Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[Topaz]

I think most Canadians don't mind paying their FAIR share in taxes but what's fair. It seems pretty stupid for a person who loses one jobs and goes on EI for a period of time, faces a tax bill at the end of the that time for 1500-2500! Why do Canadians allow the MP's to increase their own pay? More taxes to paid by us taxpayers who are now feeling the pinch. Most manufacturing jobs are done by the middle-class and those jobs are being out-sourced. So what is going to happen in Canada, when there are very few middle-income earners and more people on welfare, EI or homeless? Food Banks can't keep up with the demand now. Common-sense says, give people the jobs they need and a comfortable life and you'll have a content people. The global economy agenda is not making life for workers, in N.A. a happy one but that's not the point to the agenda, its what best for the companies and how the economies of those countries gain. Workers are definitely the losers.

[Wild Bill]

Why do people invent new things? No shortage of reasons. Could be a tinkerer who simply enjoys the challenge. Or a business that has a great idea and thinks they can make money with it. But this idea that no one can possibly do anything without the government giving them an incentive to do it is foolish and shows how out of touch with reality the statist viewpoint is. We don't need the government to promote every little thing we want done. The market can do it. Man has been inventing things since he first started walking up right. We see ideas and we combine them. Of course it is wrong for you to steal cars. It is wrong to take anothers property. It's not wrong to look at what other people are doing and say "oh hey, that's a good idea". You can own things. You cannot own ideas. You cannot dictate to me what I can or cannot do with my property. That's the crucial distinction you are unable or unwilling to grasp.

You remind me of the great Napster debate of a decade ago. Piracy was defended by dismissing the concept of intellectual property rights. Of course, the end result was that the income of most musicians took a HUGE hit! It has taken nearly 20 years to have some small adjustment. Essentially, no one cares about selling the music anymore. The money is in appearances - concerts and such. Also, all the promotional scarf such as tshirts and the like.

Many younger musicians thought that this was just fine! Of course, as they got a bit older they became less naive. No one can play for free forever! We all need to eat and have a roof over our heads. Many bailed out of music for regular jobs, so that they could afford to get married and raise a family.

The big problem with the "ideas are free" argument is that anyone who creates something new can't help but be pissed off when someone steals it and makes more money, usually forcing the inventor out of business.

After a while, creative people say "Screw it!" and stop coming up with new stuff, leaving the parasites to fend for themselves.

[CANADIEN]

Democracy is a scam, and a dangerous one at that.

Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time - winston Churchill

It is dangerous because it blankets the state in legitimacy. If it is wrong for me to steal, it is wrong for you to steal, and it is wrong for any organization to steal. If ten of your friends take a vote and decide to steal my wallet, they are still in the wrong, despite having a majority of the votes. The state was born in conquest and exists through exploitation.

You may argue that the theft by government that is taxation is necessary - though you would be wrong - but unless you change the definition of theft there is simply no way out for the advocates of taxation. Simply because it is the government doing something does not change the reality of what they are doing. Taxation is theft. It is the government, without my consent, taking my property. That is the exact definition of theft. By what tortorous logic can you redefine theft in such a manner that taxation does not fit the bill? The fact that there are some ancillary benefits from this theft is wholely irrelevant to the question of whether or not taxation is theft. It is.

On the market place people can only make money by serving consumers. You are wrong in thinking that businesses on the market would mimic the state. You are locked into the current mode of thinking. The governmental means of acquiring wealth through theft is not the means of individuals on the market place. Corporations do not steal from you. They trade with you. The government steals from you, dictates to you, forces you to obey arbitratry rules and regulations. You are wrong in thinking that businesses which mimic the few necessary functions of government would also mimic the evil and unecessary functions of the state. That's the whole point of anarcho-capitalism, to end once and for all the exploitation of man by man, to organize society upon voluntary lines, to do away with theft, fraud, coercion and violence - in short, to abolish government.

Might makes right is the philosophy of the state. We must serve the consumer is the philosophy of the market place.

