Growing Seniors Population Spell Trouble

[Smallc]

And you think this preferable to the way things are now?

It's completely incomprehensible, isn't it?

[bloodyminded]

It's completely incomprehensible, isn't it?

I consider it lunacy.

I have always considered libertarianism ideals to have a lot to offer us. But full-blown libertarianism seems exceedingly dangerous to me...for reasons Toadbrother explained at some length.

[ToadBrother]

You ARE supportive of a tyranny. A de facto government, of the rich and powerful...but without the legal restraints imposed upon a representative government.

It's mind-boggling.

You see, people don't riot for food...unless they have no other recourse. At that point, rioting for food is wholly rational, wholly understandable.

And a few rich fucks who own everything are going to stand there and gun the peasants down?

And you think this preferable to the way things are now?

The greater irony is that I doubt the guy is even all that rich. Most Libertarians I meet are middle class types pissed off because they have to pay taxes. They seem to have no awareness that they owe society just as much, if not more than society owes them.

In fact, the kind of state he seems to be promoting would, within the Platonic sphere of governments, be best described as a Oligarchy. Now, it might be more expansive than a Classical Oligarchy, in that at least some portion of the Middle Class would have some political power, so it would be a weird hybrid between a semi-democracy and an oligarchy, but definitely with oligarchic tendencies. How exactly this would constitute a free or liberal state is quite beyond me, but Libertarians tend to say rather awkward things, like Ron Paul declaring that the Civil War shouldn't have happened, that slavery was bad, but Lincoln was plainly in the wrong for declaring war on the Confederacy and ultimately forcing it back into the Union. I give Paul credit for admitting where his political views naturally lead, but that is ultimately where Libertarianism sits. All the talk of personal liberty is utterly meaningless if the social, political and economic structures cannot at least insure some degree of support for those at the lowest level.

The worst part is that this is all ancient history. Louis XVI lost his head over this (and it really wasn't his fault, the whole French system of aristocracy and landed gentry was completely broken). You ignore the masses at your peril, and if the only way you can deal with them, because of your ideological leanings, is to shoot them whenever they demand your help to ease their difficulties, then you have not produced a free state, you have produced an oligarchic tyranny, the ultimate dystopia.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[blueblood]

The greater irony is that I doubt the guy is even all that rich. Most Libertarians I meet are middle class types pissed off because they have to pay taxes. They seem to have no awareness that they owe society just as much, if not more than society owes them.

I wouldn't say that, they have awareness that they are contributing to society and that they shouldn't be punished for their contributions. The English learned that lesson the hard way from the Americans.

The worst part is that this is all ancient history. Louis XVI lost his head over this (and it really wasn't his fault, the whole French system of aristocracy and landed gentry was completely broken). You ignore the masses at your peril, and if the only way you can deal with them, because of your ideological leanings, is to shoot them whenever they demand your help to ease their difficulties, then you have not produced a free state, you have produced an oligarchic tyranny, the ultimate dystopia.

Ignoring the masses is a two way street. By punishing the masses that are your contributors with high taxes is also a recipe for disaster. Communism has failed because of that attitude. I believe that Canadian society has afforded every Canadian the same opportunity to succeed, and the tax rates should reflect that, a flat tax. The current tax system is stone age.

[ToadBrother]

I wouldn't say that, they have awareness that they are contributing to society and that they shouldn't be punished for their contributions. The English learned that lesson the hard way from the Americans.

I would say that. The American Revolutionaries had no particular allergy to taxes, they had an allergy to taxes being imposed without their say. I realize Libertarians have taken to trying to co-opt events like the Boston Tea Party for their own ends, but the reality wasn't that taxes were requested, but rather that their own local governments, which the Crown had been more than happy to allow a couple of centuries of largely self-rule were now suddenly basically be ignored.

Ignoring the masses is a two way street. By punishing the masses that are your contributors with high taxes is also a recipe for disaster. Communism has failed because of that attitude.

Taxes weren't the reason Communism failed. The problem was the planned economy. High taxes is not the same thing as a planned economy. I'm not defending high taxes, but bringing Communism into this is simply muddying the waters. I realize you get an emotional kick out of mentioning it, but it's at best tangential to the issue at hand.

I believe that Canadian society has afforded every Canadian the same opportunity to succeed, and the tax rates should reflect that, a flat tax. The current tax system is stone age.

There's an old joke that all taxes start out as flat taxes. Yes, we should all pay 10% of our income (or whatever). The problem is that 10% of my income is substantially less than, say, 10% of some guy making $25000 a year. The solution then becomes to create some sort of low income exemption, or to fiddle with the amount certain brackets pay, and before you can count to three, you have our tax system.

