Census - Mandatory or Voluntary

Smallc · July 30, 2010

What is the concept of moving to a city with a lower cost of living foreign to you.

What it says if you can't afford to live in Vancouver...MOVE!

Right...and then you have to try to get a new job...and a new place to live...and you still can't eat today. You still can't fed your family today. I know everything is easy in your little black and white world, but reality isn't like that.

Alta4ever · July 30, 2010

Right...and then you have to try to get a new job...and a new place to live...and you still can't eat today. You still can't fed your family today. I know everything is easy in your little black and white world, but reality isn't like that.

Really its not that easy.....then why have I done it? Why have so many Canadians done it? Remember I live in a province where Canadians came from all over looking for work with no promise of a job a place to live or food on the table.

I know your not old enough to realize this yet but life is not easy, and its not suppose to be. You are owed nothing in life by anyone, and if you can't come to this realization life will become very miserable for you.

IF you can afford a mortgage you can afford to put food on the table you just can't afford the extras.

Smallc · July 30, 2010

So does that mean if someone can't afford to eat...to buy clothes, you wouldn't help them. I don't think you understand things here. I'm not disagreeing with your central idea, that someone who can't survive somewhere should move, but I'm saying that in the short term, they may need help, and if they need help, they should get it. Whether or not they are owed something is irrelevant. Whether or not they need help is what is relevant. There is a certain human factor missing from your simple equation.

While we're on this, you can live in a home with a certain number of rooms and not own that home.

Bonam · July 30, 2010

I don't think you understand things here. I'm not disagreeing with your central idea, that someone who can't survive somewhere should move, but I'm saying that in the short term, they may need help, and if they need help, they should get it. Whether or not they are owed something is irrelevant.

What have they done to deserve that help? Who is obliged to provide that help, and why?

Smallc · July 30, 2010

What have they done to deserve that help? Who is obliged to provide that help, and why?

They're human beings, who often have children and families. We are obliged to help them because (most of us) are also human beings. I realize to you, the libertarian and he the ultra conservative this may be a foreign concept, but people in a society have an obligation to each other. That's what this society had decided, and that's the way things will continue to operate. There will not be people starving in the streets in Canada.

Bonam · July 30, 2010

They're human beings, who often have children and families. We are obliged to help them because (most of us) are also human beings. I realize to you, the libertarian and he the ultra conservative this may be a foreign concept, but people in a society have an obligation to each other. That's what this society had decided, and that's the way things will continue to operate. There will not be people starving in the streets in Canada.

Then how about those of us who feel this "obligation" see to the needs of their fellow human beings through voluntary charities? If "most of us" are as you say we are, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Meanwhile, those of us who are heartless inhuman libertarians can see about actually running some businesses profitably so that you social justice folks can earn a salary (which you'll no doubt donate to a good cause).

nicky10013 · July 30, 2010

Then how about those of us who feel this "obligation" see to the needs of their fellow human beings through voluntary charities? If "most of us" are as you say we are, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Meanwhile, those of us who are heartless inhuman libertarians can see about actually running some businesses profitably so that you social justice folks can earn a salary (which you'll no doubt donate to a good cause).

Private Charities combined together can't cover nearly the amount of ground that the government can. Social Liberals aren't against business either, so keep trying.

Smallc · July 30, 2010

Then how about those of us who feel this "obligation" see to the needs of their fellow human beings through voluntary charities? If "most of us" are as you say we are, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

We do both...and that will continue.

Meanwhile, those of us who are heartless inhuman libertarians can see about actually running some businesses profitably so that you social justice folks can earn a salary (which you'll no doubt donate to a good cause).

Because no one who believes in social justice works in the private sector.

Alta4ever · July 30, 2010

So does that mean if someone can't afford to eat...to buy clothes, you wouldn't help them. I don't think you understand things here. I'm not disagreeing with your central idea, that someone who can't survive somewhere should move, but I'm saying that in the short term, they may need help, and if they need help, they should get it. Whether or not they are owed something is irrelevant. Whether or not they need help is what is relevant. There is a certain human factor missing from your simple equation.

While we're on this, you can live in a home with a certain number of rooms and not own that home.

Yes I would help them. I have helped people who need it.

Alta4ever · July 30, 2010

Private Charities combined together can't cover nearly the amount of ground that the government can. Social Liberals aren't against business either, so keep trying.

BS, money is used more effectively by private charities. All the government does is add another level of expense. Just think how much would be saved if people donated directly rather then having money pass through four or five layers of government each taking a wage before it hits those it suppose to help. You are you one of these ever so smart people that thinks the cost of government doesn't exist.

