Apprently Vacationing Is A Human Right Now

[Sir Bandelot]

No it isn't. That's complete nonsense. And even if it were true, somebody not able to vacation isn't not living in dignity.

You're constant use of the phrase "That's complete nonsense" in almost every post is quite tiresome. Do you have an alternative argument then, what's your opinion on what the role of government should be? Or do you have anything worthwhile to say about anything, at all

[Sir Bandelot]

please do provide me with links the show where politicians have taken family trips on the taxpayers' dime. Give me examples of politicians who have traveled on the taxpayers' money. And I'm talking strictly personal trips; ie: vacations.

And for the record, that article you cited wasn't in support of the spending habits of some politicians. In other words, it wasn't saying that they 'have the right' to use funds that way. And again, it's donated funds. So why you would think your 'point' has anything to do with this situation is impossible to understand.

You keep on pushing the same red button, but the door just won't open. Because you miss the point, again. I've try to say, the government uses taxpayers money to fund extravagances for themselves all the time. And recently handed barrels of taxpayers money to corporations when they were in trouble. Why do people have no problem with these type of handouts. As i metnioned in an earlier post, isn't it better to create real economic stimulus at the grass roots level, instead of continuing to feed the absurdly rich. Why doesn't that bother people. Why do I have to keep repeating myself.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Guest American Woman]

You keep on pushing the same red button, but the door just won't open. Because you miss the point, again. I've try to say, the government uses taxpayers money to fund extravagances for themselves all the time. And recently handed barrels of taxpayers money to corporations when they were in trouble. Why do people have no problem with these type of handouts.

Have you really missed the fact that many, many, many people DO have a problem with these types of handouts? I don't recall the public reaction as being "it's their right." In fact, a lot of people most likely used their "right" to vote some of those very people out of office.

As i metnioned in an earlier post, isn't it better to create real economic stimulus at the grass roots level, instead of continuing to feed the absurdly rich. Why doesn't that bother people. Why do I have to keep repeating myself.

Because you have no point. No matter how many times you repeat it. Once again .....it does bother a good many people. I don't know anyone who thinks it's the "right" of politicians to spend extravagantly or it's the "right" of corporations to be bailed out.

But again. One could possibly benefit by the actions of politicians or even a corporation thriving in their town if it provides jobs, but for the life of me, I can't think of one way they'd benefit by poor people being able to travel on their dime.

[Shady]

You're constant use of the phrase "That's complete nonsense" in almost every post is quite tiresome. Do you have an alternative argument then, what's your opinion on what the role of government should be? Or do you have anything worthwhile to say about anything, at all

The role of government is to uphold the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms, keep the peace, and defend the country. Where you're getting your premise of what the role of government is, is beyond me.

[Guest American Woman]

delete

Edited April 22, 2010 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

The role of government is to uphold the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms, keep the peace, and defend the country. Where you're getting your premise of what the role of government is, is beyond me.

So is providing education part of its role or isn't it?

[Shady]

So is providing education part of its role or isn't it?

You continue to deflect, and deflect, and deflect.

[Sir Bandelot]

The role of government is to uphold the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms, keep the peace, and defend the country. Where you're getting your premise of what the role of government is, is beyond me.

Your view is not entirely incorrect, but is an oversimplification. Look into each of those terms you've mentioned, especially the first two and tell me what you find there. Then get back to me

[BubberMiley]

That's another reason why it's a deflection.

But the "right" to an education is really just a privilege that the government has agreed to provide. If it decides to expand that right to include the "right" to Internet or library access or the "right" to swimming lessons or the "right" to subsidized travel is up to discretion of the government and its deep pockets.

My point is that it's odd to believe in the right to public education, but then to be so shocked and appalled at the expansion of that philosophy.

[Sir Bandelot]

Have you really missed the fact that many, many, many people DO have a problem with these types of handouts? I don't recall the public reaction as being "it's their right." In fact, a lot of people most likely used their "right" to vote some of those very people out of office.