The problem is that you don't want a fair tax system, you simply want a tax system that reduces what you pay, regardless of whether it impacts everyone else. If the poor can't pay it, well, to hell with the poor. And that's really the point. You ignore those masses, and one day, they'll just bloody well come and take it from you, and all your talk of fairness and right and wrong and what's yours should stay yours will be meaningless as they dragging you out to the guillotine.

The entire underlying point of my little historical discourse on income/wealth redistribution. If you don't insure at least some reasonably large fraction of the underclasses some sort of subsistence-level income, however you choose to do it, you create a deadly cocktail. So, the Poor Laws were introduced. Labor laws were introduced. The underclasses were steadily emancipated. These didn't happen out of some sense of charity, particularly in places like Britain, they happened because the mercantile and aristocratic classes got the message; much easier to part with taxes than to part with one's head.

The other point is that no society has ever functioned on Libertarian grounds. Your fellow Libertarian has basically conceded the point that the only way a Libertarian society could stave off revolution would basically be to put bullets in the underclasses every time they rioted (and they would riot when they were deprived of bread, believe you me, peasant revolts and the like have happened enough to demonstrate that). I cannot see how such a system could hope to sustain itself, everyone with money would be taxed to death defending their precious personal incomes from the evils of the taxman.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

Some of you seem to be under the impression that Libertarianism is about keeping the poor down. It is not a matter of hatred for the poor, but rather a matter of everyone getting to keep the fruits of their own labor.

Now, as for the historical examples. The masses in France did not rebel because the government failed to provide public healthcare or welfare. They rose up because of the utter contempt with which they were treated. Nobles could ride down a commoner on the street in their wagon and go completely unpunished. Serfs on farms were treated no better than slaves. And feudal lords took so much in "taxes" from their peasants that they were just barely able to eke out a living, and sometimes not even that. Counts feasted on the food their peasants had produced while the peasants starved through the winter.

Libertarianism supports none of these things. There would be no justification for any but minimal taxes since most government services would be done away with, so the vast majority of what someone produced or earned would remain theirs. Property would be respected, what is yours and yours, and cannot be taken away by someone else simply because they are richer or more influential. Any crime by any member of society against any other, regardless of their level of wealth, would be (in principle) equally punished in a court of law.

Who is talking about "depriving" the "underclasses" of bread? Anyone who has even the most lowly paying job in our society can afford not only bread but a rich array of varying foods, as well as an apartment with perfectly clean water, lighting, heating, and security. Starving the poor is not a part of anyone's agenda. And this is not because the government makes it so, but because the free market has made these basic goods cheap enough for anyone to afford. With reduced taxation these goods would only become cheaper.

You seem to be making the fallacy of equating Libertarianism with the worst abuses of a feudal monarchy, and this is simply not anywhere close to being the case.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

Some of you seem to be under the impression that Libertarianism is about keeping the poor down. It is not a matter of hatred for the poor, but rather a matter of everyone getting to keep the fruits of their own labor.

But no society can possibly let you keep the fruits of your own labor. What's more, the only reason you have a structure by which you can accumulate wealth is because the wider society allows and protects it. This is the give-and-take. If you get to withhold your wealth, then the social contract is broken.

Now, as for the historical examples. The masses in France did not rebel because the government failed to provide public healthcare or welfare. They rose up because of the utter contempt with which they were treated.

They rose up because they were being taxed, those taxes accruing into a ludicrous foreign policy and into the pockets of the aristocracy and the nobility. In effect, France had devolved into a perfect Libertarian paradise, the poor got poorer and the rich reaped the benefits. You may say that isn't the Libertarian goal, but when you decide that you no longer owe the very society that makes your wealth possible, then stealing from the underclasses to pad your own pockets is a natural outcome.

Nobles could ride down a commoner on the street in their wagon and go completely unpunished. Serfs on farms were treated no better than slaves. And feudal lords took so much in "taxes" from their peasants that they were just barely able to eke out a living, and sometimes not even that. Counts feasted on the food their peasants had produced while the peasants starved through the winter.

Good grief. Now we're talking about feudalism, which had been dead in France for well over a century. Please don't lecture me on history when you seem quite ignorant of history.

Besides, even the feudal system recognized that social responsibility went to ways. A serf owed his lord a portion of his crops or income, and a lord owed the surf protection and justice.

Libertarianism supports none of these things. There would be no justification for any but minimal taxes since most government services would be done away with, so the vast majority of what someone produced or earned would remain theirs. Property would be respected, what is yours and yours, and cannot be taken away by someone else simply because they are richer or more influential. Any crime by any member of society against any other, regardless of their level of wealth, would be (in principle) equally punished in a court of law.

The underclasses would effectively be cut out of the loop. What good is freedom if it cannot buy anything. It is quite literally the freedom to starve.

