got that figure from a former super intendant from one of the GTA school boards when he was talking about the cost of education in the public system.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11642 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece These are just two articles about the changing climate of Mars. Have a read. The first claims it to be a hoax, the second says that the temperature has risen 0.5C since... the 70s I think, but also that it's due to dust storms trapping heat in the atmosphere. It isn't TOO difficult to tell the difference between real scientific theories that are plausible explanations as to why the Earth's temperature is rising and those that are fabricated for the purpose of discrediting the idea that humans are to blame. Yours, my friend, are half baked. Sure, temperatures may very well be rising on those other planets. And this is supposed to tell us something about what's happening on Earth? Those planets are all made of different materials and may or may not have atmospheres that, if they do, are not the same as the Earth's anyway. There are too many factors to be considered to simply say that because the temperature on all planets is rising, the Sun must be increasing output. It's possible, but not necessarily true. Jupiter, for example, is made entirely of gas... which means who knows what about how it absorbs light energy. Mars is red... which means different absorption of light and thus heat. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Would you suck on the tail pipe of your car? No, and there's a reason. The stuff coming out the back is poison. It's not normal that the sky in Toronto (for example) is brown in the summer! Something is not right, even if we ignore the warming of the planet. So what's wrong with trying to reduce/eliminate pollution? I don't think that it is, but even if this 'global warming scare' is just that, an attempt to create a market need in order to sell products (which is curiously OK in other industries... hmm), it's in our best interest to stop polluting, or at the very least reduce the amount.

What rules could prevent a private hospital from cutting corners? A doctor's office can cut corners by buying cheaper chairs, or changing vendors of syringes or tongue depressors. A hospital could begin buying generic brands of serious drugs, which sometimes have their own side effects. There are many places that a hospital COULD cut costs that have serious implications. It's not about rules though. It's about the paradigm one operates the hospital on... for profit or for patients. There will inevitably be circumstances when the interests of these two are in conflict with each other. So no, I don't think it's unfair. Tell me why what I've said is unfair instead of using the blanket of accusing me of "attributing negative qualities" to profit motivation. I'm all ears man!

Is there such a thing as a stronger minority?

Are you saying that I'm a pagan?

I'd like to add to this, if I may. The research that wulf42 discussed, from a scientific perspective, IF it can be considered science (which is another discussion), will not say anything about what happens after we die... when the research is complete. That's not its purpose, and if it is, then the researchers are mistaken. Let's assume that people do and can have near death experiences during which they float to the top of the room. Let's even assume that this research confirms that. What does that say about what happens after we die? There are numerous explanations that could account for this. WIP gives one of those. The point is that you can't believe everything you read. You read this article about near death experiences and took it as the truth. Perhaps you've read some other articles that formed your opinion about the nature of 'radical islam', the American response and anything else related which were as informative as this quasi-scientific article. No offense intended. I do understand the point of view of the 'get them before they get us' crowd. I just disagree with the crowd.

Wow. Okay, I was right with you up until this post. Now I can see that there is no argument that could be presented that will even budge your position because it has, in my opinion, little to do with education and everything to do with you not wanting to pay taxes. It's not cheap to educate a single child. $20 000/year, to be... approximate. (3/4 of post secondary is subsidized by the government, resulting in the $5000/year tuition). How many children could working class parents afford to educate given that number? I guess they shouldn't have children huh? So then, only those with much disposable income should? OR, we could rely on charities to help out, based on donations... which are tax deductible. How selfish is our society? How blind are you to not be able to see the benefit... even if it's small!!! You see NO benefit??? You made a comment about my argument and the nature of democracy. I rebutted and you had nothing to say. Instead, what you did was assert the (hypothetical) minority position without acknowledging the (hypothetical) majority opinion. I'll ask again. Let's, for argument sake, say that 51% of the population agrees that everyone should pay for education of the young and 49% want the opportunity to decide whether they want to pay. Majority rules. Now, in a population of 30 million, that's just under 15 million people who's freedom to choose is taken away. What do you do? How do you both accommodate the decision made by the majority AND accommodate the minority? I'll say it again... If you give the minority the freedom of choice on this issue, then the majority's decision is necessarily denied. How do you resolve this? It's an issue, to answer your question, because the majority doesn't get what they want... and that's not democracy. That's all hypothetical though... perhaps. In the discussion of the poor you miss the point. But you never will accept or acknowledge the point, will you. The principle beneficiary of an education is the one receiving it, of course. But that is something that does INDEED benefit society as well, AND everyone should have the right to be literate. If you disagree with that, I'm all out of ideas to communicate my reasons for agreeing. It doesn't even seem to be a conversation about what rights people have, from your end. It's more of a discussion of why you aren't responsible for enabling those rights.