Great idea. Let,s eliminate any form of Government. The market will solve everything.

So, when someone rapes and kills your first daughter, you'll go to the punishment market place and purchase the services of a private judge and private police force who will hunt down and punish the rapist-murderer for you. Which would be violence in response to violence - in other words, violence. Unless you do it yourself, which would be violence as well. And that will work only if the rapist-murderer is not already a customer of a more powerful (read, better armed) judgeship or police force that offer him the "service" of having decided that rape and murder are not crimes.

And your market society with no limitations will work just fine in keeping everyone happy and prices low. Until, of course, the service provider with the more weapons (or the money to buy the judgeship or police with the more weapons) decides that he will make more money through making false claims about his products (fraud), taking his competitors products (theft) or forcing them, physically, to work for him or close shop (coercion).

By then, your association with the service providor will be voluntary only in theory because, well, there will be no place else to go. especially once the private police or judgeship decides that instead of selling protection to the service provider they might as well just take over and pocket all the profits.

And the day will come when ten heavily armed men will show up at your door and say: "we have been sent by your friendly neighbourhod provider of everything. In compensation for being protected (from us), you will work for us, and we will be generous enough to let you have a cot, and three bowls of rice, two glass of water and maybe one piece of meat a day. Since it is a free market economy, we will allow you to trade part of your ration to buy some of the products we offer - at our price of course, since we are the only market place left in the neighbourhood. And btw, our CEO finds your younger daughter pretty attractive.

Edited September 17, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Zachary Young]

There is nothing wrong with using violence in self defence against violence.

[CANADIEN]

There is nothing wrong with using violence in self defence against violence.

Indeed. And by the same token, there is nothing wrong in the Government using violence in defending citizens from violence.

[Rick]

Sure, but with the same token, you do that, and many of those with wealth in the Caymans, will just follow their wealth………..You forget, the “rich” (like corporations)are highly mobile……….If the “rich” leave, then who do think the tax burden falls on? And when they start to leave…………

We take control and nationalise their companies.

Think Petróleos de Venezuela S.A but on a much larger scale.

Save your rich threats about how bad it would be if the rich were to follow their wealth cause it'd never happen. They couldn't handle leaving.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Rick

[Zachary Young]

Indeed. And by the same token, there is nothing wrong in the Government using violence in defending citizens from violence.

On the other hand, there is something wrong with the government using violence or coercion (the threat of violence) to obtain revenue. As they do with taxation.

[CANADIEN]

On the other hand, there is something wrong with the government using violence or coercion (the threat of violence) to obtain revenue. As they do with taxation.

In your alternate universe where the saintly market magically eliminates violence, theft, fraud, coercion, etc. and where people can appropriate the fruits of other people works and efforts (the THEFT of intellectual PROPERTY), perhaps. In this universe, there is nothing wrong with having to pay for public services and programs of the ^people (that is all of us), by the people (all of us), for the people (all of us).

Edited September 17, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Pliny]

It takes no work to scan and re-sell someone else's song or movie or book under your own name, and you rob them of most of the money they would have made for their hard work and talent.

Why would someone rob them of their hard work and talent when someone else would just rob them of their

scanning and re-selling someone else's song or book under their own name and put it under their own name? Their wouldn't be any profit in that?

Copyright and Patent laws, although it looks like they may be beneficial, need another look. As they currently exist, there is something wrong with them. I haven't read all the arguments against them.

If a little guy invents something and a big manufacturer takes the idea and manufactures a product and sells it and makes a lot of money and excludes the little guy who had the idea from any of those profits then I see a problem with that. I suppose some sort of contract might be a resolution. But then, the knock offs would start. But patent laws haven't really stopped knock offs and piracy. The question would be are knock offs and piracy more of a problem with the laws than without? Usually knock offs and piracy are things that don't occur until after a product is successful, if you think about it. Copycats and pirates are not, after all, entreprenuers. It is the originator of the idea and the invested or venture capital that brings it to market in the first place. If it is successful and creates consumer demand then they are making money from it.

