Ontario Premier's 'Idea' to get kids to stay in school

[mikedavid00]

Premier Dalton McGuinty wants to play everyones father and take driver licenses away from teenagers who drop out of highschool before 18 years old. (yes you read that right).

My question is not whether it's a good 'idea'. That's debateable and i'm sure most agree with him.

My question is is more fundemental:

Is this sort of thing the role of the government? Is this legal? And if it is legal for a student to drop out under 18, (cutoff is 16), how is it his business to get involved in personal family matters?

Is this beyond what the powers of the gov't should be able to dictate? Regardless if it's a good idea or not.

[blueblood]

Premier Dalton McGuinty wants to play everyones father and take driver licenses away from teenagers who drop out of highschool before 18 years old. (yes you read that right).

My question is not whether it's a good 'idea'. That's debateable and i'm sure most agree with him.

My question is is more fundemental:

Is this sort of thing the role of the government? Is this legal? And if it is legal for a student to drop out under 18, (cutoff is 16), how is it his business to get involved in personal family matters?

Is this beyond what the powers of the gov't should be able to dictate? Regardless if it's a good idea or not.

Yes.

[Saturn]

Premier Dalton McGuinty wants to play everyones father and take driver licenses away from teenagers who drop out of highschool before 18 years old. (yes you read that right).

My question is not whether it's a good 'idea'. That's debateable and i'm sure most agree with him.

My question is is more fundemental:

Is this sort of thing the role of the government? Is this legal? And if it is legal for a student to drop out under 18, (cutoff is 16), how is it his business to get involved in personal family matters?

Is this beyond what the powers of the gov't should be able to dictate? Regardless if it's a good idea or not.

If it is a good idea and is of great importance (such as this issue), then the government is obliged to interfere. What you are asking is whether the government should get involved in putting criminals in jail. Yes, it's a good idea and the government should put them in jail. It's that simple.

[blueblood]

Premier Dalton McGuinty wants to play everyones father and take driver licenses away from teenagers who drop out of highschool before 18 years old. (yes you read that right).

My question is not whether it's a good 'idea'. That's debateable and i'm sure most agree with him.

My question is is more fundemental:

Is this sort of thing the role of the government? Is this legal? And if it is legal for a student to drop out under 18, (cutoff is 16), how is it his business to get involved in personal family matters?

Is this beyond what the powers of the gov't should be able to dictate? Regardless if it's a good idea or not.

If it is a good idea and is of great importance (such as this issue), then the government is obliged to interfere. What you are asking is whether the government should get involved in putting criminals in jail. Yes, it's a good idea and the government should put them in jail. It's that simple.

Yah criminals harm society, high school dropouts don't. So the gov't has no business in affairs like that. That's coming on to totalitarianism there comrade.

[gc1765]

Is it not within the Premier's powers to set the legal driving age? Is it "playing father" to not allow minors to drink?

[Saturn]

Yah criminals harm society, high school dropouts don't. So the gov't has no business in affairs like that. That's coming on to totalitarianism there comrade.

High-school dropouts are more likely to become criminals, more likely to end up unemployed, more likely to drag the economy down (actually they are guaranteed to drag the economy down), so yes, they harm society. Driving is a privilege and they choose to drag society down then they can lose that privilege for a couple of years.

[blueblood]

Is it not within the Premier's powers to set the legal driving age? Is it "playing father" to not allow minors to drink?

He set the driving age at 16, why should he lose his liscence just because of a choice which doesn't hurt anyone. Minors aren't allowed to drink because it causes harm, dropping out doesn't.

[Saturn]

He set the driving age at 16, why should he lose his liscence just because of a choice which doesn't hurt anyone. Minors aren't allowed to drink because it causes harm, dropping out doesn't.

Again, it does. When they end up poor and unemployed, our taxes will be paying their welfare instead of going into health-care for example where this money can save lives. Dropouts take away resources that can be put to much better use.

[blueblood]

He set the driving age at 16, why should he lose his liscence just because of a choice which doesn't hurt anyone. Minors aren't allowed to drink because it causes harm, dropping out doesn't.

Again, it does. When they end up poor and unemployed, our taxes will be paying their welfare instead of going into health-care for example where this money can save lives. Dropouts take away resources that can be put to much better use.

