The contribution of the poor

[B. Max]

name='marcinmoka' date='Jul 29 2007, 04:38 PM' post='240671']

I clearly am. Organs of the state "infringing" on private property. You advocate your right to defend your own property by any means, so therefore I am asking your thoughts on a real event. Furthermore, you seem to believe the government is out to get. So?

No you are away off topic. The question was ridiculous. It's like asking how do I know the sun came up.

Because in the civilized world, there are no rights without obligations.

Wrong again. Rights have always existed, have they always been recognized, no. Civilized World, that's a subjective term, I supose to go along with subjective obligations.

Thanks for clearing that up. Unfortunately, it was not the question. Does his un-rightful act deserve the punishment of death with you acting as judge, jury and executioner and completely ignoring the very fabric of our society, that being the legal structure?

I'm glad you said legal structure and not justice system, because in our legal structure our justice system is a revolving door. His act deserves what ever it takes to stop the act. The police would do no different. Although, as we progress along in our so called Civilized Society of leftist lunacy. It's not hard to imagine feel good obligations placed on the property owner, placing the blame on the property owner for the acts of thug. Hell, I'm just about tempted to sing a couple of verses of imagine, the theme song for the Civilized world.

[marcinmoka]

No you are away off topic. The question was ridiculous. It's like asking how do I know the sun came up.

Yes. Exactly the same thing as the principles of sensory perception.

Or maybe, just maybe, you hope this will blow over since you do not wish to go against your gut instinct, which also happens to be one that the vast majority of our fellow board members would find disgusting. Therefore, I shall ask once again (you've definitely sparked my curiosity). If you don't want to answer, don't answer, but do not play the readers for idiots and assume I threw an unrelated science trivia question out of left field.

Would you condone the murders of the 4 mounties shot in Alberta a few years back? You seem to advocate that the state, and all it's organs are simply out to trample on your rights and rob you, and that you should have the right (though apparently no obligations) to defend yourself and your property with as much firepower, and as much impunity as you wish.

Rights have always existed

And what are these rights? And where are they stated? Was it the angel Gabriel who whispered it into your ear? Even then, in all religious contexts, rights have also always been presented in concert with obligations. Absence of one voids the other.

His act deserves what ever it takes to stop the act

Sort of. Lest not we forget that the police are trained in such matters. Furthermore, they would only shoot if their lives, or the publics, are in danger. And most car thefts do not fall into that category. Whereas you just come across as angry and wishing for a high powered hand gun to shoot him.

Although, as we progress along in our so called Civilized Society of leftist lunacy.

E senor, usted viven en Caracas o Calgary? Yo no se.

Seeing as you hate our subjective, civilized Canada, out of curiosity, what nation is right wing and uncivilized enough for you?

P.S. Remember, everyone else is crazy, raving lunatics everyone but you!

[B. Max]

name='marcinmoka' date='Jul 30 2007, 12:11 AM' post='240734']

Yes. Exactly the same thing as the principles of sensory perception.

Or maybe, just maybe, you hope this will blow over since you do not wish to go against your gut instinct, which also happens to be one that the vast majority of our fellow board members would find disgusting. Therefore, I shall ask once again (you've definitely sparked my curiosity). If you don't want to answer, don't answer, but do not play the readers for idiots and assume I threw an unrelated science trivia question out of left field.

I have answered the question. Oh, you don't like the answer, tough.

Would you condone the murders of the 4 mounties shot in Alberta a few years back? You seem to advocate that the state, and all it's organs are simply out to trample on your rights and rob you, and that you should have the right (though apparently no obligations) to defend yourself and your property with as much firepower, and as much impunity as you wish.

Why would I condone the murders. What does it have to do with anything we're talking about. Government is trampling on peoples rights left and right in this country every day. What else is new.

And what are these rights? And where are they stated? Was it the angel Gabriel who whispered it into your ear? Even then, in all religious contexts, rights have also always been presented in concert with obligations. Absence of one voids the other.

No it wasn't Gabriel, it was his boss so to speak. If you don't know what your rights are, then you don't have any. As I know, so do I know what my rights are. Some basic rights are easily demonstrated. If I raise my hand to strike you, you will raise yours in defense. The framers of the US constitution understood the concept of certain basic inaliable rights quite well, and they new that they had to be put in a place where government couldn't get at them. Not that government couldn't trample on them, but so they couldn't get at them in an attempt to change them. They also believed that not all rights came from God, as Jefferson in one of his letters talked about negative and positive rights. Yet believed that other rights flowed from the basic God given rights.

What was the purpose of the US bill of rights?

Sort of. Lest not we forget that the police are trained in such matters. Furthermore, they would only shoot if their lives, or the publics, are in danger. And most car thefts do not fall into that category. Whereas you just come across as angry and wishing for a high powered hand gun to shoot him.

That's your unfounded opinion. I think I'm sufficiently trained in the matters of self preservation. There have been plenty of questionable shootings by cops, and just as many cases of people killed by stolen cars. But I will decide if I have to shoot.