Who is talking about "depriving" the "underclasses" of bread? Anyone who has even the most lowly paying job in our society can afford not only bread but a rich array of varying foods, as well as an apartment with perfectly clean water, lighting, heating, and security.

REally? When is the last time you supported a family on, say, $20,000 a year?

Starving the poor is not a part of anyone's agenda.

By cutting all social programs, it's irrelevant whether you intend to or not, those social programs will be destroyed, and starvation will ensue. Unless you plan on recreating the medieval system, permitting churches to raise funds through some means of taxation (you didn't seriously think that the Feudal Church was funded by donations did you), people will starve.

And this is not because the government makes it so, but because the free market has made these basic goods cheap enough for anyone to afford. With reduced taxation these goods would only become cheaper.

A lovely theory, one pretty consistently disproven. All it would take is a few years of bad crops, and you get mass starvation. The Irish Potato Famine renders your claim completely false. The British government did exactly that, trusting that the markets would stabilize, and even going so far as to sit on top of large quantities of corn imported from the US, even as a million Irishmen starved and another million fled for their very lives.

You seem to be making the fallacy of equating Libertarianism with the worst abuses of a feudal monarchy, and this is simply not anywhere close to being the case.

No, I'm not equating them. Feudal systems took better care of people than a Libertarian society ever would. That's one of my key points, and one which you clearly missed.

And I'll reiterate. No society ever in the history not only of our species, but in the history of hominoid species has ever worked on Libertarian principles. Prior to urbanized large-scale culture, everything was held as common property, and after that people got taxed, some of it going to maintaining government, some of it to infrastructure, and some of it as redistribution. In Rome the government even gave bread to hundreds of thousands to prevent food riots.

Back to the history books, ol' boy. YOu have a lot to catch up on.

[Bonam]

But no society can possibly let you keep the fruits of your own labor. What's more, the only reason you have a structure by which you can accumulate wealth is because the wider society allows and protects it. This is the give-and-take. If you get to withhold your wealth, then the social contract is broken.

No, not all the fruits, but the majority. The less services the government provides, the bigger proportion of what you make, you keep. I agree that there needs to exist a government which is capable of providing for the necessities of defense, police, and a few other services which cannot be reasonably offered through private means. As the government structure bloats and offers more and more services (and creates a vast bureaucracy in the process), they have to tax more to fund it all.

They rose up because they were being taxed, those taxes accruing into a ludicrous foreign policy and into the pockets of the aristocracy and the nobility. In effect, France had devolved into a perfect Libertarian paradise, the poor got poorer and the rich reaped the benefits. You may say that isn't the Libertarian goal, but when you decide that you no longer owe the very society that makes your wealth possible, then stealing from the underclasses to pad your own pockets is a natural outcome.

You make my point for me. They were being taxed, and didn't like what the taxes were being spent on. Well, people today are being taxed quite a bit as well, and many of them don't much like where that money is being spent on. Ludicrous foreign policy? Check, we have plenty of people complaining that the war in Afghanistan is a waste and a mistake. Pockets of the aristocracy? Check, corporate bailouts, we have that too.

Simple fact, all those rebelling peasants would have had no reason to rebel if they weren't being taxed to death.

Libertarianism advocates the very opposite of these things. Very low taxes, a more isolationist foreign policy, and certainly no corporate bailouts.

Good grief. Now we're talking about feudalism, which had been dead in France for well over a century. Please don't lecture me on history when you seem quite ignorant of history.

The monarchy and the nobility existed in France until the revolution. That is a feudal setup, even if the feudal system had been in decline for some time.

Besides, even the feudal system recognized that social responsibility went to ways. A serf owed his lord a portion of his crops or income, and a lord owed the surf protection and justice.

That's the theory. In practice, the biggest threat (besides disease and climate) to a typical peasant throughout their lifetime was probably their lord and no one else.

The underclasses would effectively be cut out of the loop. What good is freedom if it cannot buy anything. It is quite literally the freedom to starve.

Get a job and you don't starve. Furthermore, even when there were no government programs to provide food for everyone, people could rely on the VOLUNTARY CHARITY of others when they "fall upon hard times".

REally? When is the last time you supported a family on, say, $20,000 a year?

Never, however I have no difficulty supporting myself on $16,000 a year while being a PhD student, while still putting away a fair chunk of it as savings. At this salary, I can afford myself a very nice 1 bedroom apartment, good food including eating out on a regular basis, and payments on a new car, among other things. If I was tracking every penny, didn't buy a new car, and didn't eat out, I could live just fine on half that. How much more than this does a family with 1 or 2 kids need? Well, more food of course, and perhaps a bigger apartment. Certainly well within the realm of two parents each making $20,000.