Not all dropouts end up poor and unemployed. That's like saying we should take away welfare recipient's driver's liscences as an incentive to find employment. i know some that have done all right for themselves and for what they do they need their driver's liscence, should they be punished because they've made it without school?

[mikedavid00]

Is it not within the Premier's powers to set the legal driving age? Is it "playing father" to not allow minors to drink?

Drinking effects others rights and could harm innocent people.

We're talking about leaving school when it is within your legal right to do so.

[mikedavid00]

Yah criminals harm society, high school dropouts don't. So the gov't has no business in affairs like that. That's coming on to totalitarianism there comrade.

High-school dropouts are more likely to become criminals, more likely to end up unemployed, more likely to drag the economy down (actually they are guaranteed to drag the economy down), so yes, they harm society. Driving is a privilege and they choose to drag society down then they can lose that privilege for a couple of years.

I wonder how far you can stretch this idealism?

All the way to communism?

[mikedavid00]

Again, it does. When they end up poor and unemployed, our taxes will be paying their welfare instead of going into health-care for example where this money can save lives. Dropouts take away resources that can be put to much better use.

Lol.. and immigrants and refugees dont?

Lol!

Just amusing.. lol..

[mikedavid00]

Not all dropouts end up poor and unemployed.

That's for sure. Go see how much an electrician or plubmer costs. They say that a large majority of drop outs eventually go into the trades. There was a report that showed trades poeple get even more than the average new University grad.

That's like saying we should take away welfare recipient's driver's liscences as an incentive to find employment.

Lol! I agree. Sad thing is this is a reality within our first world poltiical system.

[geoffrey]

That's for sure. Go see how much an electrician or plubmer costs. They say that a large majority of drop outs eventually go into the trades. There was a report that showed trades poeple get even more than the average new University grad.

Most of them are high school graduates.

[Saturn]

Not all dropouts end up poor and unemployed. That's like saying we should take away welfare recipient's driver's liscences as an incentive to find employment. i know some that have done all right for themselves and for what they do they need their driver's liscence, should they be punished because they've made it without school?

Not all but a lot more of them end up poor and unemployed. Also, not all people in jail are criminals. Not all drunk minors cause harm either. In addition, current dropouts are going to do worse than dropouts have in the past as the average level of education is going up and up pretty quickly and the number of jobs dropouts can do is going down and down.

Taking away a welfare recipient's driver's license is not an incentive to find work. For a 17-year-old though it is an incentive to go back to school, so that s/he doesn't end up being a welfare recipient later.

[Saturn]

That's for sure. Go see how much an electrician or plubmer costs. They say that a large majority of drop outs eventually go into the trades. There was a report that showed trades poeple get even more than the average new University grad.

Trades people are not dropouts. Most of them also have trades certificates which are above high-school diplomas.

[blueblood]

Not all dropouts end up poor and unemployed. That's like saying we should take away welfare recipient's driver's liscences as an incentive to find employment. i know some that have done all right for themselves and for what they do they need their driver's liscence, should they be punished because they've made it without school?

Not all but a lot more of them end up poor and unemployed. Also, not all people in jail are criminals. Not all drunk minors cause harm either. In addition, current dropouts are going to do worse than dropouts have in the past as the average level of education is going up and up pretty quickly and the number of jobs dropouts can do is going down and down.

Taking away a welfare recipient's driver's license is not an incentive to find work. For a 17-year-old though it is an incentive to go back to school, so that s/he doesn't end up being a welfare recipient later.

People in jail are criminals they have been tried and sentanced, they are criminals. Drunk minors cause a lot more harm than a dropout. So Mr. 17-year-old dropout who wants to drive a tandem axle truck out on the oil patch or gets his class 1 to drive truck as that's what he's best qualified to do and can make somewhat of a wage. He can't now because Ontario politicians took this opportunity away from him. People are going to drop out anyway, you shouldn't take that opportunity away from him to get ahead (even if it is just driving truck) taking away a welfare recipients drivers licenese is just as much incentive to find work as it is for a dropout to go back to school.

