What Does It Mean to Be Conservative?

newbie · August 30, 2006

Alcholism and addictions as diseases (which they are; http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs/General-English/FAQ2.htm).
Addiction problems are a disease in the sense that they have a biological component and are not simply a life style choice - however, these diseases can only be treated if the sufferer is willing to ask for help. If an alcoholic/addict refuses treatment or fails to stay clean and sober after receiving treatment then that alcoholic/addict is a 'bum' in every sense of the word. Giving welfare to such people only encourages them to continue in their addiction.

I guess you've never heard of relaspes. A chronic alcoholic may take years to find sobriety. It's not a matter of choice or willpower. If you've never been addicted to anything then you don't understand.

edit: of course the idea is to keep them in treatment, I'm just reminding you that it can be extremely difficult for the more serious addict. Remember Robert Downy Jr. ?

newbie · August 30, 2006

Giving welfare to such people only encourages them to continue in their addiction.

Of course I'm not implying handing out loads of money to someone who has gone thru rehab a number of times and who absolutley refuses help. But I don't think they comprise the majority of so called street bums. Many, like I said, suffer from other undiagnosed mental illnessess.

Riverwind · August 30, 2006

I guess you've never heard of relaspes. A chronic alcoholic may take years to find sobriety.

Usually because they are surrounded by 'enablers' that clean up the messes they create. The worst thing you can do to an alcoholic/addict is shield them from the consequences of their drinking/using. My buddy tells me: "I sobered up when everyone else gave up on me - until then I thought I could get away with it". Our welfare/disability system has turned the gov't into an enabler that is literally killing addicts with kindness.

Iedit: of course the idea is to keep them in treatment, I'm just reminding you that it can be extremely difficult for the more serious addict. Remember Robert Downy Jr. ?

Robert Downy Jr. and other famous/rich people often have the toughest time staying clean because they have money to pay for an army of enablers that prevents them from hitting bottom.

I am not saying we should simply write addicts off - I am saying there has to be a carrot and a really big stick approach to dealing with addiction problems. The carrot has to be easily accessible and free detoxes and treatment centers. The stick has to be complete termination of all gov't benefits and/or prison.

August1991 · August 30, 2006

Of course I'm not implying handing out loads of money to someone who has gone thru rehab a number of times and who absolutley refuses help. But I don't think they comprise the majority of so called street bums. Many, like I said, suffer from other undiagnosed mental illnessess.

What you fail to see here newbie is the incentive effect of such government funding of rehab programmes or other payments to those addicted to drugs.

It is a general rule of life that if we lower the price of foolishness, there will be more foolishness.

Moreover, I suspect that government is entirely the wrong institution to use to help these people. But I dunno.

newbie · August 30, 2006

Of course I'm not implying handing out loads of money to someone who has gone thru rehab a number of times and who absolutley refuses help. But I don't think they comprise the majority of so called street bums. Many, like I said, suffer from other undiagnosed mental illnessess.
What you fail to see here newbie is the incentive effect of such government funding of rehab programmes or other payments to those addicted to drugs.
It is a general rule of life that if we lower the price of foolishness, there will be more foolishness.

Moreover, I suspect that government is entirely the wrong institution to use to help these people. But I dunno.

It's called being human August. And believe it or not, there are a lot of people helping such folks without Gov't funds, out of the goodness of their hearts. Sure, let's write them off August. Let 'em die in the street. There just a useless goddam drunk to you anyway.

What do you know of incentive? I have helped many of these people capture something they can contribute. They need understanding, a few good meals, and a discovery of their skills. I've helped people re-integrate from the prison system where they're released with less than they came in with. No housing, no money, no nothing. What do you know about these so called bums August. Ever bought one a meal? Of course not, what woudl the incentive be to that. The funding should be centered at the root, the educational system where kids with severe learning disabilites can't fall through the cracks. Teachers must report abuses seen on students. We all need to do our part or we're going to see more of August's rejects.

Ricki Bobbi · August 30, 2006

There are a lot of us out there who fit the *older* brand.

But you'll never hear the Canadian left admit to that. It's not in their best interest.

I'd have to agree with geoffrey. The CPC needs to dump a lot of the socon stuff.