The public reaction to these types of entitlements is to gripe about it and continue to pay for and vote in the same criminals. People feel powerless about the problem and resigned to the fact, such corruption is inherent to the political system. I seem to recall saying that a few posts back too. ugh

One could possibly benefit by the actions of politicians or even a corporation thriving in their town if it provides jobs, but for the life of me, I can't think of one way they'd benefit by poor people being able to travel on their dime.

I proposed, a few posts back, a mechanism in which money is injected at the grass roots level to encourage people to use air travel and spend it on vacations in other lands. This could be more effective in reviving a troubled economy than the Obama method, give the taxpayers money to the Board of Directors. there are also cross-cultural advantages in encouraging people to travel. But the larger question is, can you seen an advantage in declaring that ordinary people deserve the right to be more than slaves, that their right to quality leisure time must be protected. It's not easy to accept when the economic system is depressed, when there are other pressing issues that need money, like health care systems. But those systems always need money, don't they. When will humanity evolve their charter, to uphold the individual human being as the most deserving of all rights, more magnificent than any machine, or corporation.

[BubberMiley]

You continue to deflect, and deflect, and deflect.

And yet you refuse to answer a very simple question. Methinks it challenges your ideology at such a deep level, you're scared to address it.

[Shady]

And yet you refuse to answer a very simple question. Methinks it challenges your ideology at such a deep level, you're scared to address it.

No. I just refuse to accept your premise that funding public education is tantamount to paying for people's vacations and holidays. It's not.

[BubberMiley]

That's fine. In fact, I would agree. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, because resources are limited. I would put free swimming lessons and even music lessons before subsidized travel if I were making a socialist priority list.

But it's still an expansion of the same "socialist" philosophy that you don't want to admit you subscribe to---that is, the government is responsible for providing an education to its citizens.

[M.Dancer]

that is, the government is responsible for providing an education to its citizens.

I would agree if you said that government is responsible for providing education to its children...while a government funded holiday to Paris would be lovely, I do not feel that at 51 the government owes me or anyone else over 18 an eductation.

[Guest American Woman]

....it's still an expansion of the same "socialist" philosophy that you don't want to admit you subscribe to---that is, the government is responsible for providing an education to its citizens.

No, it's not. As I stated earlier, the right to an education doesn't extend forever. Furthermore, I don't know how things work in Canada, but we often have 'millage elections' here to raise taxes that go to the schools. People have the choice and often vote them down. Then the schools have to work within their budget, which is why (I daresay most) schools do not include trips in their programs unless the students fund raise.

Furthermore, since you seem determined to pursue this "expansion of the same socialist philosophy" of providing an education, the government provides public education to all; not just the "poor." That the poor should be singled out for free vacations goes completely against the "right to a public education for all."

[BubberMiley]

That the poor should be singled out for free vacations goes completely against the "right to a public education for all."

Sure, but by that logic, if everybody were offered subsidized travel it would be okay. Your first paragraph makes more sense, in that, yes, it is an overexpansion of the existing public education mandate. But you (and the EU) confuse the issue by talking of “rights,” which implies something God-given and not just something the government has chosen to provide you as an entitlement. I don’t know what it means to have a “right” to public education---as a child, an adult, in a school setting, or on a Eurail pass. I think in all cases it is a socialist privilege that we have generally, as a society, accepted or not accepted. So while I too don’t think it’s the most effective use of resources to provide subsidized travel, I know that capitalists 150 years ago found it shockingly ridiculous that they would have to pay taxes so that other people’s urchins could go to school.

So it’s a matter of defining the mandate of public education, and I think we all agree that mandate stops somewhere short of subsidized travel. But it’s funny that after the enormous success of our well established public education system in terms of prosperity and literacy and freedom, we would still be shocked and appalled at any attempt to expand on that.

And it's particularly funny that people deride things they don't like as "socialist" while blatantly ignoring socialist things that are popular and successful.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure, but by that logic, if everybody were offered subsidized travel it would be okay.

That's an oversimplification, but it would be a completely different issue from what it is now, which was the point I was making. In other words, "public education" has nothing to do with this issue.

Your first paragraph makes more sense, in that, yes, it is an overexpansion of the existing public education mandate. But you (and the EU) confuse the issue by talking of “rights,” which implies something God-given and not just something the government has chosen to provide you as an entitlement.