There is nothing wrong with profits, indeed. But there is sometimes something wrong with the mindset that results in them. There is a real risk that the leaders of a company will do something in the name of increasing profits at the expense of quality of product. Are we to assume that business leaders in private health care will have higher morals? How is health care not one of the things that are for the public good in terms of health and safety? I fail to see the disconnect. I had surgery last week and am happy that the hospital didn't cut costs on anesthetic. There are many procedures that are done in hospitals that put patient's lives in danger but are necessary/ideal for treatment. Cutting costs can be a very serious problem. I THINK you're saying that hospitals won't cut costs... but how can you be sure? If public health care institutes are forced to tighten their belts then they are not being provided with enough funding. I believe it is that simple. It wouldn't make sense to spend wastefully for this endeavour, but the government could certainly evaluate their priorities... I'm sure that there are programs that are not nearly as important as health care and THEY should be the ones that need to REALLY tighten their belts.

My argument can be simplified in that way with the full understanding that I am on team 'punished' my fair share of the time. How could you, in this particular issue, accommodate both the majority and everyone else? The majority wants people to pay for education equally (I don't mean that as a truth... just for arguments sake). Everyone else wants the ability to choose whether or not they pay for education. The more people that choose to opt out, the more those in the majority have to pay. So really, one groups rights infringe on another groups rights... the choices that people make impact the lives of other people. So really, in a democratic society the best that you can do is try to reach a consensus between the different sides... and undoubtedly, some people will have to make concessions. I too am not a fan of this... I feel that it's something that I have to accept because I can't think of an effective and fair alternative. Please, if you have one, explain how you can accommodate the desires of all people without infringing too much on the rights/desires of those who are not in the majority. But back to the issue at hand. In fact, I do think that clothing and shelter should be rights, but I doubt that many people would agree with me on this... and it's just an opinion based on indignation. So, by placing the responsibility of education solely on the parents do you not infringe on the rights of the poor? It is a possible scenario that parents, through no fault of their own, end up in financial turmoil and are not able to pay for the education of their children. Should these children suffer? If the government set up a student loan program for pre-post-secondary education we'd have people paying off their debts for years, with interest probably, for something that is considered a quasi-right?

I'm on the fence as to whether or not humans are causing the warming of Earth. I've never heard about the other planets warming as well... can you refer me to some scientific literature where I can learn more about it?

I wouldn't refer to them as partners, but they are related. I'm trying to argue this issue from the point of view that educating everyone is valuable to everyone. That's not even really how I feel... well, it is, but that's not the angle that I view it from. I believe that in a society like ours, where we have opportunities that other societies don't, education is a RIGHT for every human in this society. You're right about your freedom being taken away as well. Your Jefferson quote is the perfect description of that. That's democracy. There are issues for which I am in the minority and I have had my freedom to choose taken away. That's the nature of a democratic society, especially one of this size where the interests of the citizens could very well be different by region. (I'm advocating for more localized governance). In terms of education, if we agree that it is a right that everyone should have, then we're all responsible for providing it. And if there is a 51 - 49 split, then the majority decides. It REALLY does suck to be forced to live with a policy with which you disagree, but we all do. For example, I believe that insurance should be nationalized. I believe that the government should do more about public transit... improving it that is. I believe that we should adopt zero emissions legislation like California did in the 90s (before that was killed by big oil and big auto and the federal government in the US). I lose my freedom to breath clean air in MY society (I emphasize my because one could simply argue that I should move. But the same could be said for those who dislike paying for education for all).