P.S. Remember, everyone else is crazy, raving lunatics everyone but you!

Actually I never hated it until the secular progressives got their hands on the levers of power.

[marcinmoka]

I have answered the question

Correction. You avoided the question. You have made that choice, fine. But please do not pretend otherwise.

Why would I condone the murders.

Paranoia?

What does it have to do with anything we're talking about.

Well, you answered your own question in the phrase which follows. I just want to know the extent of your fears/beliefs?

Government is trampling on peoples rights left and right in this country every day.

No it wasn't Gabriel, it was his boss so to speak.

L'chaim Moshe, l'chaim.

If you don't know what your rights are, then you don't have any.

Very subjective.

If I raise my hand to strike you, you will raise yours in defense

But the son of Gabriel's boss, so to speak, instructed his followers otherwise.

Yet believed that other rights flowed from the basic God given rights.

So wait, so only those who have been informed directly by God, actually have rights. But than you are telling me that not all rights stem from God. You are arguing both sides of the fence.

I think I'm sufficiently trained in the matters of self preservation

You think? I am sure millions of Grand Theft Auto players feel so too!

But in the end, if you wish to protect yourself and use any force which tickles your fancy, so be it. But myself, I will gladly fork over my taxes to the men and women of our nations police forces, if it grants me protection from people like you who believe they are above the law, and exempt from the legal system.

Ciao.

Edited July 30, 2007 by marcinmoka

[B. Max]

Ciao.

Wait, are you going to answer the question.

What was the purpose of the US bill of rights?

[marcinmoka]

Actually I never hated it until the secular progressives got their hands on the levers of power.

Touche. It seems Tehran and Riyadh are the only places exempt from the poisonous grips of those damned Godless mongrels.

Wait, are you going to answer the question.

The day you answer all of mine.

Edited July 30, 2007 by marcinmoka

[B. Max]

Actually I never hated it until the secular progressives got their hands on the levers of power.

Touche. It seems Tehran and Riyadh are the only places exempt from the poisonous grips of those damned Godless mongrels.

Wait, are you going to answer the question.

The day you answer all of mine.

I did, and then some.

[B. Max]

But in the end, if you wish to protect yourself and use any force which tickles your fancy, so be it. But myself, I will gladly fork over my taxes to the men and women of our nations police forces,

I thought you wanted to shoot it up some junkie's arm.

[marcinmoka]

Well for your convenience, I can re-post the questions, and you can use the quoting function to re-post your answers, in a clear, unobstructed manner. So here it goes.

1)Would you condone the murders of the 4 mounties shot in Alberta a few years back? You seem to advocate that the state, and all it's organs are simply out to trample on your rights and rob you, and that you should have the right (though apparently no obligations) to defend yourself and your property with as much firepower, and as much impunity as you wish.

2)And what are these rights? And where are they stated?

3)Seeing as you hate our subjective, civilized crazy leftist Canada, out of curiosity, what nation is right wing and "uncivilized" enough for you?

4)So wait, so only those who have been informed directly by God, actually have rights. But than you are telling me that not all rights stem from God. You are arguing both sides of the fence.

5)Does his un-rightful act deserve the punishment of death with you acting as judge, jury and executioner? (i.e, is the concept of justice a personal matter, and should you be able to kill who ever you wish, as long as you simply "feel" they have wronged you?)

I do apologize for asking you to "re-post" your answers a nouveau, but I genuinely think it would be useful to clarify our respective queries and views.

[B. Max]

I do apologize for asking you to "re-post" your answers a nouveau, but I genuinely think it would be useful to clarify our respective queries and views.

I've responed to everyone of them. Now answer my question.

[marcinmoka]

I thought you wanted to shoot it up some junkie's arm.

But both are paranoid, deluded and dangerous enough to warrant that need. For all intents and purposes, when it comes to the safety of my family, I see no difference between a paranoid gun waving survivalist and a paranoid gun waving crack or smack head.

I've responed to everyone of them.

Than why not repost them. It is not a difficult task after all. Perhaps they make sense to you, in your head, but leaves the rest of us unsatisfied. If you asked me to do the same, I would. And once you do, I will gladly respond to your question.

Whereas if you want to play childish games, and lead me on a wild goose chase to make sense of your answers, unfortunately that is a pleasure I will not afford you.

What you seek is but a few right clicks away.

Edited July 30, 2007 by marcinmoka

[B. Max]

I thought you wanted to shoot it up some junkie's arm.

But both are paranoid, deluded and dangerous enough to warrant that need. For all intents and purposes, when it comes to the safety of my family, I see no difference between a paranoid gun waving survivalist and a paranoid gun waving crack or smack head.

Sounds like the kind of nonsense that would come out of Quebec. The great failed socialist experiment.

[Renegade]

But my post's purpose is to interpret that a person's contribution to a society is not directly proportion with the tax he paid to government. Contribution to the society is not equal to the contribution to the government.

A lot depends upon your definition of contribution and your definition of society.