By cutting all social programs, it's irrelevant whether you intend to or not, those social programs will be destroyed, and starvation will ensue. Unless you plan on recreating the medieval system, permitting churches to raise funds through some means of taxation (you didn't seriously think that the Feudal Church was funded by donations did you), people will starve.

You keep talking about starvation when the reality is that there is no risk of starvation in our society. There is the food bank and plenty of other voluntary charities, but more importantly, there is an excellent opportunity for anyone willing to do so to get some kind of job, which will more than provide for their food.

A lovely theory, one pretty consistently disproven. All it would take is a few years of bad crops, and you get mass starvation. The Irish Potato Famine renders your claim completely false. The British government did exactly that, trusting that the markets would stabilize, and even going so far as to sit on top of large quantities of corn imported from the US, even as a million Irishmen starved and another million fled for their very lives.

A few years of bad crops? In case you forgot, we don't live in the middle ages anymore. This is the 21st century. We have technology, and a global system of trade. First, bad crops don't happen because we can ensure optimum conditions for the crops through the use of modern technology. Second, even if we did have a bad crop, some other region would not, and we could purchase what they produced, using the money that we made by making and selling something else during the season of the bad crop. And no, I'm not talking about developing nations here but strictly about advanced ones.

No, I'm not equating them. Feudal systems took better care of people than a Libertarian society ever would. That's one of my key points, and one which you clearly missed.

People don't need to be "taken care of". They need to be given the opportunity to work towards their own betterment and take care of themselves. The only care that needs to be provided by a governmental entity is defense and the fair enforcement of the law.

And I'll reiterate. No society ever in the history not only of our species, but in the history of hominoid species has ever worked on Libertarian principles. Prior to urbanized large-scale culture, everything was held as common property, and after that people got taxed, some of it going to maintaining government, some of it to infrastructure, and some of it as redistribution. In Rome the government even gave bread to hundreds of thousands to prevent food riots.

And I'll reiterate too. Just because something hasn't been done in the past doesn't mean it can't work.

[Bonam]

They rose up because they were being taxed, those taxes accruing into a ludicrous foreign policy and into the pockets of the aristocracy and the nobility. In effect, France had devolved into a perfect Libertarian paradise, the poor got poorer and the rich reaped the benefits. You may say that isn't the Libertarian goal, but when you decide that you no longer owe the very society that makes your wealth possible, then stealing from the underclasses to pad your own pockets is a natural outcome.

I've already replied to this but reading this paragraph again I just had to comment on it more. There are several things way off here.

1. You say elsewhere in your posts and I agree that no society has ever functioned purely on Libertarian principles. And yet in this paragraph you say France was a "perfect Libertarian paradise". Clearly, this is a falsehood.

2. You say that the definition of a "Libertarian paradise" is "the poor got poorer and the rich reaped the benefits". This is not at all what the philosophy stands for. It stands for the opposite. Everyone working to the best of their ability and everyone reaping the benefits of their own work and ingenuity. The rich reap no benefits by others being poor, they reap the greatest benefit from everyone being rich, so that they can trade with many other rich people and get a good price for the goods and services they produce.

3. You use the term "stealing" from the underclasses to describe Libertarian society. This is a clear lie. There is no stealing going on. Stealing is a violation of property rights, one of the fundamental tenets of Libertarianism.

This paragraph plainly exposes your contempt for the rich and successful. You think they are out to "make the poor poorer", that they "steal" from the underclasses, and portray a time of great suffering in France leading up to the revolution as a "Libertarian paradise". I had made my previous response with the assumption that you were interested in real debate. Rereading this paragraph has lead me to believe that I was mistaken.

[Wilber]

Yes, "we" didn't want it to be run like insurnace, so the proof is in the outcome. The way "we" wanted it run has resulted in a system that is not fiscally sustainable.

We still don't and the outcome is debatable. No one disputes there will be challenges.

Not as far as I know. It has only been income based since the law was changed in 1985. Prior to that it was not dependant upon income.

News to me, regardless, I hope I am never in need of it and don't begrudge to those who do.

Perhaps the we shoudl allow a private parallell system. Virtually every country in the world outside Canada, Cuba, and North Korea allow private care.

Perhaps we should.

Why? Even the current system would be selective in who it funds for what procedures.

Based on how successfull the procedure would be, not on ability to pay.

Yes sometimes the consequence of funding decisions is death. There is no way around it. But I maintain, no one has the "right" to impose the cost of their life on someone else.

Of course they do. The criminal justice system does it all the time.

Let me ask you some analogious questions: Would you forcibly extract blood from one indivudal if another needed it to survive? Would you forcibly extract a kidney from one indiviudal if another needed it to live? Would you force one human to host a pregnancy because another indiviudal needed the womb to live?