[Saturn]

People in jail are criminals they have been tried and sentanced, they are criminals. Drunk minors cause a lot more harm than a dropout. So Mr. 17-year-old dropout who wants to drive a tandem axle truck out on the oil patch or gets his class 1 to drive truck as that's what he's best qualified to do and can make somewhat of a wage. He can't now because Ontario politicians took this opportunity away from him. People are going to drop out anyway, you shouldn't take that opportunity away from him to get ahead (even if it is just driving truck) taking away a welfare recipients drivers licenese is just as much incentive to find work as it is for a dropout to go back to school.

There is no oil-patch in Ontario. Mr. 17-year-old should stay in school until he is 18 and then he can go drive a truck. A high-school diploma will provide him with more opportunities later on and it will pay off so he can sit on his butt and study for another year. Besides nobody will hire Mr. 17-year-old to drive a truck because Mr. 17-year-old's insurance will cost them 3 times as much as someone else's.

[gc1765]

He set the driving age at 16, why should he lose his liscence just because of a choice which doesn't hurt anyone. Minors aren't allowed to drink because it causes harm, dropping out doesn't.

Does it cause harm for a 16 year old to drink?

Does it cause harm for a 16 year old to drive?

Why the difference?

[blueblood]

People in jail are criminals they have been tried and sentanced, they are criminals. Drunk minors cause a lot more harm than a dropout. So Mr. 17-year-old dropout who wants to drive a tandem axle truck out on the oil patch or gets his class 1 to drive truck as that's what he's best qualified to do and can make somewhat of a wage. He can't now because Ontario politicians took this opportunity away from him. People are going to drop out anyway, you shouldn't take that opportunity away from him to get ahead (even if it is just driving truck) taking away a welfare recipients drivers licenese is just as much incentive to find work as it is for a dropout to go back to school.

There is no oil-patch in Ontario. Mr. 17-year-old should stay in school until he is 18 and then he can go drive a truck. A high-school diploma will provide him with more opportunities later on and it will pay off so he can sit on his butt and study for another year. Besides nobody will hire Mr. 17-year-old to drive a truck because Mr. 17-year-old's insurance will cost them 3 times as much as someone else's.

Some people can't do the school thing, why should they be chained to school, contrary to popular belief it's not for everyone. It might take him a few more years to get it, why should he rot when he can contribute to the economy and make a life for himself. Haven't you heard of the labor shortage in Alberta, they won't be caring too much if he's 17 if there are people who go through special education that drive truck too.

[blueblood]

He set the driving age at 16, why should he lose his liscence just because of a choice which doesn't hurt anyone. Minors aren't allowed to drink because it causes harm, dropping out doesn't.

Does it cause harm for a 16 year old to drink?

Does it cause harm for a 16 year old to drive?

Why the difference?

Hmm. How many 16 year olds get sick from drinking, how many get sick from driving?

[gc1765]

Hmm. How many 16 year olds get sick from drinking, how many get sick from driving?

Hmmm. How many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old drinking, how many are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving?

[blueblood]

Hmm. How many 16 year olds get sick from drinking, how many get sick from driving?

Hmmm. How many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old drinking, how many are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving?

how many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving drunk or a 16 year old just plain driving?

[gc1765]

how many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving drunk or a 16 year old just plain driving?

If you're comparing the dangers of driving vs. drinking, it doesn't make any sense to talk about drinking AND driving. I could just as easily ask you, how many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving drunk or a 16 year old just plain drinking?

What does make sense is to ask, how many people are killed by a 16 year old ONLY drinking vs. killed by a 16 year old ONLY driving.

[blueblood]

how many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving drunk or a 16 year old just plain driving?

If you're comparing the dangers of driving vs. drinking, it doesn't make any sense to talk about drinking AND driving. I could just as easily ask you, how many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving drunk or a 16 year old just plain drinking?

What does make sense is to ask, how many people are killed by a 16 year old ONLY drinking vs. killed by a 16 year old ONLY driving.

It makes sense that's part of the dangers of drinking. Car accidents happen to all age groups, thats like asking how many people are killed by a 34 year old driving and a 34 year old drinking.

This is off topic, it's not the government to take license away just for dropping out of school, that's insane.