In Toronto, people go hungry all the time

Renegade · May 1, 2009

The victim of the robbery is definitely not justified to protect his property since the initial appropriation of nature has still to be legitimated (see my posts on the Lockean proviso).

Who has the authority to legitimize it? you? Locke? One of your other philsophers?

benny · May 1, 2009

Who has the authority to legitimize it? you? Locke? One of your other philsophers?

We the People.

M.Dancer · May 1, 2009

We the People.

We the people say theft will get you a good beating

benny · May 1, 2009

We the people say theft will get you a good beating

Sharia-like punishments are undemocratic.

g_bambino · May 1, 2009

Sharia-like punishments are undemocratic.

Not when the majority votes in favour of it!

benny · May 1, 2009

Not when the majority votes in favour of it!

A people is more than an aggregate of isolated individuals.

M.Dancer · May 1, 2009

A people is more than an aggregate of isolated individuals.

Come on jack handey, you can have ity both ways...either it is democracy or it is a collection of individals...either way your humour factor is quickly losing interest and will soo\n be put on ignore unless you drop the idiotic platitudes

OddSox · May 1, 2009

Poverty? It's pretty relative.

I help out an older relative who is in his mid-eighties and had part of his leg amputated a few years ago. He lives on CPP, which along with various other government payments, pays him something less than $13,500 per year.

His rent is $680 for a small apartment in Ottawa, he spends about $250 on groceries every 6 weeks (and eats healthier than I do - lot of vegetables in season along with meat and potatoes), and his other expenses total $30 for cable TV and $30 for his telephone. He doesn't go out, rarely buys any new clothes, and actually lives a pretty happy life - for less than $1000 per month. (plus he gets a rent-to-income subsidy which allows him to actually save a couple thousand $ a year).

If he can live on that income, why can't others?

capricorn · May 2, 2009

Poverty? It's pretty relative.

I think so too.

I was raised in poverty, always in the poorest of neighborhoods and I never ventured away to other parts of the city. Throughout my youth, I thought that was how all people lived. In my late teens, I began to see how other people lived in more affluent parts of town. I wanted what they had so I worked hard to get there. I don't blame my parents for my upbringing in poverty. They were good people but they just didn't know better and for a variety of reasons, they settled for what they had.

Barring serious health issues, if I could make it, anyone can if they put their mind to it. IMO it's a question of will and determination.

benny · May 2, 2009

Poverty? It's pretty relative.
I help out an older relative who is in his mid-eighties and had part of his leg amputated a few years ago. He lives on CPP, which along with various other government payments, pays him something less than $13,500 per year.

His rent is $680 for a small apartment in Ottawa, he spends about $250 on groceries every 6 weeks (and eats healthier than I do - lot of vegetables in season along with meat and potatoes), and his other expenses total $30 for cable TV and $30 for his telephone. He doesn't go out, rarely buys any new clothes, and actually lives a pretty happy life - for less than $1000 per month. (plus he gets a rent-to-income subsidy which allows him to actually save a couple thousand $ a year).

If he can live on that income, why can't others?

Because they are less than 65 years old.

Edited May 2, 2009 by benny

Muddy · May 2, 2009

I think so too.
I was raised in poverty, always in the poorest of neighborhoods and I never ventured away to other parts of the city. Throughout my youth, I thought that was how all people lived. In my late teens, I began to see how other people lived in more affluent parts of town. I wanted what they had so I worked hard to get there. I don't blame my parents for my upbringing in poverty. They were good people but they just didn't know better and for a variety of reasons, they settled for what they had.

Barring serious health issues, if I could make it, anyone can if they put their mind to it. IMO it's a question of will and determination.

You echo my life. I hold dear to my property because I earned it through blood sweat and tears. It is mine! I should be allowed to share at my whim ,not by force. I will use what ever legal or moral measures it takes to protect my property and family.

CANADIEN · May 2, 2009

Personally I don't agree with the way the EI program is run, but regardless, if a person finds that the government provided employment insurance program is not sufficient to provide an employment cushion, they are free to supplement it with other means, such as saving a nest egg for such situations or suscribing to private income replacement programs. The fact that they do not means that they assume their own responsibilty for their situation.
See my answer above. If an individual wants to mitigate risk from job-loss, critical-illness, death, disaster, etc, there is no shortage of means that they can use to do so. Many of the programs in the social safety net are not "insurance" programs they pretend to be, but rather disguised charity programs, and charity is always at the discretion of the donor.

Nice theory. Now. Let's see what is missing in it. Like the fact people in the lower salary ranges cannot afford to put that much money aside. Or the unpredictability of death, accidents, etc. And the fact that people receiving EI payments have paid into the program.

CANADIEN · May 2, 2009

The thoughts of dead philosophers do not impede the velocity of my bat when the covetousness of living scoundrels try to absond with what is not theirs.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oleg Bach · May 2, 2009

Every person in the nation has paid into every program - You can not step out the door for five minutes without paying some sort of tax....... We in urban centers for the most part are poorly nourished...middle class and no class alike just does not eat well...part if money based and part is a stressed invironment that dumbfounds most over a period of time...leading to a life style that boarders on third world hunger..As for our poor - we keep them very well hidden - the agenda of most social services organizations is to spare politicals the embarrassement of seeing the poor..most are hunkered down - the aged included...we in Canada love to keep up appearances.