That's your view on it, and a rather bizarre view coming right out of left field, at that. I'm in no way speaking in terms of "god-given rights" any more than your right to health care in Canada is a God-given right. Our government speaks of "rights," and as such, obviously they are rights provided by the government.

I don’t know what it means to have a “right” to public education---as a child, an adult, in a school setting, or on a Eurail pass.

Perhaps you should look into it then, so you do know what it means. I can clarify this much for you, though; it doesn't include a Euro rail pass.

I think in all cases it is a socialist privilege that we have generally, as a society, accepted or not accepted. So while I too don’t think it’s the most effective use of resources to provide subsidized travel, I know that capitalists 150 years ago found it shockingly ridiculous that they would have to pay taxes so that other people’s urchins could go to school.

Perhaps you could offer some proof that "capitalists" 150 years ago "found [public education] shockingly ridiculous." Furthermore, capitalists' children could go to school, too. It wasn't just for "other people's urchins."

So it’s a matter of defining the mandate of public education, and I think we all agree that mandate stops somewhere short of subsidized travel. But it’s funny that after the enormous success of our well established public education system in terms of prosperity and literacy and freedom, we would still be shocked and appalled at any attempt to expand on that.

The idea that travel for the poor at others' expense is an expansion on the right to public education apparently is an idea that you will not let go off no matter how many times it's pointed out that it's not the same, not to mention why it's not the same.

And it's particularly funny that people deride things they don't like as "socialist" while blatantly ignoring socialist things that are popular and successful.

As far as I've seen, you're the one making it about being "socialist." I never once referred to it that way. I've just referred to the idea of "travel" as a "right" as ludicrous. And it is.

[Shady]

There has to be a line drawn somewhere, because resources are limited.

I absolutely agree. Resources are definitely limited. In fact, I'm unaware of a so-called developed country that isn't running massive deficits. And the more we bestow pseudo-rights, the more we expand government. Travelling on somebody else's dime isn't a right, it's a priviledge.

I would put free swimming lessons and even music lessons before subsidized travel

I would agree. But the characterization of them being "free" is incorrect. Perhaps it's time to narrow our focus on the three Rs, and science.

But it's still an expansion of the same "socialist" philosophy that you don't want to admit you subscribe to---that is, the government is responsible for providing an education to its citizens.

Yep, government is responsible for providing an education to its citizens, and education has never been better. But I agree that we've certainly made government responsible, but it doesn't have to be that way.

[Bonam]

My main conclusion from reading this thread is that Sir Bandelot exists on an entirely different plane of reality than the rest of us.

[BubberMiley]

As far as I've seen, you're the one making it about being "socialist." I never once referred to it that way. I've just referred to the idea of "travel" as a "right" as ludicrous. And it is.

I'm not making it socialist. It is what it is. If the government takes tax dollars to spread the wealth so that all children can be educated, that is in the current political climate considered "socialist." You might consider that fine to a point, but you might draw the line where I do somewhere around swimming lessons. My point is that the philosophy behind this action (not the mandated "rights") can extend as far as we as a society desire. Since this socialist initiative has been very, very successful--judging from our contemporary literacy rates and affluence--I am only pointing out that it is not so ludicrous as you suggest for people to lobby for its expansion (even if I too don't agree with the proposal).

And while it's somewhat irrelevant to the topic anyway, if you really want links to the struggle to implement a public school system in Canada in the mid 19th century, google "Egerton Ryerson". I can't imagine why you would doubt that there would be people on both sides of the issue back then though.

[Sir Bandelot]

My main conclusion from reading this thread is that Sir Bandelot exists on an entirely different plane of reality than the rest of us.

Thanks Bonam!

[Bob]

While I don't know if it's a "right" I view travelling as a form of education. If the people of the EU support it, what's the problem?

For the sake of accuracy, let's at least say that vacationing CAN be educational, depending on the circumstances. It's quite inaccurate to say that "travelling is a form of education" as an absolute. I think, without question, the vast majority of people view travelling primarily as a form of leisure. I get the vibe that you actually think that this is a good idea?