A good comparison of how patent and copyright laws can help or hinder the inventor or even limit the supply to the consumer is by looking at Apple and Microsoft. Apple initially took a proprietary approach and excluded all other softwares from attaching themselves to Apple products. Microsoft tried to accomodate other applications by allowing them to attach themselves and actually gave rise to a more widespread consumer availability, interest and expansion because different uses could be tailored to the individual. Apple eventually invoked anti-monopoly laws against microsoft to help itself in the industry. Apple might have been a superior product but it wasn't happy to allow any use of it's operating system by outside software designers with different products. It made Apple a safer product as far as viruses and other crap is concerned but it restricted it's sales. Really, the monopolist was more Apple than Microsoft but Microsoft was not totally devoid of competitive shenanigans that were monopolisitic in nature. So Apple vigorously pursued a path of copyright and patent protection while Microsoft was more willing to be accomodating. Microsoft's approach probably was better from a business perspective and Apple learned the lesson. That's a short version of how I see patent and copyright laws played out between the two.

[Zachary Young]

When was the last time a businessman robbed you to keep his operation going? Oh, that's right, never. The market place is entirely voluntary. You want something, you buy it. You don't want it, you don't. The government, on the other hand, has no money but what it can steal from others. It is entirely involuntary. That we have these hysterical farces known as elections doesn't change that fact. The vast majority of people do not vote for whatever government is in power. How many votes did the Conservatives get in total? 3 million? 4 million? Out of 40+ million. Clearly there is no support for any government, save for a very vocal minority. If I want something I will buy it myself, thank you for very much, I don't need the government to buy it for me. The real reason why people like Canadien support the state is because they want to buy things with my money. They are too greedy and selfish to pay for things with their own money, they would rather use the government to steal my money to buy it for them. While I object sir, I object to you or the government or anyone else taking my money. I would rather have my money myself, thank you very much.

[jacee]

I find it refreshing. But to be honest, jacee is probably not as anti-wealth as I am. I interpret the will to extreme wealth as being similar to mental illness. There is no way to explain the desire to hoard more wealth than you would ever need in this life, as with multi-millionaires and billionaires, other than a completely compulsive obsession that is destructive. It should be illegal to be so wealthy. If it were up to me I would not force rich people to give up their wealth, but would make it mandatory that they get psychiatric therapy.

Thanks SirB. I guess "more wealth than you would ever need in this life" is what I see as "obscene wealth", though I might excuse enough for descendants as well.

If one was inclined to hoard more potatoes than one could ever consume, we'd. Easily recognize the emotional disturbance that entails, especially when other people are short of potatoes and they're rotting in your basement.

But somehow with money the disturbance issue is overlooked.

The other element of course is the view of some obscene wealthy that they are responsible for determining 'what's good for us' - how much of their wealth needs to 'trickle down' to the unwashed masses to keep them alive but not so complacent that they no longer want to work (for them ... and only on command, of course) . That's where the bullpatootie really starts flying. For one thing, that perception is mired in 1950's Skinnerian (operant/classical conditioning) views of thinking and learning and motivation. Very elementary and unsophisticated learning theory, certainly relevant to starving rats in a cage, but not representative of the full range of human cognition.

There is more enlightened humanity among society's dispossessed and discarded struggling street people, who naturally organize themselves for survival and protection, than among the sickly obsessed wealth hoarders. They certainly have nothing to 'teach' the rest of us in that regard.

If we're all sharing a pond for drinking water, and one depletes the commonly-held-and-protected supply by hauling barrels of water out and locking it up to sell back to us for personal profit ...

Who's the stupid one?

If we are kind we will simply banish him and he'll move on to the next pond and try again - because he isn't thinking 'smart' about his own survival and comfort, it's a sick and driving obsession for him. Eventually, all his locks broken and barrels destroyed and banished from all human contact, his survival becomes endangered. Smarter? I don't think so. Just sicker.