Smallc · July 30, 2010

BS, money is used more effectively by private charities.

I can't find the numbers right now, but Manitoba Health has lower administrative costs than the Red Cross.

Smallc · July 30, 2010

Yes I would help them. I have helped people who need it.

Well, that's good. In this case though, you don't have to, because society has already decided to help them.

nicky10013 · July 30, 2010

BS, money is used more effectively by private charities. All the government does is add another level of expense. Just think how much would be saved if people donated directly rather then having money pass through four or five layers of government each taking a wage before it hits those it suppose to help. You are you one of these ever so smart people that thinks the cost of government doesn't exist.

Oh, the cost of government does exist. I'm prudent enough to understand that. I'm not the one attacking this from an ideological base, though. You're argument is purely that and not based on fact. The government in some areas does do a lot better and saves a lot more money than the private sector.

Topaz · July 30, 2010

Here's my 2 cents... there are people who had a home , money in the bank, RRSP's and life was going pretty well until government polices changed and with those changes, people were thrown out of work, jobs were becoming scarce, people had to go on EI, which was let say 1600 monthly, but they didn't cover the mortgage, insurance, food, etc. so they had to going into their RRSP's to survive because any savings they had saved was gone and they desperating tried to keep their homes and even if they could sell the house, no body was buying! Some of those people who could retire were forced into by lack funds. Some lost up 1000.00 monthly from their job they lost. That's is what has happened/happening to the maufacturing sector, a change in policy can and does affect people lives and in this sample for the worse. Now, I don't know if the short form would catch these problems, but I think the long form would.

Alta4ever · July 30, 2010

Well, that's good. In this case though, you don't have to, because society has already decided to help them.

And the societ- um socialists answer is way more expensive, then it needs to be.

Alta4ever · July 30, 2010

Here's my 2 cents... there are people who had a home , money in the bank, RRSP's and life was going pretty well until government polices changed and with those changes, people were thrown out of work, jobs were becoming scarce, people had to go on EI, which was let say 1600 monthly, but they didn't cover the mortgage, insurance, food, etc. so they had to going into their RRSP's to survive because any savings they had saved was gone and they desperating tried to keep their homes and even if they could sell the house, no body was buying! Some of those people who could retire were forced into by lack funds. Some lost up 1000.00 monthly from their job they lost. That's is what has happened/happening to the maufacturing sector, a change in policy can and does affect people lives and in this sample for the worse. Now, I don't know if the short form would catch these problems, but I think the long form would.

Wow you made an argument of government non interference in the economy and society, how very libertarian of you I AM SHOCKED!

dre · July 30, 2010

BS, money is used more effectively by private charities. All the government does is add another level of expense. Just think how much would be saved if people donated directly rather then having money pass through four or five layers of government each taking a wage before it hits those it suppose to help. You are you one of these ever so smart people that thinks the cost of government doesn't exist.

You cant compare government services to private charities. Its apples vs oranges. They do COMPLETELY different things.

dre · July 30, 2010

And the societ- um socialists answer is way more expensive, then it needs to be.

Thats really nothing more than a wild guess.

Alta4ever · July 30, 2010

I can't find the numbers right now, but Manitoba Health has lower administrative costs than the Red Cross.

So lets get this straight you what a government bureaucracy to investigate the government bureaucracy to see if government is the most efficient way of delivering a service. Thats like BP investigating BP over an oil spill, its going to be so impartial.

Census Canada is just an extension of this flawed thinking. Government does have an agenda of making government bigger, in otherwords the governments answer for any problem is well more government.

Bonam · July 30, 2010

I can't find the numbers right now, but Manitoba Health has lower administrative costs than the Red Cross.

That's cause the red cross wastes its time and money trying to meddle in international geopolitics.

Alta4ever · July 30, 2010

Thats really nothing more than a wild guess.

Really when was the last time government ever did anything efficiently?

Smallc · July 30, 2010

Really when was the last time government ever did anything efficiently?

countries with 'socialized medicine' all spend less than countries with private systems. I'm sure there are many, many more examples.

Smallc · July 30, 2010

Government does have an agenda of making government bigger, in otherwords the governments answer for any problem is well more government.

No, government doesn't. Society decided whether or not government gets bigger. Right now, this society seems to not mind moderate sized government.

You are completely paranoid and irrational when it comes to government.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Smallc

dre · July 30, 2010

That's cause the red cross wastes its time and money trying to meddle in international geopolitics.

No thats not the case. National red cross societies are legally independant from the ICRC, which is the body given authority by international humanitarian law to oversee human rights violations during military conflicts (which I presume is where you think the meddling is done).