Furthremore, the "European Mindset" is more where we need to be. Despite what people think about some of the bloated national social programmes, the EU itself has been heavily investing in brand new transportation (and most importantly) and information infrastructure to bring the economy into the 21st century. Where the EU is, we need to be. The EU is by far the largest economy on the planet and European companies have been slowly and very quietly eclipsing American ones in terms of supremacy in certain markets.

Although this is starting to get slightly off-topic into more broad themes, I reject your assertion that "Where the EU is, we need to be". I'm not sure what the size of EU's economy has to do with justifying this position. This is all irrelevant, though, considering that your logic seems to suggest that we should mirror other economies simply because they are larger (you're forgetting about proportions, per capita, and productivity).

I also don't know where you're coming from with this statement that "...European companies have been slowly and very quietly eclipsing American ones in terms of supremacy in certain markets." Is that just another made up fact? I'm certain that some European companies have competed very well, but is this an accurate generalization of how things are going in a broad context? I think not. I'd advise against making sweeping generalizations and very broad statements without real support.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Bob

[Pliny]

And it's particularly funny that people deride things they don't like as "socialist" while blatantly ignoring socialist things that are popular and successful.

What socialist things are successful? You may be all full of pride at some socialist aspects of Canadian government but they eventually fail.

I guess the argument has to be where to draw the line with socialism but part of what socialism is, is that it is "progressive" and eventually chokes an economy. It ends up in violence where people that are getting government benefits will not give up their entitlements and people that are paying for them will not continue to finance them.

[Rue]

What is a human being. What should our rights be. In the industrial revolution, people had to work up to 16 hours per day, every day. Since that time there has been legislation introduced to protect leisure time, to prevent exploitation of workers so that people get guaranteed breaks during the day to rest and replenish themselves. Vacation time is protected, at least there are minimums. And in Europe as I understand it, many companies do not require their employees to work as many hours as we do here in North America. There is a different attitude there as to what the human being is and what we deserve. I myself prefer not to be a corporate slave to be yoked up to the machinery. Hence I have negotiated with my own employer to work something like "European hours", lots of flexible time and less than 8 hours per day. This is only starting to gain ground in north america, not accepted as the norm yet.

Thanks to people like me, one day you or your children will have more freedom too, if they wish it. But don't worry, others can continue to embrace economic self-whoredom, whatever turns your crank

Your point is well stated and of course in North America as in Europe we have laws guaranteeing a certain percentage of wages must be added to an employee's pay for vacation pay and we provide statutory holidays in which full time employees must be paid.

However there is I think a difference between enshrining vacation days or pay as a legal right and defining the right to "travel" as a human right.

Guaranteeing people time off is one thing. Going the next step and stating they also have an inalienable right to travel assumes, i.e., it imposes an assumption that travel is a government responsibility. No what people do on their vacation should remain a private matter as far as I am concerned. By stating travel is a human right it devalues other human rights. A human right, i.e., an inalienable right, should be an idealistic and abstract ideal societies try work towards-not a day to day life choice.

A human right is in my opinion something like freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion.

A human right in the above case could be the "right to move freely across borders ". That would be a human right.

The above example does not state that. It in fact defines the human right as "the right to have enough money to be able to afford to travel while on vacation".

A human right might state, " the right to earn a fair salary commesurate with work performed" but it would not go further then that. It can't. A human right is a general notion not a specific one.

Think about it. How does one define how much money one needs to travel? How far should they travel? Should they travel by car, plane, boat, train, foot, horse, first or second class-should they stay at a hotel, motel, hostel, on and on.

Its nonsensical. People are confusing an open ended sense of self entitlement with what a human right is.

[Pliny]

Your point is well stated and of course in North America as in Europe we have laws guaranteeing a certain percentage of wages must be added to an employee's pay for vacation pay and we provide statutory holidays in which full time employees must be paid.

However there is I think a difference between enshrining vacation days or pay as a legal right and defining the right to "travel" as a human right.

Wonders never cease. We have found the line where entitlements become too much for even you to tolerate.