It seems you don't know what constitutes a crime in our country. It is interesting that you put a monetary value on your own organs, that you put the same value on your kidney's as your wallet or a big screen TV. You strike me as a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[Who's Doing What?]

The greater irony is that I doubt the guy is even all that rich. Most Libertarians I meet are middle class types pissed off because they have to pay taxes. They seem to have no awareness that they owe society just as much, if not more than society owes them.

Thats funny because that is how most hardline conservatives I meet think.

Why the hell should they foot the bill for your surgery? OR pay for your kids education? Screw the unions, give me my money and piss off.

[Who's Doing What?]

Double post

Edited February 24, 2010 by Who's Doing What?

[bloodyminded]

Get a job and you don't starve. Furthermore, even when there were no government programs to provide food for everyone, people could rely on the VOLUNTARY CHARITY of others when they "fall upon hard times".

It is insufficient. Are we just going to say, "well, hopefully enough will be given to stave off absolute destitution"?

When has charity been sufficient to sustain those with little means?

There is the food bank and plenty of other voluntary charities, but more importantly, there is an excellent opportunity for anyone willing to do so to get some kind of job, which will more than provide for their food.

This is assuming wages will remain as they are. All evidence (ALL evidence) points in the opposite direction. Companies move their labour forces to other nations precisely because they wish to pay lower wages. The lower, the better. Hell, in Haiti, the companies fought a government attempt to raise the minimum wage from three to five dollars a day. (The companies won, of course.)

Note: they were competely unwilling to pay their workers five dollars a day. These are the same companies that pay North Americans seventy dollars a day. (And in case you wish to adjust for cost of living, it's still not even close. Nowhere near the same wages, even on a comparative level.)

So why would they do things differently here? They'd have exactly zero reason. So we'd have millions (yes: millions) of people, currently earning between $15000-$18000 a yr, who with a stroke of one fat finger might be earning $7000. Or $5000.

Things could go south (pun intended) very quickly indeed.

[Renegade]

Can't you read, misappropriation and fraud are illegal and criminal acts.

Except you haven’t looked at your own posted definition of misappropriation. Misappropriation only occurs when the funds are used without authorization. Again, no law has been broken. No one has been charged. If you believe there is illegality, press charges, launch a suit. Good luck with that.

Why educate someone who lacks morals?

So you make claims, and when asked to provide evidence, refuse to do so under the guise that you don’t want to educate me? LOL. I’m not surprised you don’t have a cite. It appears that you have nothing but opinions but nothing to back them up. BTW, I’m not surprised at your response. If I had as tenuous a position as you have staked out, I would avoid giving an answer too.

It can be done to a certain extent, but my assertions were in regard to programs that were funds directly raised such as EI and CPP and programs that have had funds allocations budgetted into them. Other items are moot and that is what setting a budget is for. But if programs are tabled and not paid for it is irresponsibility of the government for not meeting the long term plan for those programs, and that government should be shown the door and a more responsible government able to balance the books put in its place. Giving the banks and major industries free money is not a responsible thing to do when you can't pay for the retirement funds of your citizens.

I see, I did not realize that your comments were restricted to only EI and CPP programs. I will focus my further responses on those programs.

See the comment above about educating the immoral.

So no cite eh? What a surprise! Why are you even here if you wish to make claims without any backup when called on? BTW, I don’t stake my position on the basis of morality, and morality should have nothing to do with it because morality is completely subjective. If anything my position should be classified as amoral.

Funds are already paid into it, it would be misappropriation to use those funds for a purpose other than they were raised for.

With respect to CPP, rules and structure has been put in place to make it difficult for government to use the funds for another purpose. I agree with that, however that doesn’t prevent the government from changing the rules of the game. What I have proposed in the original post doesn’t change the purpose of the funding. Changing the retirement age for example, doesn’t change the purpose of the funding, it simply changes the amount to be contributed and collected.

It would be misappropriation to use EI funds for another purpose.

It appears that it is YOU who cannot read. From the link I provided earlier:

The Supreme Court concluded that EI premiums are collected under federal taxation powers and

governments can therefore spend the money as they see fit.

So you might allege misappropriation, however the Supreme Court disagrees with you and unless your opinion is somehow more qualified than the SCC, their opinion is the law.

Tax raised through some methods such as income tax and corporate tax and other government funds are not the same as funds which

are raised for a direct purpose such as EI or CPP. Budgets can be altered for "unspent funds"

The point I am making is that it is fraud to illicit funds for one purpose then use them for another purpose. You are trying to steer my comments away from the very percise point I was making. If you raise funds for a specific purpose then the funds have to go to that purpose. Funds that are allocated as raised through general taxes which are not raised for a specific purpose can be allocated as they are available, unspent project funds can be reallocated in a budget - but must be approved. The government cannot just allocate 60 billion for buying action plan signs then give the money to companies that they support instead - bad example legally they can't allocate funds for provincial transfers then use the funds to buy their donors new houses. Hopefully the point is clear. Raising funds for a direct purpose and raising general funding is slightly different.