Maybe the time has come for the unwashed masses of our time to teach that important life lesson to the obscenely wealthy who have taken FAR more of their share of our commonly held resources, including our labour, without sufficient replacement in kind ( sufficient jobs to make up for loss of commonly held natural resources, for example).

People are capable of extraordinary things when all are focused on common goals and common understandings of what is good for us all. However the extraordinary abilities of human societies are disrupted by those sick individuals whse sick obsession and hoarding has been pandered to by those we chose to represent Canadian humanity (governments), and by those we've given the responsibility for guiding the flow of our commonly held wealth (bankers).

And of course, we all bear the collective responsibility for correcting the broken system we have allowed to occur on our watch. It matters not what the sick obsessed wealth hoarders think: They are sick thinkers. We must re-patriate that part of their wealth that is obscenely derived at society's expense and take back control of the flow of commonly held resources.

And this is where both lobbyists (communicators) and people's feet become the tools of constructive change.

X

[Bonam]

If we're all sharing a pond for drinking water, and one depletes the commonly-held-and-protected supply by hauling barrels of water out and locking it up to sell back to us for personal profit ...

Who's the stupid one?

What about the guy who goes out every day of his life digging wells, hoping to find more water so that everyone isn't dependent solely on the pond anymore. One day he manages to dig a well in the right spot and hits water, and now has his own supply. This is what he's spent years doing while other people have been sitting around the pond lazily enjoying themselves. Should he not have the right to the water in that well he dug and be able to charge people for taking it?

That's how a big chunk of people get rich: they're not "stealing" existing wealth, rather, they create new wealth.

[CPCFTW]

We take control and nationalise their companies.

Think Petróleos de Venezuela S.A but on a much larger scale.

Save your rich threats about how bad it would be if the rich were to follow their wealth cause it'd never happen. They couldn't handle leaving.

You can't actually believe this..

Nationalize what? These people mainly hold diversified investments in thousands of companies, what are you going to nationalize? Their shares of multinational companies?

I'm sure the superrich couldn't handle leaving a country that wants to nationalize all their assets...

"They want to seize 100 billion from me?! Well I could buy an island in the caribbean and live like a king, but what about pine trees and maple syrup?!? I guess I'll have to let them take all my money! "

You people are delusional.

Edited September 17, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Zachary Young]

It wasn't very long ago, under the direction of Ed Broadbent that the NDP openly called for the nationalization of heavy industry. This is a very bad idea. It is only through capitalism that we can rationally allocate scarce resources. This is the so called 'calculation problem', and it is the reason why in the Soviet Union when they nationalized agriculture you had massive starvation along with record grain harvests. It is only through the miracle of the price system that entrepreneurs are able to gauge where consumers demand is, and through the market place meet these demands.

The role of the entrepreneur is too critical to be replaced by some idiot's nephew (that is to say a government bureaucrat).

[Pliny]

In your alternate universe where the saintly market magically eliminates violence, theft, fraud, coercion, etc. and where people can appropriate the fruits of other people works and efforts (the THEFT of intellectual PROPERTY), perhaps. In this universe, there is nothing wrong with having to pay for public services and programs of the ^people (that is all of us), by the people (all of us), for the people (all of us).

I sort of get a mixed message about a social democracy existing for "all of us" and yet for those whjo recieve certain public services and programs that benefit the poor, or families or unions or cultures or corporations, in other words special interests(not all of us).

The "saintly market" will not magically eliminate violence, theft, fraud, coercion, etc. The only thing that will is to eliminate people. Those social ills you mention haven't disappeared under any form of government we have tried in the world why do you feel the saintly market could eliminate them?