CANADIEN · May 2, 2009

See my answer to charter above:
But let us suppose that we accept the trade-off that in order to accept benefits of the state, one submits to be regulated by the state there are a couple of measures which can be taken:

1. Determining suitable qualifcations of parents and licensing parenting. This would be similar to driver-license programs, with penalties for non-compliance.

2. Potentially removing infants, from unsuitable parents.

3. Societal pressure by changing attitutes. (eg similar to drink-and-drive) campaigns.

I'm sure that there are more measures which can be taken, but the first obstacle is for people to accept that state-aid should come with strings attached.

Simply put, if you believe poverty is the problem, then one way to effectively solve that problem is to stop people afflicted by poverty from passing their povety on to future generations.

People on welfare are already subjected to a host of controls, ranging from the logical (if you earn money from another source, to the absurd (in Ontario, a woman on welfare and the man sub-leting from her were considered a couple (therefore reducing her welfore egibility) if he bought a gift for the woman's kid at Chritmas (I am not making that one up!)).

But now their life should be "regulated"? We should license parenting, like we license dog ownership? (mind you, licensing parenting could have the effect or keeping children away from racist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise bigoted parents, not that I would rrrrecommend we do that, of course).

Why not just throw the poor in jail, where they would at least get a roof and three meals a day? Or maybe forced sterilization? Not that I claim that's what you're gettting at, but some have and will suggest it.

Simply put, the best way to ensure that poor people do not pass their poverty to the next genreation is to repair the safety net so that less people fall into poverty in the first place.

benny · May 2, 2009

Because they are less than 65 years old.

A person who has been a welfare recipient all her/his life will see a quite big increase in her/his income as soon as s/he reaches age 65.

Oleg Bach · May 2, 2009

A person who has been a welfare recipient all her/his life will see a quite big increase in her/his income as soon as s/he reaches age 65.

I don't think that is the case. Those who have not paid into a pension plan will get what is equivalent to welfare - just more poverty in store for the institutionalized..not a bright future for them.

Renegade · May 2, 2009

We the People.

Oddly enough, "we the people" have passed laws that makes it illegal to steal even if you percieve you are in need, and "we the people" have passed laws which deem protecting one's property is lawful.

You contention that it is "lawful", as authorized by "we the people" and not theft to forcefully or by stealth take another's property becuase of percieved need, is completely without merit.

If you believe otherwise, please cite criminal statutes and not philosophers's quotes.

benny · May 2, 2009

I don't think that is the case. Those who have not paid into a pension plan will get what is equivalent to welfare - just more poverty in store for the institutionalized..not a bright future for them.

The Old Age Security pension plus Guaranteed Income Supplement give around $400/month more than Welfare ($1000 vs $600/month).

Oleg Bach · May 2, 2009

The Old Age Security pension plus Guaranteed Income Supplement give around $400/month more than Welfare ($1000 vs $600/month).

That on par with a disablity cheque...I guess when we are old we will all be disabled....great...make a little cash on the side and don't declare it and you just might survive...just.

benny · May 2, 2009

That on par with a disablity cheque...I guess when we are old we will all be disabled....great...make a little cash on the side and don't declare it and you just might survive...just.

I think the reasoning is more like: politicians vote more generous programs for the old and the disabled because they know the general population sympathizes more easily with them (than with the so-called able-bodied).

Renegade · May 2, 2009

People on welfare are already subjected to a host of controls, ranging from the logical (if you earn money from another source, to the absurd (in Ontario, a woman on welfare and the man sub-leting from her were considered a couple (therefore reducing her welfore egibility) if he bought a gift for the woman's kid at Chritmas (I am not making that one up!)).
But now their life should be "regulated"? We should license parenting, like we license dog ownership? (mind you, licensing parenting could have the effect or keeping children away from racist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise bigoted parents, not that I would rrrrecommend we do that, of course).

So what if their lives are somewhat regulated. Clearly if they continue to make bad choices like bringing children into the world when they cannot afford to support those children, they are not regulated enough.

Loss of control of their lives is the price that they should pay in return for state aid.

Why not just throw the poor in jail, where they would at least get a roof and three meals a day? Or maybe forced sterilization? Not that I claim that's what you're gettting at, but some have and will suggest it.

There is no reason to throw poor in jail unless they commit crime. In fact throwing poor in jail would be costly to the taxpayer, perhaps even more than increased social assistance. As far as forced sterilization, there may be some individuals, such as child-molesters, who would be unfit parents, and for whom, such treatment would be appropriate.

Simply put, the best way to ensure that poor people do not pass their poverty to the next genreation is to repair the safety net so that less people fall into poverty in the first place.

The saftey net is costly and that cost is not borne by the people who benefit, thus those who have to bear the cost have no incentive to repair it.

Renegade · May 2, 2009

Nice theory. Now. Let's see what is missing in it. Like the fact people in the lower salary ranges cannot afford to put that much money aside.

If they cannot afford to pay for their own risk contingency what they are asking for is in fact a hand-out from the rest of society. The fact is few actually put money aside because they assume the state will take care of them if needed when imo they should be making their own contingency plans.