Economic Equality

[eyeball]

Yes I have rules that I have to follow too. In addition though, I also have to validate that these have been followed and am subject to a partial audit that increases to a full audit if too many discrepancies are uncovered. The consequence of this can result in even more enforced transparency in the form of a human observer.

It is desirable that public office holders and the public be able to know who is attempting to influence government;

It is desirable? WTF is that supposed to mean?

This little preamble needs to be changed to read; It is the law that any attempt to influence the government be conducted in public. It should also be chisled into every door in Parliament.

[Renegade]

Are our resources not finite?

It is a false argument to assume that resource are the limiting factor to our wealth. If that were true, in centuries past when the population were less and resources more pelntiful, people would have been more wealthy. This clearly false as people have not been as wealthy as they have been in modern times.

[Oleg Bach]

It is a false argument to assume that resource are the limiting factor to our wealth. If that were true, in centuries past when the population were less and resources more pelntiful, people would have been more wealthy. This clearly false as people have not been as wealthy as they have been in modern times.

Don't want to sound like an old hick - My dad was a very experienced man - he dealt with the soviets - the nazis - and the capitalist - He had one rule of ecomomics...If at the dinner table or standing over the cash box - he said one thing in regards to wealth and sustained happiness...."There are others" - This was a civlized man.

[eyeball]

It is a false argument to assume that resource are the limiting factor to our wealth. If that were true, in centuries past when the population were less and resources more pelntiful, people would have been more wealthy. This clearly false as people have not been as wealthy as they have been in modern times.

Nor have people ever been able to liquidate or consume resources as fast. Resources are definitely a limiting factor to our economic growth.

[Oleg Bach]

Nor have people ever been able to liquidate or consume resources as fast. Resources are definitely a limiting factor to our economic growth.

Constant growth is not a prerequsite to a happy life...we should strive to be more than useless eaters...and that term applys to the rich high on the food chain not just the so-called useless poor. Economic growth simply means we need more and more and more..we don't - we need just enough..happiness costs nothing. The persuit of consumer happiness costs you to waste your life with out the actual apprehension of happiness.

[Renegade]

Nor have people ever been able to liquidate or consume resources as fast. Resources are definitely a limiting factor to our economic growth.

They are ONE limiting factor. They are not the only factor which limits economic growth. We, in general, have become more wealthy over the centuries because we have become more efficient in how we create, process and consume resources. This has lead to an overall increase in our wealth. That wealth has not been evenly distributed but so what? Neither is the knowledge and skills required to turn the resources into wealth.

[Huston]

Constant growth is not a prerequsite to a happy life...we should strive to be more than useless eaters...and that term applys to the rich high on the food chain not just the so-called useless poor. Economic growth simply means we need more and more and more..we don't - we need just enough..happiness costs nothing. The persuit of consumer happiness costs you to waste your life with out the actual apprehension of happiness.

Economic growth is a silly little concept for the nation state, to falsly boost it's might. Anyone who falls for the GDP nonsense is a fool in my book. They have been conned into playing a game. GDP is a useless number to me. It does not idicate anything.

[cybercoma]

That wealth has not been evenly distributed but so what? Neither is the knowledge and skills required to turn the resources into wealth.

The people that have the most knowledge and skills for turning resources into wealth are not necessarily the most wealthy.

[M.Dancer]

The people that have the most knowledge and skills for turning resources into wealth are not necessarily the most wealthy.

But they usually are or they aren't interested.

[eyeball]

They are ONE limiting factor. They are not the only factor which limits economic growth. We, in general, have become more wealthy over the centuries because we have become more efficient in how we create, process and consume resources. This has lead to an overall increase in our wealth. That wealth has not been evenly distributed but so what? Neither is the knowledge and skills required to turn the resources into wealth.

Thanks for using capital letters to underscore the fact the availability of natural resources is the ONE limiting factor that is by far the most important. So what if wealth is not evenly distributed? Well, given the violence that usually results when economic inequality goes over the top I'd say that uneven distribution is a limiting factor too. Now that humans have nuclear weapons this could be as big a limiting factor as any we've ever faced.

I still maintain its the political or more to the point representative inequality that ultimately leads to the economic inequality and the revolutions that correct this.

Edited February 20, 2009 by eyeball

[Renegade]

Thanks for using capital letters to underscore the fact the availability of natural resources is the ONE limiting factor that is by far the most important.

By what criteria do you rate it as the most important? What evidence do you have or is it simply your opinion that it is the most important?

So what if wealth is not evenly distributed? Well, given the violence that usually results when economic inequality goes over the top I'd say that uneven distribution is a limiting factor too. Now that humans have nuclear weapons this could be as big a limiting factor as any we've ever faced.

If violence results from economic inequality and those that have, decide that it make sense to redestribute their income, they will do so volulantarily. They may also decide that they are willing to put up with the risk of violence or that investing in security is a more efficetive solution.

I still maintain its the political or more to the point representative inequality that ultimately leads to the economic inequality and the revolutions that correct this.

