BIG Rightwing Debt

[Machjo]

Because luck is harder to assume than a duty.

This is where education could come in. if we taught peopel as children to appreciate what they have, and to share, they would do so of their own free will. Bill Gates gives much of his money to charity already, beyond his taxes. I think we can trust people to do the right thing if we educate them properly.

[Machjo]

Also, duty does not have to be impose from the outside. I feel a duty to help others beyond just the taxes I pay. How do you explain that? There is no govenrment telling me that I must give more than my taxes, yet I do. Where do you think that sense of duty comes from if not from the government laws?

[benny]

Also, duty does not have to be impose from the outside. I feel a duty to help others beyond just the taxes I pay. How do you explain that? There is no govenrment telling me that I must give more than my taxes, yet I do. Where do you think that sense of duty comes from if not from the government laws?

A sense of duty comes by learning where is coming from what we have.

[Machjo]

A sense of duty comes by learning where is coming from what we have.

And that's education, not just the law.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And that's education, not just the law.

I will suggest the proper format for a new axiom would be family, honour, integrity, and responsibility.

[Machjo]

I will suggest the proper format for a new axiom would be family, honour, integrity, and responsibility.

And they all come through education. I'm not talking about academic education, but characer and moral education.

[benny]

I will suggest the proper format for a new axiom would be family, honour, integrity, and responsibility.

It is self-defeating to pass over political activism.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And they all come through education. I'm not talking about academic education, but characer and moral education.

Life is a far more sophisticated instructor than books and scholastic endeavours.

[benny]

Life is a far more sophisticated instructor than books and scholastic endeavours.

Seen as a lucky calling from God, life is not a good instructor.

[Machjo]

Life is a far more sophisticated instructor than books and scholastic endeavours.

Sorry, I was referring to education in the broadest sense, not just in the classroom, but through the mores our society teaches on TV, radio, in the family, etc. THis would involve community invovlement and teaching by example.

[Machjo]

Seen as a lucky calling from God, life is not a good instructor.

I can certainly agree that some do use God as an excuse to be ungodly.

[benny]

Sorry, I was referring to education in the broadest sense, not just in the classroom, but through the mores our society teaches on TV, radio, in the family, etc. THis would involve community invovlement and teaching by example.

Education in the broadest sense about the origin of wealth is done by political activists, they are the one who insist for the free flow of information in all institutions.

[Machjo]

Education in the broadest sense about the origin of wealth is done by political activists, they are the one who insist for the free flow of information in all institutions.

It has to do with teaching community spirit, and that is done in the home and at school, though all members of the community are expected to teach by example too. It's not limited to just political activists.

[benny]

It has to do with teaching community spirit, and that is done in the home and at school, though all members of the community are expected to teach by example too. It's not limited to just political activists.

Thanks to women who have become political activists both inside homes and schools.

Edited June 6, 2009 by benny

[Machjo]

Thanks to women who have become political activists both inside homes and schools.

And those women who aren't political activists, but who have given of their time to teach the young? They don't count?

[benny]

And those women who aren't political activists, but who have given of their time to teach the young? They don't count?

They shoulder our debt.

[ironstone]

The core belief of right wingers about the poor is that they are undeserving.

More left wing nonsense I'm afraid.The Left and Conservatives differ in how to alleviate poverty.Put simply,the Left believes in hand outs and the Conservatives believe in giving a hand up.

Given the fact that the Liberals have governed Canada for significantly more time than Conservatives,don't you think they should get some of the blame for poverty in this country in the first place?The fact is,we do have a "poverty industry"in this country.It seems they want to continue the cycle of "poverty"for their own benefit.Whether we care to admit it or not,there is quite a lot of abuse in government efforts to help poverty.Welfare fraud,people with good jobs living in subsidized housing,you name it.Like any fair minded citizen,I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help those TRULY in need,but I get angry when much of this money get's wasted.There is a distinction between those honestly trying to better themselves and those merely content to get a free ride.

[Machjo]

More left wing nonsense I'm afraid.The Left and Conservatives differ in how to alleviate poverty.Put simply,the Left believes in hand outs and the Conservatives believe in giving a hand up.

Given the fact that the Liberals have governed Canada for significantly more time than Conservatives,don't you think they should get some of the blame for poverty in this country in the first place?The fact is,we do have a "poverty industry"in this country.It seems they want to continue the cycle of "poverty"for their own benefit.Whether we care to admit it or not,there is quite a lot of abuse in government efforts to help poverty.Welfare fraud,people with good jobs living in subsidized housing,you name it.Like any fair minded citizen,I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help those TRULY in need,but I get angry when much of this money get's wasted.There is a distinction between those honestly trying to better themselves and those merely content to get a free ride.