Did you actually read what I said? I don't think you did or else you wouldn't be saying what you just said to me.

I'd hope that you have seen that I believe there is no idea that is unworthy of consideration... so polite public discourse or not, let's discuss. I wasn't aware that family doctors and walk in clinics were private. Ya, I have no beef with the way they work. I don't disagree with you about specialty treatment clinics either, but don't private ones already exist (in the new light, for me, of family clinics)? My doctor has referred me many MANY times to an xray/ultrasound clinic in my nieghbourhood that is, presumably, also private. I don't agree with you about private hospitals. There are too many different types of treatment that happen in hospitals to ensure 'customers' that they're being given what they need rather than being subjected to cost saving strategies. Who's to say that doesn't happen in family doctor offices or walk-in clinics, right? But there is a limit to the kind of procedures that they can perform. For example, let's say a private hospital decides to use an inferior product to set casts for broken bones. A patient with a broken foot gets such a cast and suffers a consequential secondary injury. Sure the hospital would be subject to competition with others but that patient still suffered that secondary injury needlessly. There is no room for such possibilities in health care. It is something that EVERYONE should have... equal access to equal high quality care. I disagree that there isn't an industry that wouldn't be better if run privately. It's not even a matter of whether or not they'd be run better... presumably meaning that they'd be more profitable, which does indeed lead to good things. Sometimes it's simply a matter of what's good for the 'customers' rather than the company and there are OFTEN times when those interests are at odds. Health care is one of those industries.

I don't want to sound like I'm patronizing you... I really don't intend to. But could you give me a citation to that research you referred to? It will make or break my point... meaning after I read the info you provide.

I can't give an opinion on WWII events... I wasn't aware (I probably should be) that similar tactics were used. But morals should never be left at home. I have no desire to be powerful, particularly to have power over anybody else. I want the power to live my life the way I see fit, but that doesn't mean that I need to impose any of my beliefs on others. If somebody else tries to do that to me, then I'll do what's warranted to prevent that and defend my own life. But there is nothing that you could say, in my mind, that could justify the types of things that were done in Vietnam (Laos/Cambodia), Guatemala, Nicaragua OR what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan daily (meaning suicide bombing). Don't get me wrong here. I'm not advocating for the actions of people who blow themselves up in order to kill others. Killing is killing. But the west is in no position to look down on people who do such things by calling them creatures. WE'RE creatures in their eyes... and maybe they're not wrong! I don't have answers as to how this issue can be resolved. I just know what I believe is wrong.

You're right, and I apologize. Parents do argue from self-interest. But I'm arguing from the perspective that I think it's fair that everyone is responsible for paying for education and giving parents a break for the work that they do and the time that they take in their lives to produce children because I DO feel that this is a valuable contribution. My opinion about supporting education is a lot more... involved than just making interactions between citizens 'better'. People who don't have children benefit from the education of doctors that take care of the non-parents later in their lives. As they benefit from the lawyers, construction workers, farmers, engineers, all the occupations you can think of. Obviously all of those have varying degrees of formal 'education'. You benefit from the decisions that people make even when you're not involved in the decision making process. Electing a government, for example. The more educated a society is the better off everyone in that society is. I can't support that claim with evidence... that is, indeed, simply an outlook on life. You said it PERFECTLY! "It may be of value to you but it is of no value to me". We simply have different perspectives. I see it as valuable, you don't. You can't refute my argument, I can't refute yours. In other words, neither of us is wrong because there is no wrong answer. There's only preference. And, if the majority of people have the same preference as me, then this policy should remain. (That's not to say that it's known whether or not the majority of the population has the same opinion as me). OK, I think this is ALL about opinion, you do not. So, show me some evidence that it is of NO value to you that children who are not yours are educated with your money. Your interactions with people in countries where people are generally uneducated is not evidence, it's a subjective anecdote. Besides, I bet that you would have benefited from the education system there had you fallen ill and required medical attention there.