What the saintly market is about is the consumer (that is - "all of us") it is the only way all of us have a voice. Public services and programs are more about special interests (not all of us) than the consumer (all of us). Even our universal health care system is not about the consumer (all of us). It is about paying for the system. The consumer (all of us) generally gets what those individuals in the system (not all of us) will pay for and not particualrly what the individual (all of us)desires. We have a treatment of the masses (not all of us) and not a treatment of individuals (all of us). We have an education system that is not geared to individuals but to the masses. When something is geared to the masses (not all of us) their is a politician (not all of us) or individual (not all of us) or committe (not all of us) who decides what the masses (all of us - except the politician or individual or committee) will receive in the form of public services and programs. In a market, the consumer (all of us) has the final say in what he wants and needs. If it is a worthwhile, productive society of consumers, then all consumers (all of us) will be taken into account to satisfy needs and wants?

So the question is how do we get a worthwhile, productive society? Do we allow those in government and the special interests (not all of us) that support them to decide who gets what or do we allow the consumer (all of us) to decide? In either respect we have to live with the shortcomings of both.

I opt for the consumer.

[jacee]

What about the guy who goes out every day of his life digging wells, hoping to find more water so that everyone isn't dependent solely on the pond anymore. One day he manages to dig a well in the right spot and hits water, and now has his own supply. This is what he's spent years doing while other people have been sitting around the pond lazily enjoying themselves. Should he not have the right to the water in that well he dug and be able to charge people for taking it?

That's how a big chunk of people get rich: they're not "stealing" existing wealth, rather, they create new wealth.

The water (or gold, or oil) is a commonly held resource regardless. His labour and ingenuity are his own, minus the common effort to feed shelter and nurture him him while he's labouring of course. Because they weren't sitting lazily but busily conducting the labours of survival of the whole community, including his share of it, because he's busy digging.

NO. It is not HIS water ... NEVER 'his'.

And I think I'm starting to see where the obsessive paranoia sickness comes in.

Let me be clear: When you dig, drill or otherwise extract or use commonly held resources, THEY DO NOT BECOME YOURS. They are still commonly held resources and the wealth that they generate is commonly held wealth, minus your labour and other costs and a reasonable living, etc.

Man, that was enlightening! You don't seriously think that because you break the locks of the bank vault, whatever's in there belongs to you ... do you?

Kind of reminds me of something that Indigenous people say:

"It's not clear how 'their' oil got under our land."

[Zachary Young]

Of course they become yours. That is how private property is justly established. You mix your labour with previously unowned resources and homestead them. The lazy sods who did nothing don't deserve to own what other people have created. That is parasitism.

[CANADIEN]

The "saintly market" will not magically eliminate violence, theft, fraud, coercion, etc. The only thing that will is to eliminate people. Those social ills you mention haven't disappeared under any form of government we have tried in the world why do you feel the saintly market could eliminate them?

Err... my point is exactly that the market does not, and will not eliminate those social ills.

[CANADIEN]

Of course they become yours. That is how private property is justly established. You mix your labour with previously unowned resources and homestead them. The lazy sods who did nothing don't deserve to own what other people have created. That is parasitism.

The person who steals another person's intellectual PROPERTY and redistribute it is a theft and a parasite. See, you're getting somewhere.

[jacee]

Of course they become yours. That is how private property is justly established. You mix your labour with previously unowned resources and homestead them. The lazy sods who did nothing don't deserve to own what other people have created. That is parasitism.

They are NOT "unowned". They are commonly held.

Stealing commonly held resources is "parasitism".

You didn't create the resource. You have the right (or acquired a public license) to look for the resource, but your right or license only entitles you to sell the resources on behalf of the people, returning the money to the common coffers, minus expenses and a reasonable living/profit.

If I 'find' your car that you lost in a parking lot, is it mine?

Edited September 17, 2011 by jacee

[Zachary Young]

The difference between say oil that is below the surface and my lost car is no one already owns the oil. I already own my car. When an individual or an organization goes out and makes use of that which was formerly unowned, they get it. This is the origin of private property. The government's claim to all as of yet unclaimed resources is invalid. You cannot just say "I own this" and be taken seriously. This is just another excuse for people to profit off of other's hard work. If you did nothing to contribute to a resource being used to satisfy the demands of consumers you should have no claim on the profit. Why is it that everyone thinks they can mooch off other people and their labour? If you want wealth go out and create it, don't steal from those who do.