Once SSM has been dealt with what will the Liberals use to call scary, scary, scary about?

Yes, that sounds like the older brand of tory. . . an offshoot of the 'protestant ethic'.
Or rather, the disparity between individuals wealth represents the level of effort 'one' has made in life.

geoffrey · August 30, 2006

Alcholism and addictions as diseases (which they are; http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs/General-English/FAQ2.htm).
Addiction problems are a disease in the sense that they have a biological component and are not simply a life style choice - however, these diseases can only be treated if the sufferer is willing to ask for help. If an alcoholic/addict refuses treatment or fails to stay clean and sober after receiving treatment then that alcoholic/addict is a 'bum' in every sense of the word. Giving welfare to such people only encourages them to continue in their addiction.

Riverwind makes a very important distinction. Alcoholism and addiction can be overcome, if the person in question is willing to make that choice. Being quadriplegic isn't something that can be overcome.

The wheelchair bound spinal cord injury suffer requires the support of society to survive 99% of the time, whereas the addict or alcoholic has made a decision to not get treatment. Such programs provided by charities and governments are available if they wanted to be in them, but most don't. I don't get why we should have to support people that don't want to help themselves?

newbie · August 30, 2006

Riverwind makes a very important distinction. Alcoholism and addiction can be overcome, if the person in question is willing to make that choice. Being quadriplegic isn't something that can be overcome.
The wheelchair bound spinal cord injury suffer requires the support of society to survive 99% of the time, whereas the addict or alcoholic has made a decision to not get treatment. Such programs provided by charities and governments are available if they wanted to be in them, but most don't. I don't get why we should have to support people that don't want to help themselves?

So is a diabetic and a person with epilepsy. And if they don't take their medication they may die. My point is that everyone has a choice. But addicts and alcoholics need a support system, gov't funded or otherwise or they won't make it. And yes, if they refuse, then consequences take over. Again my point is that addiction is an illness and must be treated as such, and not related to only the decision of the addict. They require, in the most case, advocates to make sure things are taken care initially. Most have little social skills, especially coming out of prison. Most of this is volunteerism, but may be funded by such programs as Streets Alive and other organizations related to "soup kitchen" and interfaith food banks. Again, we try Geoffrey, that's all we can do. If the person refuse help, there is little we can do. But I'm stubborn and I keep trying.

August1991 · August 30, 2006

It's called being human August. And believe it or not, there are a lot of people helping such folks without Gov't funds, out of the goodness of their hearts. Sure, let's write them off August. Let 'em die in the street. There just a useless goddam drunk to you anyway.
What do you know of incentive?

Where the Dickens did that come from Newbie?

Many reformed alcoholics (and gambling addicts) have said that they had to touch absolute bottom before they realized that they had to change. Those who reform typically come to the realization that they have compulsive natures and that they must follow a zero tolerance. How do they come to that realization? I dunno.

I'm just saying that if we make it easier for addicts to ruin their lives, more will ruin their lives.

I have seen (and spoken to) single mothers raising their family on sidewalks in India. Their lot in life, often because of an unexpected death of the husband, is surely due to chance. Men sleeping on sidewalks in urban Canada is a different story. More often than not, I think they simply want nothing to do with governments, bureaucrats, petty rules and form-filling.

geoffrey · August 30, 2006

So is a diabetic and a person with epilepsy. And if they don't take their medication they may die.

Not at all, these people can work almost any job (maybe not a chocolate factory taste tester for the diabetic and unlikely a strobe light quality checker for the epileptic) with proper medication, different than a quadriplegic who likely can't work outside of knowledge based fields, ie. Stephen Hawking... but very few people are of that ability.

My point is that everyone has a choice. But addicts and alcoholics need a support system, gov't funded or otherwise or they won't make it. And yes, if they refuse, then consequences take over. Again my point is that addiction is an illness and must be treated as such, and not related to only the decision of the addict.
They require, in the most case, advocates to make sure things are taken care initially. Most have little social skills, especially coming out of prison. Most of this is volunteerism, but may be funded by such programs as Streets Alive and other organizations related to "soup kitchen" and interfaith food banks. Again, we try Geoffrey, that's all we can do. If the person refuse help, there is little we can do. But I'm stubborn and I keep trying.

