Pellaken Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 I have a logical question I want to ask neo-conservatives. How can you beleive in the freedom of people to make money freely, but not beleive in the freedom of people to live as they chose (AKA gay marriage, aborition) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 simple One is to reward the individual for providing a service or skill in the arts or sciences to the benefit of human society as a whole. The others are a question of untoward effects on the same. Gays owe their very existance to heterosexal relationships and are therefore hippocrites in the sense they shun that from which they came. Abortion is pretty much the same thing, hippocracy in the sense they started the process of life and through negligence they now wish to undo it. The later two contribute nothing to the human condition and are nothing more than the satisfaction of individual urges and sellfish desires. Let it be known that those in society from a conservative perspective should be allowed to own and live in a mansion while others may have the opportunity to own at least two rooms and a bath. That is to say own property. Having said that there must be controlls on the amount of wealth an individual accummulates because it also becomes a vice of individual gratification and corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 what about the argument that the "need" for profit, is just "the satisfaction of individual urges and sellfish desires." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theWatcher Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 Many people believe that preventing abortion is protecting the rights of an innocent child. Why do left wingers think its ok to murder them? Why do left wingers insist on forcing their beliefs on others and then immediately cry "bigot" when those people aren't able to deal with it? Older people spent the first 60 years of their lives where homosexuality was punished. With that much conditioning its hard if not impossible to change. Thats just human nature. Why do these same left wingers who run around calling others "bigots" all the time think its ok to hate, as long as you hate the right groups? Example: hate a homosexual and thats "bad" and lets put you in jail or punish you with various hate bills. But hate a hetero who doesn't want to change the definition of marriage and thats ok. Hating Isreal is ok, but hating Palistine is bad. Why do left wingers chant "eat the rich" over and over at demonstrations and parades while being led by MP's who make more many than 95% of average Canadians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 I dont see now that answers any of my questions. If you start a new thread I will gladly answer your quesitons, all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 Pellaken.......I think theWatcher is onto something, when he talks about people who are older. Generally speaking, change is difficult for people, and the older one gets, the more difficult change becomes. My hunch is that the younger generations are more accepting of the different liftstyles that are out in society today. I say out today because, for example, society has always had homosexuals, it's just that they more hidden, or not so open, as they are today. So to reply to your question, making money has always been with us, the other stuff has't, for a lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 Why do left wingers chant "eat the rich" over and over at demonstrations and parades while being led by MP's who make more many than 95% of average Canadians? Good point... I always laugh at the people that chant "make the rich pay more." Don't the rich people of this world do most of the employing? If you make them pay more and more, they will eventually leave, and then what will we be left with? A whole bunch of social programs that can't be funded...we saw what happens when socialism is in power in Canada, Trudeau.....It doesn't work, and never will. How are people supposed to go to work and be satisfied if their outlook is that of the same pay every week, month and year. If a company gives stock options and tells it's employees if they are more productive they will make more money.... Let capitalism reign, and the right-wing live forever... Pellaken - My condolences for begin a NDPer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 No society that we have seen will thrive on 100% state control or 100% freedom, ie. anarchy. Democratic society will thrive best when people have open and productive discussion based on the facts with the view to making a better society. It's more important for people to be responsible citizens than to choose between political parties. My hunch is that the younger generations are more accepting of the different liftstyles that are out in society today. Your hunch is borne out by polls, but it doesn't solve the problem that a large chunk of society thinks that homosexuality is morally wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 I think we are talking about tolerance and respect for others, regardless of their point of view. Some folks have it, and some don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_springer Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 what about the argument that the "need" for profit, is just "the satisfaction of individual urges and sellfish desires." So tell me then... What about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udawg Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Just a comment about abortion. Many people believe that preventing abortion is protecting the rights of an innocent child. Many people DO believe this. But is it fair to a child, to be born into an environment where they are a) not wanted, or b)unable to be taken care of properly. Those are the two main reasons for abortion, I would think. Child not wanted, or parent/s unable to care for child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal.F. Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Just a comment about abortion.Many people believe that preventing abortion is protecting the rights of an innocent child. Many people DO believe this. But is it fair to a child, to be born into an environment where they are a) not wanted, or b)unable to be taken care of properly. Those are the two main reasons for abortion, I would think. Child not wanted, or parent/s unable to care for child. Sounds like a Paul Martin liberal cop-out. All children are wanted, though not neccessarily by their bioplogical parents. There are waiting lists 10 years long for parents who want to adopt. That is why so may are going to Chia and russia to get them. We're aborting ours. Too often, the option of adoption is not properly explained to such people, if mentioned at all. Back to the drawing board for you, udawg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udawg Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Well, I have to apologize, I was ignoring adoption. You're right, it really isn't explained as an option as much as it should be. Back to the drawing board indeed. So, if the kids are wanted by others, then the only excuse for not having the child is they don't want to have to deal with pregnancy and birth. Which is a sad excuse; if they're gonna have intercourse and get pregnant, they can sure as hell have the baby, as long as the baby doesn't end up worse off. Thanks for opening my eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Pell A business that does not provide a service or skill would not be very profitable. How is hiring 100 people and providing a client with a service or skill satisfying sellfish urges and desires? 100 people are working and paying taxes, the clients receive a benefit as well the owner / operator. I mean this is basic stuff. Is Microsoft or Bill Gates satisfying some individual personal desire. I don't think so! Microsoft has created more millionares than all of Atlantic Canada has. Well I can't back that up but you see my point. Usually people that are just out to make lots of money, fail. The wealthy are usually married to a poduct or service that they sell to the masses. What about your doctor? Is he satisfying an urge? He is wealthy. The guy went to school forever and was indebted up the ying yang. Do you understand the risks of Med school? Do you understand the risk of starting a business? Generally people don't do this for a quick fix love of money. Exactly why a socialists redistribution system is not a fair one. You get alot of " Why bother", less risk takers equals less pie to divide to the people that need real assistance. Another way to say that is " we can't afford our social programs." So who suffers? The poor, the sick, not the wealthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal.F. Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Why should a child pay with its life for the actions of its 'parents"? Abortion is merely a way for these people to have their cake and eat it too. They fornicate, then expoect someone else to pay the consequences, instead of beahving prudently to ensure the preganancy doesn't happen in the forst place. BTW, I think the father should be held 50% financially responsible for the costs the woamn will incuer in bringing the pregnancy to fruition. where such is not possible, churches and community organizations, ane even the state should help withthat. And the advantages of pre-marital celibacy should be extolled in the media and pop culture, rather than ridiculed as they are by the likes of Maddonna, Britney, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 This isn't a post about abortion IS IT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 PellA business that does not provide a service or skill would not be very profitable. How is hiring 100 people and providing a client with a service or skill satisfying sellfish urges and desires? 100 people are working and paying taxes, the clients receive a benefit as well the owner / operator. I mean this is basic stuff. Is Microsoft or Bill Gates satisfying some individual personal desire. I don't think so! Microsoft has created more millionares than all of Atlantic Canada has. Well I can't back that up but you see my point. Usually people that are just out to make lots of money, fail. The wealthy are usually married to a poduct or service that they sell to the masses. What about your doctor? Is he satisfying an urge? He is wealthy. The guy went to school forever and was indebted up the ying yang. Do you understand the risks of Med school? Do you understand the risk of starting a business? Generally people don't do this for a quick fix love of money. Exactly why a socialists redistribution system is not a fair one. You get alot of " Why bother", less risk takers equals less pie to divide to the people that need real assistance. Another way to say that is " we can't afford our social programs." So who suffers? The poor, the sick, not the wealthy. we seek to eliminate those risks, not the benifits that come from them. imagine with free education how many more people would be willing to take the risks to become a doctor etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 A socialist system wouldn't work because the world isn't socialist. If you did impliment such a system, you would still have people taking advantage of it and making a profit. So, in the long run it would fail. It's human nature to better your self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theWatcher Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 imagine with free education Its all the "free" things that are bankrupting our society. Free medicare eats up what percentage of our budget? In Alberta I have heard figures that about 80% of the budget is spent on hospitals and schools. Imagine that, you could lay off EVERYTHING not related to healthcare and education and you would only reduce the budget by 20% There's no room left to give anyone anything more "free" unless you advocate increasing our taxes. Taxes that are already amongst the highest in the world. My wife arrived in Canada in her late 30's and I have been trying to explain to her how the Canada Pension Plan works. She gets the privilige of paying upwards of $300 a month into the plan so she can collect $17 per month at age 65. Oh, and that $17 per month is contingent upon her maintaining her current contribution rates for the next 25 years. Because everyone was given "free" CPP once the plan was started the plan went immediately into the red and we are balancing it on the backs of our children. My biggest problem with "free" services is they tend to be abused by the consumers. But 100% pay as you go tends to be abused by the