To believe this you have to beleve that people are equal in ability, skills, experience and other factors which influence the creation of wealth. Even if you gave everyone political representative equality, there are those will will succeed and those who will fail. Your only way to redress this is to forcibly take from those who succeed and give to those who fail.

[Renegade]

The people that have the most knowledge and skills for turning resources into wealth are not necessarily the most wealthy.

No, there are many other factors which influence the accumulation wealth including luck. So what? Are you somehow suggesting that some factors should be state-sactioned and others are not? For example, a lottery winner accumulates wealth by luck. Should the state take away his winings and redestribute them because luck isn't a sactioned way of accumulating wealth?

[cybercoma]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just wondering what people think about economic equality, whether it should be something we seek like political and legal equalities.

[August1991]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just wondering what people think about economic equality, whether it should be something we seek like political and legal equalities.

Cybercoma, I asked you in this thread.

Is it desirable to make everyone beautiful, or ugly? Should we scar or cover beautiful women so that they are the equal of ugly women?

You seem to consider "economic" equality as different from my definition of equality. But how is it different? If my mother is tall and has blue eyes, blonde hair and clear skin, and my father is similar, then I will inherit their genes.

If tall people with blue eyes, blonde hair earn more money, should we tax them?

[Renegade]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just wondering what people think about economic equality, whether it should be something we seek like political and legal equalities.

People are not equal. Not in their skills, knowledge, experience, looks, luck or many other factors which influence the accumulation of wealth. The state should not intervene to try and equalize the end result of inherent inequality.

[charter.rights]

People are not equal. Not in their skills, knowledge, experience, looks, luck or many other factors which influence the accumulation of wealth. The state should not intervene to try and equalize the end result of inherent inequality.

That is why the Charter focuses on equality where it concerns the law and basic human rights but the courts focus on equity in order to strike a balance between the inequality of different groups of people. As an example the requirement for "barrier-free" access and travel within new buildings make those buildings available to people who have hearing, seeing or physical impediments and is not unreasonable in a civil society. However, providing access to existing buildings creates a more difficult problem, since there may be doctors, or other health professionals in those buildings that are inaccessible to physically impaired patrons. Then we have to weigh out the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the building owner. Should renovation take place, then again it is entirely reasonable for the owner of the building be required to comply with upgrading.

In the case of other inequities, it is important that we focus on finding a balance and reconcile their needs as much as possible. There should be no artificial barriers, such as building accessibility or workplace policy that restrict people with impairments from working there. Just as well, we must insist that hearing or seeing impaired do not hold mental disabilities, or other physical disabilities that prevent them from most workplaces, or access to buildings regularly used by the public. Business owners must be made to accommodate the disabilities and not use excuses to deny the individual equal opportunity.

Equity (as a tenet of equality) within society is different than trying to make everyone the same - which is not the purpose of the equality movement. It is to recognize that there are in fact differences in people and that as a tolerant society we must make accommodations for their differences. Certainly we wouldn't support a pub that demands a red-haired Irish-Canadian die his hair green on St Patrick's Day or be fired to be within reason nor would we expect a blind telephone operator to be denied a job simply because she can't see the computer screen in front of her when there are lots of compensating technologies available to accommodate her difference.

[Renegade]

That is why the Charter focuses on equality where it concerns the law and basic human rights but the courts focus on equity in order to strike a balance between the inequality of different groups of people. As an example the requirement for "barrier-free" access and travel within new buildings make those buildings available to people who have hearing, seeing or physical impediments and is not unreasonable in a civil society. However, providing access to existing buildings creates a more difficult problem, since there may be doctors, or other health professionals in those buildings that are inaccessible to physically impaired patrons. Then we have to weigh out the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the building owner. Should renovation take place, then again it is entirely reasonable for the owner of the building be required to comply with upgrading.

In the case of other inequities, it is important that we focus on finding a balance and reconcile their needs as much as possible. There should be no artificial barriers, such as building accessibility or workplace policy that restrict people with impairments from working there. Just as well, we must insist that hearing or seeing impaired do not hold mental disabilities, or other physical disabilities that prevent them from most workplaces, or access to buildings regularly used by the public. Business owners must be made to accommodate the disabilities and not use excuses to deny the individual equal opportunity.

Equity (as a tenet of equality) within society is different than trying to make everyone the same - which is not the purpose of the equality movement. It is to recognize that there are in fact differences in people and that as a tolerant society we must make accommodations for their differences. Certainly we wouldn't support a pub that demands a red-haired Irish-Canadian die his hair green on St Patrick's Day or be fired to be within reason nor would we expect a blind telephone operator to be denied a job simply because she can't see the computer screen in front of her when there are lots of compensating technologies available to accommodate her difference.

There is a difference between requireing that people be treated equally and requiring that they have end up at the same level. the charter focuses on the rights of equal treatment, as it should. It doesn't require equal outcomes.