But in a society that provides 'universal' health care, in which everyone (theoretically) pays taxes toward the system... should that system not be able to provide health care that is ... agreeable to the millionaire? I say theoretically because I am well aware that people with more money get that money in ways that the regular working person does not and is open to options allowing them to avoid paying taxes. But, that's another issue all together. And on a more principled angle, the millionaire is a human being regardless of what he/she has done in their life to both make that money and make society better (assuming that's the case). EVERYONE is human and, as such, deserves equal treatment. Health care, in my opinion, is a right. Nobody is more entitled to health care, no matter what. It's just not a matter of money, it's a matter of principle. Please don't take my tone as being closed to other ideas... on the contrary. I'm still listening!!! But it might be difficult to change my mind.

You all make excellent points. Sorry if I was wrong that newspapers didn't express opinions in the past... my bad. But is it not... "worse" now? It's not even attempted to hide the fact that opinions are being expressed. Wait... maybe that's better. Never the less, given that our education system has failed, leading to people who are too lazy or incapable of critical investigation... or that our advertising culture has numbed the senses so much that people avoid such levels of thinking... wouldn't it be ideal for somebody to produce a newspaper that was just pure information? (As close to that as it could be). I've heard that Al-Jazeera (spelling) is pretty objective. (If I were in front of this audience I'd be ducking right now!!)

Through some conversations that I've had with my future in-laws today, I don't know that what I believe... hold as the ideal... is really "leftist". I don't know that it's something that fits on a two dimensional spectrum. I don't know what else to say but to stop labelling myself and only talk about ideas. I'll tell you why I despise the idea of private health care clinics. Would they be for profit? If so, would not some of the most talented doctors end up there? It's a slippery slope toward an entirely privatized health care system. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my 'gut' feeling. Please explain to me why I should abandon that feeling... I'm all ears... I already accepted that corporate taxes are bad tonight! I said nothing of sharing of wealth. Unless you mean wealth in the original sense of the word meaning the state of being well. Certain standards should apply to ALL people. Access to health care, TRUE justice, clean water... maybe even shelter. That's not to say that some people can't/shouldn't become "more equal than others". As a science guy I HATE the use of Darwinian theory in economic discussions. Not that it doesn't apply... it's just like using fine crystal to drink kool aid. Aye, but there's the rub. Indeed we all have rights, I believe, but we have responsibilities as well. I think that it is easier to prevent parasitic use of things that society provides than it is to prevent the pitfalls of pure capitalism. Given that the advantage can only be taken in the select FEW systems that society provides for itself. If people are clever enough to find ways to create market 'needs'... or fabricated wants... then people can be clever enough to prevent others from not taking their responsibilities seriously.

Money is most certainly power. In the way that it allows its possessors access to things that cannot be accessed without it AND in that it tends to enable access to things that are not 'supposed' to be accessible. Meaning that it is buying power AND influence... don't forget the influence. Maybe people don't like Rogers, but maybe Rogers is the only company that offers certain products in this market. Now, that's not something that is unchangable... nor should it be. But, even IF Rogers is loathed by the public, who's to say that the company can't change names... rebrand. Nobody would REALLY have to know, nor would they if Rogers didn't want them to. That's because corporations don't have faces... they have logos. Logos are not permanent. I see what you're saying about this particular company not being a capitalist enterprise though. My apologies for my assumptions. But I will say that it seems that it's not fair to paint all 'government' with the same brush. Government is people. This point works better in another place... You're also very right about government being most concerned with keeping power. But this is not a problem inherent to government. It's inherent to the way that government is elected. I don't have any solutions to offer for that though. I don't understand your sarcasm about my social concerns. You asked why I thought communism wouldn't work and I explained. I also offered an explanation as to why it is the ideal model of society, in my humble opinion. I haven't attempted to push that opinion on anyone. Nor can you say that propagation of my motives would necessarily lead to this demon called "socialism" that so many people are so scared of. I think that your view of government is too restricting. Health care is something that should be available to everyone at all times. If the government doesn't do a good job at providing it, then the government should change it's approach or the government should change... the concept of private control of health care should not be considered. The reason being that in a capitalist enterprise there are interests that must be considered that are not always the same as the interests of the customers. Why not insurance?

Whammy!!!