And we should offer them treatment for their illness. But we have no obligation to recognize it as a disability. I don't think that's fair to those that actually deserve our help.

The reality is we have limited resources, we can't make every disabled person live like a king. So we need to take those that really can't work, help them live a reasonably comfortable life, and the rest, can go get a job.

If alcoholism is a disease, and I think it is, we should treat it like influenza or anything of the sort, within our health care system, not our welfare system. We don't give people with the flu benefits, we give them treatment. If they refuse treatment, I don't think we have an obligation to help someone 'permenantly disabled' with the flu, for a stretched example.

Drea · August 30, 2006

And we should offer them treatment for their illness. But we have no obligation to recognize it as a disability. I don't think that's fair to those that actually deserve our help.
The reality is we have limited resources, we can't make every disabled person live like a king. So we need to take those that really can't work, help them live a reasonably comfortable life, and the rest, can go get a job.

If alcoholism is a disease, and I think it is, we should treat it like influenza or anything of the sort, within our health care system, not our welfare system. We don't give people with the flu benefits, we give them treatment. If they refuse treatment, I don't think we have an obligation to help someone 'permenantly disabled' with the flu, for a stretched example.

I agree. Alcoholism is a "disease" that can be "cured" by the effort of the alcoholic. Trust me, I've known many drinkers in my life -- two of them have quit drinking completely, on their own. Another couple of them needed AA to get off booze.

We certainly should not be treating alcoholism/addiction like a physical or mental disability where a person cannot work.

It may take an awful lot of effort, but at least it is possible to overcome alcoholism. It is not possible to overcome real mental/physical disabilites.

Now, some disabled person is going to say "but I overcame my illness!". Ah yes, but were you the cause of your illness or were you born that way?

I could say that I am an "addict". I smoke. Every couple of hours I gotta go outside and have a cig. Is this my fault? Should the gov't pay me simply because I am an addict? Should I take responsibility for my self-caused addiction or do I blame the govt?

Self-imposed "illnesses" such as smoking or alcoholism are not disabilites but dependancies. Big difference IMO.

Charles Anthony · August 31, 2006

Men sleeping on sidewalks in urban Canada is a different story. More often than not, I think they simply want nothing to do with governments, bureaucrats, petty rules and form-filling.

There is hope. I guess I do not have to go anywhere to find my utopia!

Figleaf · August 31, 2006

[quote

Hicksey · August 31, 2006

Luck is non-existant, we are the result of the choices we made.

You're joking, surely.

Not in the least, you make (hopefully) rational decisions and are effected by the outcomes. There is risk, but risk can be mitigated through good choices in life. You choose the current position your in.

Risks can be accepted, avoided, mitigated, or unplanned, none of which changes the reality that random outcomes may nevertheless happen. The classic one, of course is that no-one chooses who their parents are.

Frankly, a position that ignores the reality of uncertainty is one that smacks of dogma, not pragmatism.

You should plan your life as you would plan your golf game. Just as you would consider where your ball might miss if you don't hit the shot as well as you planned, every decision should be designed to leave you an out you can manage.

It takes luck out of the equation. Its a lesson I have learned the hard way.

Figleaf · August 31, 2006

ball.

Charles Anthony · August 31, 2006

Luck is non-existant, we are the result of the choices we made.
You're joking, surely.
Not in the least, you make (hopefully) rational decisions and are effected by the outcomes. There is risk, but risk can be mitigated through good choices in life. You choose the current position your in.
Risks can be accepted, avoided, mitigated, or unplanned, none of which changes the reality that random outcomes may nevertheless happen. The classic one, of course is that no-one chooses who their parents are.
Frankly, a position that ignores the reality of uncertainty is one that smacks of dogma, not pragmatism.

You should plan your life as you would plan your golf game. Just as you would consider where your ball might miss if you don't hit the shot as well as you planned, every decision should be designed to leave you an out you can manage.
It takes luck out of the equation. Its a lesson I have learned the hard way.

It's a risk minimization strategy,

What is? The post before or the quoted post before or the quoted post before or the quoted post before that one....??

I forget: what type of minimization strategy are we talking about??

but you are fooling yourself if you think it takes luck 'out' of the equation. Mathematically speaking it builds some room for luck INTO the equation. But all your fairway strategy won't help you if a crow flies off with your ball.