BTW, the Charter itself is a discrimminatory document. It probhits certain discrimmination but allows others and in doing so instutionalizes its own brand of discrimmination. That is the whole different subject and discussion belongs in a different thread.

[charter.rights]

There is a difference between requireing that people be treated equally and requiring that they have end up at the same level. the charter focuses on the rights of equal treatment, as it should. It doesn't require equal outcomes.

BTW, the Charter itself is a discrimminatory document. It probhits certain discrimmination but allows others and in doing so instutionalizes its own brand of discrimmination. That is the whole different subject and discussion belongs in a different thread.

Well, no.....

The Charter is really a document that limits freedoms and sets some boundaries between different freedoms. If we are to examine rights then we are born unfettered but once a "birth certificate" is issued in our names we become limited by the Charter and become a target for government taxation and servitude.

However, within those limitations it provides a social contract under which we regard the highest of laws and freedoms. In that contract we have a responsibility to others to not infringe upon their equal and equitable rights under the law. While the Charter does not limit our freedom of thought or expression, it also permits the the government to limit them when they are used to infringe upon an others right to thought or expression. So the promotion of hate or the promotion of denial of rights can be the basis for being charged or sued or subject to human rights tribunal sanctions.

The subject of this thread however, is about economic equality. The purpose of government economically has always been to redistribute wealth to create equal opportunity through economy. No one province can be firewalled by other provinces or corporate entities and so the government has a duty of balancing interest across the provinces....i.e. equalization payments. As well, the government's role is to remove barriers province to province so that trade, commerce and labour can move freely. That helps to balance the economy nationally.

Lastly, the government - whether provincial or federal - are charged with ensuring that we have a social safety net. The comes in the form of Canada pension, unemployment, disability, health care and minimum wage laws. By prescribing these minimum services the government creates an equitable society where economic differences may exist but they do not become a barrier to economic opportunity. If all our basic needs are guaranteed by law, then it is up to us to seek the opportunities and develop them as far as we are willing to go. It seems to me that this creates a reasonable balance between our economic equity and fiscal equality.

Edited February 21, 2009 by charter.rights

[Renegade]

However, within those limitations it provides a social contract under which we regard the highest of laws and freedoms. In that contract we have a responsibility to others to not infringe upon their equal and equitable rights under the law. While the Charter does not limit our freedom of thought or expression, it also permits the the government to limit them when they are used to infringe upon an others right to thought or expression. So the promotion of hate or the promotion of denial of rights can be the basis for being charged or sued or subject to human rights tribunal sanctions.

So how does that contradict anything I said?

The subject of this thread however, is about economic equality. The purpose of government economically has always been to redistribute wealth to create equal opportunity through economy. No one province can be firewalled by other provinces or corporate entities and so the government has a duty of balancing interest across the provinces....i.e. equalization payments. As well, the government's role is to remove barriers province to province so that trade, commerce and labour can move freely. That helps to balance the economy nationally.

Well, that is your interpretation of the purpose of government. It is not mine. I have yet to see any constitutional document state that the purpose of government is to redestribute wealth.

Lastly, the government - whether provincial or federal - are charged with ensuring that we have a social safety net. The comes in the form of Canada pension, unemployment, disability, health care and minimum wage laws. By prescribing these minimum services the government creates an equitable society where economic differences may exist but they do not become a barrier to economic opportunity. If all our basic needs are guaranteed by law, then it is up to us to seek the opportunities and develop them as far as we are willing to go. It seems to me that this creates a reasonable balance between our economic equity and fiscal equality.

The only mandate the government has with respect to a social saftey net is the mandate the people give if at election time. If its platform is to dismantle a social saftey net, and it gets elected than that becomes its mandate. On what basis do you generally claim that the gorerments "are charged with ensuring that we have a social safety net"?

[eyeball]

Lastly, the government - whether provincial or federal - are charged with ensuring that we have a social safety net. The comes in the form of Canada pension, unemployment, disability, health care and minimum wage laws. By prescribing these minimum services the government creates an equitable society where economic differences may exist but they do not become a barrier to economic opportunity. If all our basic needs are guaranteed by law, then it is up to us to seek the opportunities and develop them as far as we are willing to go. It seems to me that this creates a reasonable balance between our economic equity and fiscal equality.

Sounds good in theory but in practice these governments often give certain groups unequal access to ministers and beuarucrats behind closed doors meaning our guarantees of equal opportunity are pretty much meaningless.

[Oleg Bach]

Sounds good in theory but in practice these governments often give certain groups unequal access to ministers and beuarucrats behind closed doors meaning our guarantees of equal opportunity are pretty much meaningless.

Just make sure the poor have bus fare...You needs money to go get money - this is something that is over looked. Those who line up the policy that is woven into the social safety net are so disconnected that they assume everyone has bus fair and a car - and maybe a nice cottage on the lake. You can not have social equality or fairness when those that run big buisness who inturn have friends in government are all intergenerational millionares... It's not their fault ----------- They just don't feel the cold on another mans neck when they have always been warm and on the inside....as is said "They don't even breath the same air"