Machjo

My mother was unionized most of her working life and she wouldn't know the first thing about socialism.

I beg to differ. A person with a low level of education is legally prohibited from offering his services at below minimum wage. So unless the government is prepared to pay to further his education, it forfeits the moral right to impose a minimum wage on him. Likewise, if a person lacking experience should offer to volunteer at a company, or work at low wage to start, as a means of getting his foot in the door, again, that is not allowed. The employer is responsible for his safety unless he's on a co-op programme with a school, in which case the school pays for the insurance during the time of the co-op. Even if he is of legal age and puts in writing that he takes all responsibilities for his own safety at that place of work, that doesn't count in law, and so the employer would not even allow that. There are various other labour laws too designed not to help the unemployed find work, but rather to help the employed keep their jobs. Certainly you're not going to deny that these laws do make it more difficult for a person to find work, obstacles that did not exist years ago. So certainly, if you want to remove welfare, you have to remove these other obstacles too to be fair. As for your comment on transportation, if the government stopped spending so much money on road construction, that would automatically not only save the government and taxpayers money on road construction, but would also encourage higher population density in cities, thus making cities geographically smaller and thus more accessible to those without their own means of transportation. Historically, with fewer people owning cars, more people lived near tram lines, subway stations, and bus routes, or near work. This resulted in a higher population density in our cities, thus making it much easier for the poor to get around. With the advent of the car, the suburb was born, spreading cities out and making transportation for the poor an ever growing problem. Again, I don't believe the answer is more welfare or more government spending on public transit. I believe rather that the opposite is the solution. Cut spending on welfare, but only after removing all the legal obstacles to employment that did not exist before. Cut spending on public transit, but only after cutting spending on excessive road construction. The higher population density that would follow would naturally benefit public transit through the free market itself owing to people trying to find ways around the increased traffic. Either that, or more people would move closer to work or more companies move closer to residential neighbourhoods.

Even the Pentagon itself wanted to scrap it years ago, saying it no longer fit with post-Cold-War needs. In fact, not one of these aircraft has been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan yet! As for jobs, while job creation is certainly an added bonus of government spending, it ought never, ever, ever be the primary objective, otherwise it's paramount to highly paid welfare, essentially a make work job in disguise. Now as for your comment about life being unfair, are you proposing we maintain legal barriers to employment while scrapping welfare? That would be outright cruel in my opinion. It would be like tying one's hands behind his back and then leaving him to fend for himself. At the very least, we can untie the knots. I can agree with cutting welfare, but only once we've removed other obstacles to employment first, such as all kinds of bureaucracy and red tape, certain labour laws designed not to help the unemployed find work, but the employed to keep their jobs by keeping the unemployed out, etc.

How would they have been worse off? The lack of government business in god times would have prevented them from growing too big in the first place, so the recession-time purchases would have a more significant effect owing to the smaller size of the companies. By spending all this money in good times, the government made these companies gigantic, so when the economy crashed, we had much bigger companies to bail out, and no option but to bail them out since the government would not even be in need of cars anymore owing to the recent purchases before the recession. I remember reading that Sweden apparently has a similar policy. For example, when the clothing industry is in recession, the Swedish military stocks up on uniforms, more than it needs, and then does not stock up again until next recession, or something along those lines anyway. I'm not sure of the details, but that could work for Canada too if only the government could restrain itself in good times.

Topaz, about your comment on free trade. This is exactly the kind of thing we ought to encourage. Free trade allows us to exploit foreign markets. However, even more important than free trade would be free movement of labour. The government's role ought to be to remove a many obstacles to work as is reasonably possible. The benefits of this are mutual. If for example, I'm an unemployed auto mechanic in France and Canada has a shortage of auto mechanics, and you're an unemployed aircraft mechanic in Canada and there's a shortage of those in France, would it be better that we both remain unemployed, or that we be free to seek out work wherever we can find it? Your proposal of protectonism is about adding more obstacles to finding work.