Mathematically speaking the probability of successfully following a thread is indirectly proportional to the number of inline quotes contained therein.

newbie · September 1, 2006

We certainly should not be treating alcoholism/addiction like a physical or mental disability where a person cannot work. It may take an awful lot of effort, but at least it is possible to overcome alcoholism. It is not possible to overcome real mental/physical disabilites. Self-imposed "illnesses" such as smoking or alcoholism are not disabilites but dependancies.

Have you forgotten about the after-effects. Should a smoker be able to claim disability when he/she gets emphysema or lung cancer over a person who suffers from cirrosis or pancreatic cancer? Ahh yes, the dependancy argument. Tell that to the millions who were hooked after the tobacco companies laced (and probably still do) their smokes with addictive substances.

Hicksey · September 1, 2006

Luck is non-existant, we are the result of the choices we made.

You're joking, surely.

Not in the least, you make (hopefully) rational decisions and are effected by the outcomes. There is risk, but risk can be mitigated through good choices in life. You choose the current position your in.

Risks can be accepted, avoided, mitigated, or unplanned, none of which changes the reality that random outcomes may nevertheless happen. The classic one, of course is that no-one chooses who their parents are.

Frankly, a position that ignores the reality of uncertainty is one that smacks of dogma, not pragmatism.

You should plan your life as you would plan your golf game. Just as you would consider where your ball might miss if you don't hit the shot as well as you planned, every decision should be designed to leave you an out you can manage.

It takes luck out of the equation. Its a lesson I have learned the hard way.

It's a risk minimization strategy, but you are fooling yourself if you think it takes luck 'out' of the equation. Mathematically speaking it builds some room for luck INTO the equation. But all your fairway strategy won't help you if a crow flies off with your ball.

Its pretty obvious that luck can never be taken completely out of the equation. But leaving yourself with outs you can deal with sure does minimalize how much you depend on it. If you are planning your life in an all or none fashion and you lose big, its a risk you took that you were aware of nine times out of ten. The problem is that people too often depend on luck. If you plan for things you can gain with skill, have an alternative plan that you can live with and have a contingency plan should everything hit the fan you usually land on your feet. You will not get rich or gain status doing it, but you can do well. If you are going to take risks in life however large or small, you should be willing to deal with the consequences. If you are not willing to accept the consequences of failure then steer clear.

I know these choices are often a lot more blurred than I have presented them. But, as we age and experience life they will become much clearer. I know they have for me.

We have SA/EI for the especially bad cases as a crutch to help those who have been hit from way out in left field. But it should be a crutch and nothing more. I've been on it 3 times and off again within three months each time. If you truly cannot work you should be on disability -- not welfare. Those that can should be required to work. I would rather pay the single mother's child care to work than leave her sit at home. I would rather pay child care and send her to school to train her so she can provide for her children going forward. It is a much smarter policy to teach someone to fish than to give them a fish each day.

The problem is that people think they are entitled to top wages out of the gate. Like it or not there is a job ladder. Unless you learn a skill that is not widely held you cannot skip others on the job ladder. You take what you can, pad your resume, wait for something higher paying to come along, snap it up when it does and start it over again. In Canada we are especially nice to those who have been dealt a raw deal because we offer them an opportunity to learn a skill at taxpayer expense that can allow them to jump up the job ladder.

Life is what you make of it. Ask not how life is treating someone, ask how they are treating life.

Hydraboss · September 1, 2006

Deleted for double post.

Hydraboss · September 1, 2006

Same question requires the same answer:

Can work?...Get a job or starve.

Can't work?...We'll pay for the basics.

Anything other than that and it's purely paying people to sit on their asses, smoke and drink cheap beer (cause you get more cheap stuff for the same taxpayer money, and that leaves some cash to go to cheap beer night at the bar.)

People will argue this to death, but there is no such thing as a person who can't find a job in Alberta. Yet we have thousands of dumb-asses that "can't find work" and would much rather live off the taxpayer teat.

It's frickin embarrasing as a province, and in most cases applies to the rest of Canada too.

