Jump to content

Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?


whowhere

  

21 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Again, that is a completely different situation. No one is stealing from you. People within a society are taxed to provide for the good of the society. The money isn't taken and used for purposes that aren't sanctioned by the society. We are privileged to live in this country. With that privilege, comes responsibility. Taxation is part of the responsibility. It is giving back to the society that has allowed us to do so well.

The definition of theft is "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent". The only distinguishing feature between theft and taxation is the adjective "criminial". And what makes it "criminal"? All that is required is a government say-so to make it criminal or not. IOW, the government defines taxation not to be theft but designating it as not "criminal". In every other way it is analogous to theft. Your apology for the government-sanctioned theft doesn't make it any less of theft.

If that's what I was doing, you would have a point, but you don't.

Why? Because you say so? See my explaination above and feel free to refute it.

If he needs those supports (no matter the reason) then yes. We have to provide the right to life as best we can (and there are limits), but living like that isn't much, and because most people want more, they are willing to work for things....and they will also get taxed, to provide for the society that has provided for them.

Actually, I wasn't asking for a explaination you made up on what a "right to life" was. Pretty much anyone can make up their own "rights". What I was asking for is some justification of how this right is arrived at? Is there some universal consensus on this or is this a made-up right you have pulled out of thin air?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The definition of theft is "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent". The only distinguishing feature between theft and taxation is the adjective "criminial". And what makes it "criminal"? All that is required is a government say-so to make it criminal or not. IOW, the government defines taxation not to be theft but designating it as not "criminal". In every other way it is analogous to theft. Your apology for the government-sanctioned theft doesn't make it any less of theft.

You consent by continuing to live here. You are free to leave at any time.

Actually, I wasn't asking for a explaination you made up on what a "right to life" was. Pretty much anyone can make up their own "rights". What I was asking for is some justification of how this right is arrived at? Is there some universal consensus on this or is this a made-up right you have pulled out of thin air?

No, these are rights that our government, formed by us, with the consent of most of our provinces, made up of us, decided were important enough to entrench in the Constitution to such a degree that all provinces and the Parliament of Canada would have to agree in order to remove them. There is never a universal consensus on anything.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You consent by continuing to live here. You are free to leave at any time.

Wow, I knew at some point this weak justification would come up, I never expected it so soon. I guess anyone who has their rights violated has consented to do so since they contiue to life here. Really, really, weak smallc. I know you can do better.

No, these are rights that our government, formed by us, with the consent of most of our provinces, made up of us, decided were important enough to entrench in the Constitution to such a degree that all provinces and the Parliament of Canada would have to agree in order to remove them. There is never a universal consensus on anything.

Great, Let's start with that. Point me to the defintion on what a "right to life" in the Contitution which supports your interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court would disagree with you. In fact, the very way that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is written disagrees with you.

You are wrong in your interpretation of SCC support for your posiiton. In Chaoulli v. Quebec the SCC ruled that in order to preserve the "right to life" the government simply had to permit alternative (private) care. It DID NOT mandate that the government had to provide that care itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I knew at some point this weak justification would come up, I never expected it so soon. I guess anyone who has their rights violated has consented to do so since they contiue to life here. Really, really, weak smallc. I know you can do better.

Taxation is part is a legalized legitimate part of this society. The only remedy is to leave the society, or to stop having an income.

Great, Let's start with that. Point me to the definition on what a "right to life" in the Contitution which supports your interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_General)

The government was both taking the right, and not providing what was necessary to preserve it. I realize that you're only going to interpret it from one side though.

"Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care. However, where the government puts in place a scheme to provide health care, that scheme must comply with the Charter."

In other words, we have created a situation where we are responsible for ensuring the right to life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It DID NOT mandate that the government had to provide that care itself.

We have created a system where the government is responsible for ensuring the right to life, as one of the justices said. The government could stop providing care altogether - possibly - though that may have trouble standing up in court as well, but under the interwoven systems that we have created, it becomes both a negative and a positive right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxation is part is a legalized legitimate part of this society. The only remedy is to leave the society, or to stop having an income.

It is only "legalized" and "legitmate" because the organization commiting the theft calls it so.

There is another remedy. The remedy is to limit the power of government of taxation and confiscation of wealth.

The government was both taking the right, and not providing what was necessary to preserve it. I realize that you're only going to interpret it from one side though.

"Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care. However, where the government puts in place a scheme to provide health care, that scheme must comply with the Charter."

In other words, we have created a situation where we are responsible for ensuring the right to life.

Even by your own quote "Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care." the govenment doesn't need to provide health care in order to respect Charter guarantees to the right to life. IOW, they cannot take both a half-step to provde healthcare and at the same time restrict the right to get healthcare by alternative means. Also IOW, the govenment can respect the charter's "right to life" by providing NO HEALTHCARE AT ALL. This is distinctly contrary to your earlier statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

In other words, section 7, lists positive rights.

your quotes do not help your position.

"There are some who feel economic rights..." Sure, but what "some" feel is irrelevant unless they are on the SCC, and is not a ringing endorsement for your POV.

"Canadian courts, however, have been hesitant in this area, stating that economic rights are political questions and adding that as positive rights, economic rights are of questionable legitimacy"

How does this quote help your POV at all. In fact it seems to say that your view of positive rights is "of questionable legitimacy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, reading it now, it seems that you're right. I concede that point (though some things in the charter are positive rights). That said, the court does say that given the system we have set up, the government must provide the conditions for the right to life.