When the stock market crashed and the car industry fell, politicians decided to bail it out. But here's my question. Since we all know that recessions always come sooner or later, why had politicians not planned for this before? Could they not have asked the police, military, public service, etc. to hold off on car purchases and just keep pushing their old vehicles to the limit? Had they done that, then when the recession had come, instead of bailing out the car industry, subsidizing car buyers with no real goal in mind other than just creating jobs, we could have just made a bunch of legitimate car purchases instead. This would not be make work jobs anymore since the current cars would have been from the last recession and so pretty old already and in genuine need for an overhaul. I think the car makers would have been happy with this deal too. After all, we all like to think that we've earned our money and not gotten a bail out. Looking at it that way, the car industry would have been more than happy to make these new cars for the military, police, etc. not as a bail out, but fulfilling a genuine need. This would also mean that while the government would be spending much now on all these car purchases, it would have spent much less on them before, preferring to let the cars get old. So essentially, rather than paying the car industry twice (the first time to buy the cars the government needed, and now to bail them out), it would have had to do so only once (now, to kill two birds with one stone by increasing the demand for cars while replacing vehicles in genuine need of a replacement). Looking at it that way, government ought to be running on a tight budget in good times, running everything it has into the ground so to speak, until the next recession when finally government could upgrade everything not with make work jobs but legit jobs. So essentially, the only time government departments should have the best, finest, newest, most up to date equipment is right after a recession owing the the government stocking up on the good sales in the recession. In good times, government equipment, services, etc. ought to be running on what it's got. I don't see why the government could not have established some such policy years ago, or at least establish one now for the next recession. Perhaps this is what the government could have done in fact. It could have informed all of tis government departments to let it know what they need now, because after next year, there will be no more government spending until next election for new quipment. Again, why could we not establish some such policy now?

And this is exactly the reason I despise the contempt against them. I remember having had to look for work in the past, and I can say that, ironically enough, it was harder work looking for work than it is now working. Let's not forget too that a person looking for work is actually spending money on printing resumes, ad has to keep his phone line hooked up to get prospective calls, even though he'd be getting no money if welfare didn't exist. This does not mean I support welfare. I think we could get rid of welfare only if we got rid of other things too. For example, we'd have to remove minimum wage, laws making employers legally responsible for any person who volunteer for the company to gain work experience or whatever other means or strategies they may wish to use to get a job. Clearly, if we should remove welfare but not all these other obstacles to work, then it's not exactly a level playing field anymore, is it? Again, don't misunderstand me here. I do support the idea of eliminating welfare, but on condition that it is removed hand in hand with legal obstacles to employment, and that it be done in good faith and not out of contempt and spite for their very existence as the OP seems to suggest.

No, but they are much less expensive. A good example on the news recently was the F22 in the US. The company has branches in almost every state, giving a stake in this to many politicians for job creation even though the Pentagon itself wanted to scrap the project a long time ago saying that plane was designed for cold war era operations and not what they need today. In spite of many years of wastage, it's only recently that they've finally decided to scrap it. Now you tell me, which is cheaper between giving someone a few hundred dollars a month and giving someone a few thousand dollars a month, provide him with a work place, training, expensive high tech equipment, and security personnel to boot, etc etc etc to produce something the Pentagon itself didn't even want? We find similar with the auto bail out. Had we planned ahead (we know recessions always come sooner or later), we would have asked the police, paramedics, military, etc. to hold onto their old cars for a little longer, so that when the recession hit, first off the industry would have been smaller owing to fewer government purchases, whether police, military, public service, ambulances, etc. so a smaller industry in need of help, and in addition to that, instead of expensive bailouts to subsidize car buyers, the government could then have made all its car purchases to replace the old police cars, military jeeps, etc. all in desperate need of replacement anyway. As a result, instead of spending all this money in good times, and then even more again to subsidize them, we'd have spent much less in good times, and then the spending in bad times would no longer have been make work schemes, but rather filling legitimate needs to replace old hardware. I do disagree with welfare except for those who cannot work, as long as we remove barriers to their finding work too. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to cut welfare while still leaving the barriers up. Overall I agreed with some of the principles of the OP; it's just the contemptuous tone that turned me off.

Agreed. There is plenty of highly paid welfare in the public service, military, etc. too.

Had you kept your obvious contempt for the poor out of this post, I could have agreed with it in principle. Yes, I do agree that there are too many laws making it more difficult for the poor to find work. I could agree with removing the minimum wage for example. However, I cannot agree with the contempt you express in this post towards the poor, and that does nothing to promote your argument.

Some are saying here that no war is just. So are we suggesting that to defend ourselves against a direct attack on our soil by an enemy nation is unjust? I must disagree here and say that there is such a thing as a just war. If you see a man dragging a girl into the bushes to rape her, do you just stand there and walk away? Of course not. Certainly your intervention to protect the girl would be the just , right, and praiseworthy thing to do. The same applies with war I believe. Let's say a stronger nation goes out to pillage a small one of its resources and is going out raping and slaughtering the population. So we just stand there and watch? Certainly there must be such a thing as a just war. Clearly a world police force would be even more just than national armies fighting beyond their borders. But I'd say that a just alliance intended to defend our friends from unprovoked attacks leading us into war to defend them from such attacks would e just and praiseworthy, no? To say there is no such thing as a just war is based on a pacifist ideology that says that we must never, ever use force against another. While I respect the beliefs of such people, I must disagree none-the-less.