[Zachary Young]

There is nothing parasitic about downloading music, for example. No one is hurt by this action. Actually this is symbiotic behaviour because the musician in question benefits from free advertising when you play the music you downloaded. On the other hand when you steal the proceeds of someone else's labour, you are doing EXACTLY what a parasite does - feeding off the host.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Zachary Young

[Squeakbox]

Pensions are not enough - the government is finally giving out pensions to working people who don't work for the government, but it is a joke! The government doesn't recognize people who don't work in the government as people working FOR the government, and by that I mean - aren't we ALL working for the system? So why is the government passing out panhandler's money?

The money the government gives isn't enough for our independence - so we're still comparing people who aren't happy to those who are? "Oh wow, look at this person - she's the happiest person at the tollbooth! Why can't other people be JUST like her?" <-- Gee, I wonder why? I'm a happy person - I'm kind, I have friends, and I laugh a a lot, but when they start lowering the money I get in disability welfare, and I don't have much more than $10 left for my own needs per month, that puts a cloud over my head!

With the price of rent - good luck finding a rent-income place to live. It's a joke! I get the highest possible amount because of my condition (except compared to those with extreme physical disabilities I would imagine), and I can't live on my own where I live now.

I guess if I had to, I have lots of friends so I could live with them IF I can get to the point where I am able to. So, if you don't have your own business where you earn cash "under the table" you might as well be living with someone else, and with the situation these days you can end up in an extreme situation with the wrong person - so make friends quickly... it's not right because, in this world, it's not a reality to get along with someone enough that you can trust them that far.

We all know that if the government can't be trusted, how are we going to trust other people? And justified enough in that sense, because I've been really generous to people and they still do things like you're worth nothing.

Not saying "If you can't trust anyone, give up" because of we were more confident in the system, we'd be getting more done. I say this because I've had incredible inspiration - enough to invent something to change the world, and that's being stomped on because I can't afford enough to test it out. In this case it HAS to be experimented, otherwise it's not an official invention - some things need real proof first.

This whole country disgusts me. I still have friends who see these flaws too, and I do believe that there is enough people out there who acknowledge the same things - but we're not speaking up enough. Even if we could, we all know how the media likes to shut it out. Ya thanks, great people-to-people support we got going on in this country.

[CANADIEN]

There is nothing parasitic about downloading music, for example. No one is hurt by this action. Actually this is symbiotic behaviour because the musician in question benefits from free advertising when you play the music you downloaded. On the other hand when you steal the proceeds of someone else's labour, you are doing EXACTLY what a parasite does - feeding off the host.

Downloading music without compensating the musicians, songwriters, producers etc. is taking away their capacity to benefit financially from their work, in other words the proceeds for their labour. As for the claim it's OK because the musician allegedly gets some free advertising... If it ever crosses my mind to go steal a car, I'll try the "But Your Honour, this is actually benefiting the owner and the manufacturer from th car because I am giving them free advertisement every time I drive the car I have taken". Let,s see how far that would lead me.

[Squeakbox]

Downloading music without compensating the musicians, songwriters, producers etc. is taking away their capacity to benefit financially from their work, in other words the proceeds for their labour. As for the claim it's OK because the musician allegedly gets some free advertising... If it ever crosses my mind to go steal a car, I'll try the "But Your Honour, this is actually benefiting the owner and the manufacturer from th car because I am giving them free advertisement every time I drive the car I have taken". Let,s see how far that would lead me.

That's why there's a Creative Commons license out there - you can download the music for free, and you can use their music if you credit the author.

I've seen people still give money (donate) to the author even though they don't ask for it. It's how it works, and if you ask me, I would do it.