If we cut off the money, they'll sure find work in a hurry.

geoffrey · September 3, 2006

Not in the least, you make (hopefully) rational decisions and are effected by the outcomes. There is risk, but risk can be mitigated through good choices in life. You choose the current position your in.

Risks can be accepted, avoided, mitigated, or unplanned, none of which changes the reality that random outcomes may nevertheless happen. The classic one, of course is that no-one chooses who their parents are.

Frankly, a position that ignores the reality of uncertainty is one that smacks of dogma, not pragmatism.

Correct, you can't choose your parents. That's why we give everyone access to free education... we even remove all financial barriers to post-secondary for poor students (while imposing barriers for middle-class students, but that's another topic). Being born to less well off parents doesn't disadvantage you in Canada.

Eventually people grow up to be adults and they need to make real choices about their success. You don't need to be born rich, smart or beautiful to make money or have personal success. Trades jobs can pay well over six figures, many don't require you to have an IQ over 50. Everyone that is intellectually gifted can go to university, there are no real financial barriers with Canada's extremely generous student loans program.

That's how this works, giving people a minimum standard of health care and open access to primary and secondary... and post-secondary... education is all we need to do. Then you leave it up to the people to choose how successful they want to be. I have many friends that were born into wealthier families than mine, and many choose not to go onto bigger things in life. I also have friends that come from much less well off families and have gone truly amazing things in life.

It's all up to the individual, and how much they want success, on their own terms.

Ricki Bobbi · September 3, 2006

Trades jobs can pay well over six figures, many don't require you to have an IQ over 50. Everyone that is intellectually gifted can go to university, there are no real financial barriers with Canada's extremely generous student loans program.

Wow that's some elitist, ivory tower crap.

You do realize that someone with an IQ of 50 does qualify as mildly retarded. Here's a link.

I'm guessing you consider yourself *intellectually-gifted* because you do, or have, attended university.

geoffrey · September 3, 2006

Trades jobs can pay well over six figures, many don't require you to have an IQ over 50. Everyone that is intellectually gifted can go to university, there are no real financial barriers with Canada's extremely generous student loans program.

Wow that's some elitist, ivory tower crap.

You do realize that someone with an IQ of 50 does qualify as mildly retarded. Here's a link.

I'm guessing you consider yourself *intellectually-gifted* because you do, or have, attended university.

That's why I said some trades. Just because it isn't politically correct, doesn't mean it's wrong. I stand by my statement that some trades could be done by someone with an IQ of 50. Some trades obviously require a higher level of thought no doubt. Many tradesmen are indeed quite smart, but prefer physical work. That's their call.

I do consider myself intellectually gifted, but I use a rather inclusive definition overall. I'd say that's someone that has the ability to use their mind to make gainful employment. Which is arguably the majority of people. Some people are physically gifted, musically gifted, ect. ect.. everyone has some gift.

Intellectually gifted by that definition doesn't mean genius level, it makes capable of making money with your intelligence. Simple as that.

Ricki Bobbi · September 3, 2006

That's why I said some trades.
Intellectually gifted by that definition doesn't mean genius level, it makes capable of making money with your intelligence. Simple as that.

Name *two* trades a retard could actually do.

I thought intellectually gifted meant the ability to go to university? Or is it the ability to mae money with your intelligence? Are the two the same thing?

Guess I'm not *intellectually gifted* enough to follow your line of reasoning....

Hicksey · September 3, 2006

That's why I said some trades.
Intellectually gifted by that definition doesn't mean genius level, it makes capable of making money with your intelligence. Simple as that.

Name *two* trades a retard could actually do.

I thought intellectually gifted meant the ability to go to university? Or is it the ability to mae money with your intelligence? Are the two the same thing?

Guess I'm not *intellectually gifted* enough to follow your line of reasoning....

Everyone has access to schooling up to grade 12 on Joe Taxpayer. If they choose not to take advantage, why should we feel sorry for them? Why should I have to pay the consequences for their actions on my tax bill? Why should I feel bad when they do not make enough money? They had the same opporunity I had.

All we guarnatee is equality of opportunity -- not equality of outcome. Expecting that is unreasonable. For the vast majority of people, their life is what they make of it. If they don't make anything of it, that is not my problem, nor should it cost me a dime.