If a government isn't responsible enough to insure that current legislation is provided for it is being irresponsible and the governor general should oust them if the commons doesn't. It is failure of performance. While you can say legislation can be changed, you can't operate under that premise as it is irresponsible, you need to govern based upon existing laws, not potential future laws.

I sympathize with your position, I really do. The unfortunate reality is that there are very little constraints on what the government can legally do. You are opinioning on what governments *should* be held accountable to. What I am pointing out is the only recourse you have is to replace the government in a general election. During their time in power, they have lots of flexibility in their ability to reallocate funds as the EI example has shown.

In all premises of good governance it does actually. If we arn't speaking opinion here what are we talking about. People share opinions. Facts in dispute are not facts, they are opinion.

Opinions without some supporting evidence are nothing but hot air. You have made allegations without supporting evidence and refused to provide any when asked. How seriously can we take your opinion without any supporting evidence?

I'm not wasting my time, if you don't know the law learn it, but I am under no obligation to teach you. give me some money and maybe a deal can be arranged.

No William, thanks for your offer, but I seriously doubt you have anything to teach me. I have provided both a position and cites to back it up. It appears that it is I have provided a free lesson for you. You’re welcome!

Some funds are allocated, some legislation exists. While you can purport that legislation can be changed, there are some things that could be changed and some things that wouldn't be something a government ought to do. It has nothing to do with the constitution.

While I more or less agree with your statement, the constitution and charter govern the limits of what a government can do. If a law prevents a government from reallocating funding, the only thing which prevents the government from changing the law is limits set in the constitution and charter.

[Renegade]

I do believe I do. Freedom does not mean absolute ability to discharge oneself from social obligations. Freedom does not mean the freedom to watch others starve or suffer, and shrug and say "Oh well, the government should do nothing".

Your view of freedom seems simply to be "I'm free to benefit from the labor and care of others, but they have no freedom to have any expectation from me."

Neither does freedom mean the state should compel me to do whatever it deems is in the public good. Social Obligations is a flexible word. If the state wants to go to war, it deems that men have a social obligation to fight so it drafts them. In fact social obligations can be used as justification to force anyone to do pretty much anything. Yes I do believe freedom means you have the freedom to choose whether you choose to help or not help others. This should be a moral obligation, not a legal one.

Your view of freedom of government enforcing "social obligations" is not my view of freedom. Tell me by what rules do you determine "social obligations"?

Let's face it. My view of freedom won out. Yours didn't even lose, it was never really given a chance at all, because, simply put, no human society ever has functioned under such principles. Hell, even the Neandertals looked after their crippled. You would advocate a society where you would be permitted to withhold even that, based solely on your conscience.

Won out? Hardly. We exist in a constant state of transition which is a power struggle of competiting interest. No state I know is pure in its implementation of any philosophy. The situation today is a balance between libertarian ideals and socialism. That balance exist because of the power struggle between competiting interest. Even though I see Libertarianism as the ideal state, I acknowledge in reality we will likely never see a pure libertarian state, because people who's interest is not aligned with libertarianism will need to be appeased.

Except, as we observe, government is not some independent entity from society, and society as a whole at times must make moral determinations. Morality is not simply the realm of the individual to decide, otherwise it ceases to be morality at all.

The role of the government, IMV, and I think the view of most of our society, is not to impose morality. A government's role is to administer . Otherwise we might as well have a theocracy. I completely disagree with you, Morality is the realm of the individual to decide, not one for government to impose

[Renegade]

as a practical extension of your stated arguments, solid rationale... is there a successful working model that you can point to, one with measurable and highlighted results that align with your stated financial sustainability goal?

I guess that depends upon what you mean. Government budgets in the western world were sustainable, until they started deficit financing. The deficits started accumulating about the same time increased social programs were introduced, which really leads us to the situation you have today.

[Topaz]

I have a couple of ideas and please tell how you feel about them. The Fed. government should give Canadians a choice of not paying into EI and the CPP. Instead, by putting that money into the new saving account setup by the Tories. It would better Canadians because there is no tax paid, even though you could only put $5000.00 per account. Since the Tories are going to be raising the EI premiums in the near future I don't think they would go for this. Also, wthere are people who pay EI but can't collected and this would help them.

[Renegade]

You ARE supportive of a tyranny. A de facto government, of the rich and powerful...but without the legal restraints imposed upon a representative government.

Who said anythign about without restraint? The actions of the govenment should be restrained by the legal controls such as the Charter of Rights. meanining you are free to act as you like within the bounds of your rights. If you step outside those bounds, then the government is justified in stepping in, with violence if necessary.