Also, how many people might end up unemployed just because of bureaucracy and red tape? Sometimes the very unemployment the government is trying to alleviate is government-caused. In such cases, the solution might be as simple as to remove the obstacles.

Just to take one simple example: minimum wage. If the government introduces minimum wage but does not provide universal post-compulsory education, then those who can't afford a higher education find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place: not enough education or training to be employeable at minimum wage, and no money to get the higher education. Tough catch 22 there.

I can certainly understand the intention behind minimum wage legislation, but we also need to think about it rationally. Unless that minimum wage legislation goes hand in hand with universal post-compulsory education, it might hurt the vrey people it's intended to help by legally pricing them out of the market, also risking pushing some of them into the black market.

We see this with rent controls too. Unless the government is going to ensure a sufficient supply of accommodation in a city, its rent controls can backfire. That had happened in Toronto a few years back. The rent controls killed off any incentive to build more accommodation, yet the populaiton was groing. As a result, either the landlord didn't bother maintaining the place, a key-fee was introduced or some other such fee, or a black market emeged whereby some were willing to offer to pay extra rent illegally. This naturally caused the poorest members of the population to suffer the most,not because they were lazy or through any fault of their own, but rather because the government had killed any incentive to build more homes, resulting in a shortage of supply, increased demand, and the rest was economics 101. That's why the City of Toronto eventually had to lift the rent controls. The city fo Paris, France, and made a similar mistake at one point.

We find it with immigration too. Unless the government plans it well, though it may be well intentione,d it could potentially hurt either immigrants or Canadians, no matter its good intentions. One example would be if you make entering Canada esy but staying difficult. Needless to say you'd be pushing up the rate of marriages for citizenship and alot of broken hearts.

There are of course plenty of other such examples of how government intervention in the economy or other policy, if not well thought out, can hurt the very people it intends to protect, regarless of its good intentions.

[benny]

More left wing nonsense I'm afraid.The Left and Conservatives differ in how to alleviate poverty.Put simply,the Left believes in hand outs and the Conservatives believe in giving a hand up.

Given the fact that the Liberals have governed Canada for significantly more time than Conservatives,don't you think they should get some of the blame for poverty in this country in the first place?The fact is,we do have a "poverty industry"in this country.It seems they want to continue the cycle of "poverty"for their own benefit.Whether we care to admit it or not,there is quite a lot of abuse in government efforts to help poverty.Welfare fraud,people with good jobs living in subsidized housing,you name it.Like any fair minded citizen,I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help those TRULY in need,but I get angry when much of this money get's wasted.There is a distinction between those honestly trying to better themselves and those merely content to get a free ride.

The Conservatives have not governed Canada a lot because their self-defeating ideology forces them to try to govern more by governing less. In other words, the Conservatives think that they only have to "starve the Beast" and that an "invisible hand" will spontaneously comes to guarantee that the people will not starve. Self-assuming free-riders are revealing themselves the only true Conservatives by insisting for the conservation of nature's own productive capacity against the destructiveness of workers.

Edited June 7, 2009 by benny

[Machjo]

The Conservatives have not governed Canada a lot because their self-defeating ideology forces them to try to govern more by governing less. In other words, the Conservatives think that they only have to "starve the Beast" and that an "invisible hand" will spontaneously comes to guarantee that the people will not starve. Self-assuming free-riders are revealing themselves the only true Conservatives by insisting for the conservation of nature's own productive capacity against the destructiveness of workers.

It's interesting that you bring nature into this. In fact, I'd say that in some respects, the Green party is more conservative than the Conservative party in its recogntion, at least in principle, in the importance of preserving the environment so that we can continue to benefit from the fruits of the land.

In some respects, we coud say that the Green Party is a moderate left-leaning capitalist or free-market party in that it tries to achieve left-wing objectives (helping the poor, etc.) via mostly capitalistic means.

[benny]

It's interesting that you bring nature into this. In fact, I'd say that in some respects, the Green party is more conservative than the Conservative party in its recogntion, at least in principle, in the importance of preserving the environment so that we can continue to benefit from the fruits of the land.

In some respects, we coud say that the Green Party is a moderate left-leaning capitalist or free-market party in that it tries to achieve left-wing objectives (helping the poor, etc.) via mostly capitalistic means.

Conservatives are too fixated to recognize their indebtedness toward nature, both external nature (living species, etc.) and our inner nature (genetic endowments, etc.).