I will not though, concede the point that taxation is legislative theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here again, dealing with positive rights:

What happens when women argue that the government has violated their rights by failing to act? The results are somewhat hopeful. The New Brunswick government recently learned in a more traditional civil rights case that the line between positive and negative rights is fading at the Supreme Court of Canada. Cuts to legal aid that resulted in a woman attending court without a lawyer when faced with losing custody of her child to the state were not without constitutional consequences. According to the Supreme Court, the Charter right to be represented by a lawyer includes government footing the bill for a lawyer in such a case.

http://www.herizons.ca/node/137

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only "legalized" and "legitmate" because the organization commiting the theft calls it so.

There is another remedy. The remedy is to limit the power of government of taxation and confiscation of wealth.

It's much worse than that for you. Only a very small fraction of the society even calls taxes "theft". In effect you're trying, rather transparently, to apply one concept to another. Without taxes, a large-scale society cannot exist. You might have something of a point if we lived under an autocratic regime which could, at its leisure, impose any tax it pleased. But we don't, we live in a democracy. If you think a particular tax, or all taxes, are theft, then by all means, attempt to influence your political representatives, or, failing that, get a whole bunch of like-minded people elected.

But I'll promise. The overwhelming majority of this country does not want a Libertarian government. Your odds of ever having enough support to even moderately influence the system is very low, and Libertarians will never be in a position to institute their full blown plans.

Sorry, but because the society you live in makes the accumulation of wealth possible, it also reserves the right to stake claim to a portion of that wealth. It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, reading it now, it seems that you're right. I concede that point (though some things in the charter are positive rights). That said, the court does say that given the system we have set up, the government must provide the conditions for the right to life.

yes, all it has to do is "nothing" in order to provide the conditions for the right to life. It is only when it inteferes by implemnting rationing systems does it intefere with the right to life.

I will not though, concede the point that taxation is legislative theft.

But you have not refuted the distinction, and all we have is your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have not refuted the distinction, and all we have is your opinion.

Its impossible to refute an argument when you refuse to accept the fact that society has the ability to legislate for itself.

Oh, and I've been thinking. If economic rights are in fact positive, they become very anti libertarian, and so that doesn't help your case either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, all it has to do is "nothing" in order to provide the conditions for the right to life. It is only when it inteferes by implemnting rationing systems does it intefere with the right to life.

No, it's when it implements a system designed to uphold that right, such as the Canada Health Act and the provincial health plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's much worse than that for you. Only a very small fraction of the society even calls taxes "theft". In effect you're trying, rather transparently, to apply one concept to another. Without taxes, a large-scale society cannot exist. You might have something of a point if we lived under an autocratic regime which could, at its leisure, impose any tax it pleased. But we don't, we live in a democracy. If you think a particular tax, or all taxes, are theft, then by all means, attempt to influence your political representatives, or, failing that, get a whole bunch of like-minded people elected.

Yes, it is worse for me because I hold a minority opinion in a system where majority opinions are forced on the minority. Really, I don't dispute the need for governments to be funded. What I dispute is the unlimited power they have to raise funds through what in any other circumstances would be call theft. That the do it with the sanction of the majority, doesn't make it any less of theft, but now I'm repeating myself.

But I'll promise. The overwhelming majority of this country does not want a Libertarian government. Your odds of ever having enough support to even moderately influence the system is very low, and Libertarians will never be in a position to institute their full blown plans.

Sorry, but because the society you live in makes the accumulation of wealth possible, it also reserves the right to stake claim to a portion of that wealth. It's that simple.

Yes, I acknowledge that you are probably right in this respect. Why afterall would the majority want to agree to change a system in which they can enforce a tryranny over the minority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you miss this part of your quote?:

Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care

You're right (and I had read this wrong in the past, thus my confusion) the Charter doesn't, but the fact that the government has said they will do as much requires them to do so within the bounds of the charter, meaning that from a health point of view (and other programs from other points of view) they are now responsible for upholding that right. Now, you don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its impossible to refute an argument when you refuse to accept the fact that society has the ability to legislate for itself.

Society has the ability to legislate for itself it it was a single being. It is not. It is composite and made up of individuals. One set of individuals don't have any moral authority to make up rules which give them dominion over the rest.

Oh, and I've been thinking. If economic rights are in fact positive, they become very anti libertarian, and so that doesn't help your case either.

Given that the courts have consider an interpretatoin of economic rights as being "of questionable legitimacy", my case is pretty safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Society has the ability to legislate for itself it it was a single being. It is not. It is composite and made up of individuals. One set of individuals don't have any moral authority to make up rules which give them dominion over the rest.{/quote]

Maybe in your make believe society, but not in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right (and I had read this wrong in the past, thus my confusion) the Charter doesn't, but the fact that the government has said they will do as much requires them to do so within the bounds of the charter, meaning that from a health point of view (and other programs from other points of view) they are now responsible for upholding that right. Now, you don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

I think we are going around and in circles. If you read the judgement you will see that it is only because they have intervened in that right by implmenting rationing that they then need to address it by one of a number of potential options.

What you have finally come around to, and I agree with, is that the government is under no obligation to provide anyone healthcare under the Charter.

Boy, have we taken this thread off track!

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...