How is that tyranny, and how is that any different than the situation we have today? If you riot today, the government can use force to maintain peace, even if it means shooting you.

You see, people don't riot for food...unless they have no other recourse. At that point, rioting for food is wholly rational, wholly understandable.

If they rationally riot for food, they rationally accept the risk that they may be shot for rioting.

And you think this preferable to the way things are now?

Perhaps you can explain how it is different than the way things are now? When OCAP riots, don't police have the power to quell the riot using violence? Is that what you consider tyranny?

Edited February 24, 2010 by Renegade

[Renegade]

I have a couple of ideas and please tell how you feel about them. The Fed. government should give Canadians a choice of not paying into EI and the CPP. Instead, by putting that money into the new saving account setup by the Tories. It would better Canadians because there is no tax paid, even though you could only put $5000.00 per account. Since the Tories are going to be raising the EI premiums in the near future I don't think they would go for this. Also, wthere are people who pay EI but can't collected and this would help them.

One of the few ideas of yours which I woudl actually support.

[Renegade]

News to me, regardless, I hope I am never in need of it and don't begrudge to those who do.

My point was that even programs which are originally set up a "universal" are subject to change just like OAS.

Based on how successfull the procedure would be, not on ability to pay.

My suggestion was not to quailfy the procedure on ability to pay. My suggetion was to include other qualificatiion factors to control costs. Even in our current system, the ability to pay does allow an individual to circumvent the rationing of procedures. If you can afford it all you need to do is get on a plane and get the treatment you desire.

Of course they do. The criminal justice system does it all the time.

Only once criminal law is broken. That is not the case in what I am referring to.

It seems you don't know what constitutes a crime in our country. It is interesting that you put a monetary value on your own organs, that you put the same value on your kidney's as your wallet or a big screen TV. You strike me as a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Wilber, I am very aware of what constitues a crime. That is not the purpose of my question. What constitutes a crime can change from time to time. My purpose was to understand the consistancy of your logic. Since you declined to provide an answer, it would seem you are unwilling to put your rationale under scrutiny. So give it a shot, answer the questions why don't you?

As far as your opinion of me. You can't imagine how much I value it. I save the effort of typing my opinion of you, because I'm sure you value mine as much as I value yours.

[Renegade]

The greater irony is that I doubt the guy is even all that rich.

You are quite right. I'm probably the poorest guy on the board. Why is it a requirement to be rich to be a Libertarian or were you expecting me to put self-interest ahead of my philosophy.

Most Libertarians I meet are middle class types pissed off because they have to pay taxes. They seem to have no awareness that they owe society just as much, if not more than society owes them.

I won't speak for all Libertarians, however I'm not at all pissed at having to pay taxes however I believe taxes should be for services provided not for wealth redistribution. The taxes I object to are the ones that redistribute wealth.

It appears Toad, that you have met quite a few Libertarians. While you would like people to believe that this is some far-out philosophy put forth by the lunatic fringe, it would appear that it is a lot more prevlant that you would have people believe.

[bloodyminded]

Who said anythign about without restraint? The actions of the govenment should be restrained by the legal controls such as the Charter of Rights. meanining you are free to act as you like within the bounds of your rights. If you step outside those bounds, then the government is justified in stepping in, with violence if necessary.

But we weren't talking about a government as we normally understand the concept. You're the one who said it should be shrunk to the point of defense...and only defense. That's a radically different government. We're talking about an anarcho-capitalist society, with TWO governments: the one that protects the rich minority from the poor majority...and the rich and powerful property-owners, who themselves would become a de facto government. That's why I used that very term. Whoever has the most money and property would rule. It's already this way to a degree, but a representative government provides restraints, and protects the weaker.

For some reason (unstated, unexamined) you seem to think that a libertarian semi-anarchy would result in widespread small capitalism, with folks trading and bartering happily with one another. But in fact, it seems monumentally more likely that violent monopolies would form (indeed, the notions of capitalist accumulation DEMAND continual growth), the underclass would grow exponentially, and rule through violence and force would become the norm.

How is that tyranny, and how is that any different than the situation we have today? If you riot today, the government can use force to maintain peace, even if it means shooting you.

It's different because we were talking not about protests that get out of hand, but food riots. That's an entirely different ballgame, and it exposes a failed state.

If they rationally riot for food, they rationally accept the risk that they may be shot for rioting.

You know, this laughable idea that everyone gets what they deserve (which is the premise beneath your supposed "practicality" here) is in essence a religious belief. It has no tried and true objective basis in objective reality.

It only says that if you're rich, you deserve it; and if you're poor, you deserve it. And then it goes one step worse, and says we shouldn't give a damn about anyone's suffering, because the High Principles of Libertarianism trump even the "freedoms" it espouses. It's contradictory.