You're absolutely right on this. I am a strong supporter of honouring our Treaty obligations and, in those cases in which the treay itself may have been signed under duress or other such conditions, that we even go beyond the treaties and acknowlede the rights of the local indigenous languages and cultures, etc.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

I suppose calling the police would be a better option if the bully was not posing a serious threat to the child but merely a nuisance. If we was posing a threat, then more immediate action would be needed. And certainly it might be wise to ask the bully why he was behaving that way. Of course I'm not perfect. I'd use the amount of force I felt was needed under the circumstances. I could be wrong, but at least I'd try to abide within the law and be as just as I could. At least an attempt would be made. I would not go out and just start pummelling the bully to death just for kicks.

So the fact that Canada came to exist by unjust means thus makes those means just?

Then let's suppose the 'victim' is the perp. Seeing that he's no longer being belligerent, why could the 'bully' not just call the police since he's not in immediate danger anymore. Could he not simply make a citizen's arrest? And if he tries to bypass me with clear violent intentions, I can make a citizen's arrest for attempted assault. Of course I'd have to use minimal force, the amount of force used being directly proportional to the amount of force he uses, no more no less. That would be legal to the best of my knowledge as it is in defense of a fellow citizen against harm.

So theft of another people's resources is just?

In Canadian law, I have a right to self defense. If I stand between him and a victim of his bullying, that is very different from fighting him. If he then decides to attack me, then he'd have thrown the first punch, no?

Indeed I'm guilty of that. I'd hope that would be revealed as I request that the apparent bullying.

Good question. Then I suppose if your argument is that the definition of 'just war' may change, then one possibility would be to not define just war in the constitution but rather require in the constitution that to declare any particular war, the government of the day would first have to define 'just war', then prove that the war it intends to fight conforms to that definition, and only then coudl it fight the war, immediate direct attacks on our country aside. This would force the government of the day to define ;just war' Certainly people and the media would compare that definition to that of previous administrations that had gone to war. Many journalists and academic would likely share their ideas publicly on the definition too. And the pubic would certainly scrutinize it. Then the government must prove in court that the war it's about to engage in is in conformity with that definition. This would thus allow the definition to change over time, but still expose the government's true intentions to the public. First, the pubic would question the definition itself, which would have to be made quite explicit. Then, the public would scrutinize whether the current war fits in with that definition. The government could try to wiggle out of it by coming up with a very vague definition, which would thus expose the government's intent on being secretive or manipulative. Alternatively, it could try to twist the evidence to fit a strict definition, but then the courts might not allow it. This would not make war impossible, but would force the government to become very transparent as to its true motives. If the motives truly are noble, then there'll be no problem. Otherwise, there would be scandal after scandal as the government tries to twist either the definition or the evidence, making it all evident for all to see.

I like the analogies here. Now as for taking out the bully, I don't see why he must necessarily be bullying me personally. If I'm walking down the street and I see an adult bully picking on a young wheelchair bound child, even though he is not bullying me, I certainly have the right, nay the duty, to go out and defend that child. Of course justice would dictate that I do so using minimal force, so first I might politely but firmly request that the buy cease and desist. If he refuses, I physically stand between him and the child. And and then and only then do I fight him if he tries to push me out of the way. Whether I have signed any formal alliance or treaty with either the bully or the child here would be irrelevant. In this case, I'd merely be standing for justice, and of course fighting would be reserved as a necessary last resort if the conflict cannot be resolved peacefully. In such a scenario, the fight on my part would be altruistic with no regard for any kind of material benefit in return, unlike the shameless call to arms for material interests but in the guise of 'national interests', which is really just engaging in the very bullying we claim to despise.

There ya go. So what were the details of the attack. From my understanding, we were there to protect the ethnic minority from genocide and it was a UN-led mission. So, if we go into a country to defend the oppressed, is it a just war? Could we then argue that since we are one human family, that any attack on any member of the human race is an attack on al? If so, then we'd have to say Canada was provoked. Was it legal according to international law? Well, it was a UN-led operation. I'm not saying I'm right in the above paragraph. I am saying though that these are legitimate questions worth asking. If, in the end, we determine that such a war is unjust, then we should no longer participate in such wars. If we determine that it is just, then we ought to. But without a clear legal definition of 'just war', it becomes too open to the whims and fancies of the mobocracy.

Well, if it was unprovoked, certainly NATO ought to defend Canada. But what if Canada had gone in first to try to take Serbia and Serbia was simply fighting back?Then would you say NATO should still side with Canada?

Fine. Certainly we can have treaty obligations, on the condition that the war is in conformity with justice. If an ally is unprovokedly attacked, then we defend it. But if an ally acts belligerently, then it essentially violates its side of the treaty. If Canada is unprovokedly attacked, certainly our allies out to help us. But if Canada is attacked in defense because we started an unjust war, then no, our allies have no obligation towards us.

I used that term to include not only allies but all friends. As for allies, the alliance is essentially a request in advance of any unforeseen event.