providers. The hard part of governance is finding the middle path to make it fair for both sides. People are funny, its proven that we could drastically reduce the demands on our healthcare by applying a token $10 payment on visits to the doctor (for those that could pay). I have seen figures that prove it can give as high as a 30% reduction to the healthcare system. But no, you can not touch one of Canada's sacred cows lest you face the wrath of an angry electorate having lost one of their "free" services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 People are funny, its proven that we could drastically reduce the demands on our healthcare by applying a token $10 payment on visits to the doctor (for those that could pay). I have seen figures that prove it can give as high as a 30% reduction to the healthcare system. I have a very good example of that. I started work at a car dealership right out of high school. We stored peoples tires for them as per the season. This used to be a free service, everyone took part in it. People that owned a subaru or audi (the makes that we sold) would bring in their second car, whatever it be and get their tires stored. The system was abused This year they started to chage for storage, $20 a set ($5 per tire), and let me tell you, the ammount of people that opted for storage dropped about 20-35%....just goes to show you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Watcher: You wrote: Its all the "free" things that are bankrupting our society. Free medicare eats up what percentage of our budget? In Alberta I have heard figures that about 80% of the budget is spent on hospitals and schools. Imagine that, you could lay off EVERYTHING not related to healthcare and education and you would only reduce the budget by 20% Let me point out one of the guidelines of this forum: RESEARCH YOUR POST If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). You tossed out a figure that is grossly incorrect. A simple Google search will avail you of the facts: Alberta Budget: Alberta Budget The budget spends about 7.35 billion out of 20.8 billion on healthcare. {edited to add} Education is 23.6%. That is about 58.94 not 80%. Given that the population of Alberta is about 2.9 million based on 2001 figures... Alberta Population from TravelAlberta.ca This works out to $2450 a person for universal healthcare. Compare this to the current system in the US... 15-16% of the population is uninsured. 30-32% is under-insured. This gives coverage to about half of the US population. The cost ? US Federal Government Statistics 1.3 trillion dollars for healthcare to support a population of approximately 281 million. The cost per capita for US healthcare is approximately $4620 US dollars. The cost per capital for Alberta healthcare is approximately $2450 CDN dollars. When you convert for the exchange rate, this means that the Alberta (Canadian) system covers twice the people at half the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 its proven that we could drastically reduce the demands on our healthcare by applying a token $10 payment on visits to the doctor (for those that could pay). I have seen figures that prove it can give as high as a 30% reduction to the healthcare system. this is totally acceptable, logical, and reasonable. its proven that we could drastically reduce the demands on our healthcare by applying a token $10 payment on visits to the doctor. I have seen figures that prove it can give as high as a 30% reduction to the healthcare system. is totally un-acceptable, and I will do my best to make sure it never happens in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theWatcher Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 You tossed out a figure that is grossly incorrect.A simple Google search will avail you of the facts: Alberta Budget: Alberta Budget The budget spends about 7.35 billion out of 20.8 billion on healthcare. {edited to add} Education is 23.6%. That is about 58.94 not 80%. I apologize that my figures are not verifiable from any single website. I just stated a figure given to the college I work at. The provincial numbers don't include secondary schools like colleges and universities for example. But the numbers change everywhere you look. Over here: Budget 2003 (pie chart in the lower right corner) the numbers add up to 64.1% and still don't include secondary schools or universities. And for future reference, what % increase does something become Grossly innacurate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 That a boy Pell. Your question addresses 1. Economic liberalism and 2. Social Conservatism and philosophy. #1 is contract based and the various complexities of supply and demand which the state nor any central body cannot possibly understand, let alone regulate, operating in a world of solid laws, contracts, right protections and institutional governance structures is the only way to allow society to develop. Otherwise we can return to feudalism. #2 is premised on different ideals other than individual economic freedom and contractual obligations. Family, social construction, morality, cultural history and social peace are premised on natural rights, family strength, education, historical understanding, some strain of faith [can be secular as well], and a culture of ethics. As Neal said, sluts like Spears or Madonna do nothing to further our society, but only debase it. Likewise Gay Marriage. What happens with sectoral, segmented rights is that the whole is sacrificed for the minority few. Historically we can see that this is when society starts to break down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 I apologize that my figures are not verifiable from any single website. I just stated a figure given to the college I work at. The provincial numbers don't include secondary schools like colleges and universities for example.But the numbers change everywhere you look. Over here: Budget 2003 (pie chart in the lower right corner) the numbers add up to 64.1% and still don't include secondary schools or universities. And for future reference, what % increase does something become Grossly innacurate? You should quote stats. If they're given to your college they should still be verifiable. I'd say a 15% error is grossly inaccurate, but others might disagree... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.