Urban Hunting

[August1991]

Would you support an elected Parliament that has no check on it: a system where all power is concentrated in Cabinet?

What provincial legislature has a second chamber? Are provincial cabinets more powerful than the federal cabinet?

There is only one taxpayer but multiple levels of idiots wasting that money.

So then why don't those on the right endorse the NDP plan to eliminate the Senate?

The Senate ain't the problem. The multiple levels are Federal, Provincial, Municipal.

The four ways to spend money:

1. You spend your own money for yourself.

2. You spend your own money for someone else. (A gift).

3. You spend someone else's money for yourself. (College student).

4. You spend someone else's money for someone else.

Which way is likely to get the "gift/spending" wrong?

How does government spend money?

This is a basic criticism of the Left. And it goes well beyond money:

The four ways to treat people:

1. How you should treat yourself.

2. How you should treat other people.

3. How other people should treat you.

4. How other people should treat other people.

North American Leftists are busybodies (what a great English term!).

[Guest eureka]

The nature of Provincial governments is different to the Federal. They have no regional interests to balance and no call to have, as one example, traveling commissions that take members away from the legislature for possibly months at a time.

The National Senate, too, properly constituted, plays a role in the check on Provincial legisation. It is where consideration of the effect and legitimacy of legislation of both levels is given.

[Cartman]

I apologize for setting this thread on a tangent. I will open a new thread about the senate if people are still interested. I think it is worthwhile.

[Cartman]

Beccaria himself was a little unsure of how to handle crimes of poverty in a free market society. In Essays on Crimes and Punishments (1804), he noted that when people steal because of poverty, classical punishment logically dictates that the criminal be deprived of his own property. Unfortunately, this exacerbates the problem of property crime because these kinds of criminals will be even further pressed to engage in property crimes. A system of classical justice can only be successful if property is distributed equally from the start. As this is not the case, our system of punishment is inadequate and possibly even perpetuates crime.

This suggests that poverty should be considered a mitigating circumstance when punishing such acts. Just thought that some classical economists might enjoy this inherent tautology.

[August1991]

This suggests that poverty should be considered a mitigating circumstance when punishing such acts.

Huh?

Cartman, IMV, European Leftists are like good Union activists. They simply want the money.

North American Leftists/progressives are different. They are into this "change the world" message.

This confuses me. Which of you Leftists (European/American) is correct?

Does the Left want more money or does the Left want to change the world?

Should I post this question on Rabble?

[ndpnic]

Has everyone forgotten the original question?

Is there a time when stealing food to feed yourself superceeds the boundaries of commiting a crime?

[shackwacky]

Has everyone forgotten the original question?

Is there a time when stealing food to feed yourself superceeds the boundaries of commiting a crime?

The courts would have to look at whether the crime of stealing food was actually a necessity. To that end, you would have to justify any "unnecessary" expenditures made from funds available (be it welfare or handicapped assistance or w.h.y. ) to purchase food.

ie: computer equipment, internet charges, cell phones, cable tv, video rentals, lottery tickets, soft drinks, tobacco or alcohol, entertainment, pet food, cosmetics, hairdressing and the list goes on and on. These are all things that you CAN live without. If you can afford a cell phone and an email address, you can not justify the theft of food as being a "necessity".

[Guest eureka]

Can one live without some of those things? That is a question to which there have been answers in part.

It is known that all sorts of social ills and crime spring from deprivation: health problems, too. The lack of those things sets the victims apart and in an inferior position. Children grow up with the sense of their deprivation and the resentment that comes from that. It is a major reason that crime rates are higher in North America than in Europe

It is not any longer disputable that these are consequences. What remains is how far society must go to remedy the ills.

[August1991]

It is known that all sorts of social ills and crime spring from deprivation: health problems, too.

Would you agree then that, since crime rates in North America (but not Europe) have fallen substantially over the past 30 years, we suffer from fewer social ills and deprivation?

As to the question of poverty and theft, would you accept it if a person broke into your house and stole your TV and then for reasons of poverty, was granted a complete pardon once caught? If so, why not simply give your TV to a poor person.

But I don't see why your belief should give you the right to give my TV to a poor person.

We are debating whether a poor person has the right to steal from a shop whose owner is not here to make a case.

[shackwacky]

Can one live without some of those things? That is a question to which there have been answers in part.

?

So which of those things can you not live without? If not having cable tv leads to deprivation and crime, what does having Dad thrown in the slammer for stealing apples do?

And August makes a very good point. Do we allow people the right to victimize the shop owner based on his/her economic situation? Who pays for the stolen goods once the thief has been apprehended and released on the basis of poverty?

[Guest eureka]

No. And I would say that, as from time immemorial, poor people will steal to survive. That is a given and to be expected.

As in earlier times, if the punishments are severe, then, eventually, the reaction of the poor will be severe.

[shackwacky]

That is a given and to be expected....

Really?

What earlier times do you refer to? And what reactions do you mean?

The post is kinda vague.

[ndpnic]

Once again people, we are talking about people stealing FOOD to survive. Not TV's, or anyother "goods". Just FOOD!!!!

[Hawk]

Once again people, we are talking about people stealing FOOD to survive. Not TV's, or anyother "goods". Just FOOD!!!!

Stealing is a choice to do wrong and to wrong the people that had to pay for the food in the first place. To justify wrong-doing in that fashion is both a very radical left-wing practice and encouraged by 'lazy bums'.

Its people like you that make capitalism look good.

[Guest eureka]

Have you ever been hungry? Have you watched your kids crying for food?

Don't be so sanctimonious.

[Hawk]

Have you ever been hungry? Have you watched your kids crying for food?

Don't be so sanctimonious.

The end never justifies the means.

If you are strong enough to walk to and steal from a store you are strong enough to work, the problem is people are too picky and/or lazy and refuse to. That is not our problem.

It is their own fault they have hungry children, especially since they had children to begin with in their situation.

[ndpnic]

Once again people, we are talking about people stealing FOOD to survive. Not TV's, or anyother "goods". Just FOOD!!!!

Stealing is a choice to do wrong and to wrong the people that had to pay for the food in the first place. To justify wrong-doing in that fashion is both a very radical left-wing practice and encouraged by 'lazy bums'.

Its people like you that make capitalism look good.

Then what do YOU suggest, HAWK, that starving people do?

If you are working poor, let's say income of under $40k, but over $25k, you can't use the food banks. Where do they go to feed their fams.?

[Guest eureka]

People like you are an embarrassment to the human race.

[ndpnic]

People like you are an embarrassment to the human race.

Why?

B/c I remind you that not every Canadian has a cushy life?

People like YOU make me know I'm RIGHT about the Canada I live in!!!!!!

[Guest eureka]

That makes me wonder about you. It was unmistakeable that I was referring to your "enemies" It was those that I was arguing with.

Paranoia does not become you.

[ndpnic]

That makes me wonder about you. It was unmistakeable that I was referring to your "enemies" It was those that I was arguing with.

Paranoia does not become you.

Sorry!

I've been a little stressed lately!

[ndpnic]

I wonder if Hawk will remember to give Thanks during the holidays that he will have a full belly and gifts to give his family!!!!!