At bottom, it claims that the theory itself is more important than human beings.

[ToadBrother]

You are quite right. I'm probably the poorest guy on the board. Why is it a requirement to be rich to be a Libertarian or were you expecting me to put self-interest ahead of my philosophy.

Because if your poor, Libertarianism will only do you harm. No income supplements, no health care. You'll be living in a cardboard box, but, according to a Libertarian, you'll be free. I'm telling you right now, no one will stand for it. I mean, the Brits are still trying to live down the horrors they wrought in Ireland a century and a half ago, when they literally sat on their hands while a million people starved to death. The British government was driven by a very Libertarian pro-market sentiment, that if there were Irishmen starving, there were too many Irish to begin with. Tell me, would you allow the underclass to starve because of your principles.

I rather prefer Isaac Asimov's admonition; "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."

I won't speak for all Libertarians, however I'm not at all pissed at having to pay taxes however I believe taxes should be for services provided not for wealth redistribution. The taxes I object to are the ones that redistribute wealth.

But, as I've demonstrated, all societies redistribute wealth. It's what one might call the human condition. If you stop the redistribution, you will inevitably doom the underclass, at which point they will either take one they want via the democratic process or revolution, unless you're willing to start shooting them.

It appears Toad, that you have met quite a few Libertarians. While you would like people to believe that this is some far-out philosophy put forth by the lunatic fringe, it would appear that it is a lot more prevlant that you would have people believe.

As the old joke about American Libertarians go, whenever they break away from the conservative movements they join up to, they always end up hosting a party that no one shows up to. Conservatives have historically found it expedient to align themselves with the Libertarian fringe, but believe me, there are very few Libertarians out there.

Edited February 24, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Renegade]

But we weren't talking about a government as we normally understand the concept. You're the one who said it should be shrunk to the point of defense...and only defense. That's a radically different government. We're talking about an anarcho-capitalist society, with TWO governments: the one that protects the rich minority from the poor majority...and the rich and powerful property-owners, who themselves would become a de facto government. That's why I used that very term. Whoever has the most money and property would rule. It's already this way to a degree, but a representative government provides restraints, and protects the weaker.

For some reason (unstated, unexamined) you seem to think that a libertarian semi-anarchy would result in widespread small capitalism, with folks trading and bartering happily with one another. But in fact, it seems monumentally more likely that violent monopolies would form (indeed, the notions of capitalist accumulation DEMAND continual growth), the underclass would grow exponentially, and rule through violence and force would become the norm.

Hmm, you're confused as to my beliefs. Please quote whre I've said government " should be shrunk to the point of defense...and only defense". It does appear to are formulating responses to statements I never made nor positions I hold.

It's different because we were talking not about protests that get out of hand, but food riots. That's an entirely different ballgame, and it exposes a failed state.

I see. So you agree that government has the power to quell riots, but somehow it first needs to understand the motivation of the riot? If the reasons are justifed, then the people are justified in rioting? Is that your logic?

You know, this laughable idea that everyone gets what they deserve (which is the premise beneath your supposed "practicality" here) is in essence a religious belief. It has no tried and true objective basis in objective reality.

It only says that if you're rich, you deserve it; and if you're poor, you deserve it. And then it goes one step worse, and says we shouldn't give a damn about anyone's suffering, because the High Principles of Libertarianism trump even the "freedoms" it espouses. It's contradictory.

At bottom, it claims that the theory itself is more important than human beings.

No I don't believe people get what they deserve. Some good people are unlucky, some bad people are lucky. There are many reasons for outcomes, some deserved and some undeserved. What I believe is that the state should make no judgements about "deservedness" .

[Renegade]

Because if your poor, Libertarianism will only do you harm. No income supplements, no health care. You'll be living in a cardboard box, but, according to a Libertarian, you'll be free.

So your argument is that I should modify my belief system out of self-interest?

I rather prefer Isaac Asimov's admonition; "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."

I'm glad for you that Asimov is your moral inspiration. He is not mine.

But, as I've demonstrated, all societies redistribute wealth. It's what one might call the human condition. If you stop the redistribution, you will inevitably doom the underclass, at which point they will either take one they want via the democratic process or revolution, unless you're willing to start shooting them.

I accept that there will be some redistribution of wealth. You call it the human condition, I call it a power struggle. Whle I agree that it is probably impossible to prevent redistribution without revolution, what I would support is to minimize the redistribution.

As the old joke about American Libertarians go, whenever they break away from the conservative movements they join up to, they always end up hosting a party that no one shows up to. Conservatives have historically found it expedient to align themselves with the Libertarian fringe, but believe me, there are very few Libertarians out there.

Gee Toad, for the very few Libertarians, you seem to run into an awful lot of them.