You should distinguish between different concepts:

1. Contribution to the economy. A strip-joint may contribute to the economy but doesn't necessarily contribute to society.

2. Consumption of services relative to contribution. Arguably anyone contributing less in services than they contribute in taxes requires the other members of society to subsidize their cost. This is not just restricted to the poor, but the rich who through the use of tax breaks and loopholes may contribute less than they consume.

3. Contribution to the "greater good". In another thread I gave an example of the Canadian hockey team winning Olympic gold. It may not have a direct economic effect, yet contributes to the pride Canadians feel.

One way to guage the contribution of the poor is (as in your first example) to ask would society be better off without them? If the answer is "no" then why is it we bother to do anything to eliminate poverty.

[xul]

But my post's purpose is to interpret that a person's contribution to a society is not directly proportion with the tax he paid to government. Contribution to the society is not equal to the contribution to the government.

A lot depends upon your definition of contribution and your definition of society.

You should distinguish between different concepts:

1. Contribution to the economy. A strip-joint may contribute to the economy but doesn't necessarily contribute to society.

2. Consumption of services relative to contribution. Arguably anyone contributing less in services than they contribute in taxes requires the other members of society to subsidize their cost. This is not just restricted to the poor, but the rich who through the use of tax breaks and loopholes may contribute less than they consume.

3. Contribution to the "greater good". In another thread I gave an example of the Canadian hockey team winning Olympic gold. It may not have a direct economic effect, yet contributes to the pride Canadians feel.

One way to guage the contribution of the poor is (as in your first example) to ask would society be better off without them? If the answer is "no" then why is it we bother to do anything to eliminate poverty.

Thank you for instruction. In my opinion, a person's contribution to both society and economy are hardly counted quantitively. Perhaps the direct contribution to economy such as tax can be counted, but indirect contribution cannot be easily counted. For instance:

Lets assume that in Canada there is a small enterprise which has the members of a boss, a manger, two engineers(in charge of products design and development), two technicians(in charge of machine maintenance, $20/h), two foremen($16/h) and a group of low paying workers(in charge of operating machine, $8/h).

Now, if these workers disappeared (perhaps they all benefited from some "poverty eliminating" projects and got the $16/h jobs so they all resigned.) , what would happened?

First, the boss will move his business to a country such as China or India in where he can find low paying workers to sustain his business' operation.

Second, the foremen and the technicians will lose their job, though it seems the manager and the engineers would keep their job.

Finally, Canadian government can no longer get tax from the enterprise, Chinese or Indian goverment will get the tax.

So, Canada will lose a lot from those workers' leave. In other words, could we deduce that if they were here, they would contribute a lot to Canada?

Edited July 31, 2007 by xul

[Renegade]

Second, the foremen and the technicians will lose their job, though it seems the manager and the engineers would keep their job.

Finally, Canadian government can no longer get tax from the enterprise, Chinese or Indian goverment will get the tax.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You pose too simplistic a scenario. Perhaps because the manufacturing has been moved offshore, sales would increase due to increased cost advantage. This could also result in greater profitability of the company and thus increased tax revenue.

So, Canada will lose a lot from those workers' leave. In other words, could we deduce that if they were here, they would contribute a lot to Canada?

You draw the boundries of "society" to equate to "country". Why are the low-paid hourly workers in Canada any more deserving of jobs than those in China or India? In our global"society" isn't the free transfer of wealth to less advantaged individuals, regardless of where they live, a net benefit?

According to your scenario, it would be a logical conclusion that anti-poverty programs are not in the best interest of the economy as they lead to a disincentive to work.

[xul]

Second, the foremen and the technicians will lose their job, though it seems the manager and the engineers would keep their job.

Finally, Canadian government can no longer get tax from the enterprise, Chinese or Indian goverment will get the tax.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You pose too simplistic a scenario. Perhaps because the manufacturing has been moved offshore, sales would increase due to increased cost advantage. This could also result in greater profitability of the company and thus increased tax revenue.

To the owner of company and the employees who keeped the occupations, they will benefited from the business moving offshore. But to these guys who lost their occupations, the results are difference.

To the government and the country, if a business move away, it will lose the tax from this business and tax from consumptions of the employees employed by the business.

So, Canada will lose a lot from those workers' leave. In other words, could we deduce that if they were here, they would contribute a lot to Canada?

You draw the boundries of "society" to equate to "country". Why are the low-paid hourly workers in Canada any more deserving of jobs than those in China or India? In our global"society" isn't the free transfer of wealth to less advantaged individuals, regardless of where they live, a net benefit?

I didn't mean they deserving that. I just meant if they disappeared, a certain parts of others, such as the foremen, could lost their benefits.

According to your scenario, it would be a logical conclusion that anti-poverty programs are not in the best interest of the economy as they lead to a disincentive to work.

Unfortunately it is the fact. Why more and more west companies move their manufacturing business to China? Do they like communism or its corrupt officials? I guess they don't. They only like there are a lot of cheap labourers in China. Or we could think it in another way. If Chinese government adopts some anti-poverty programs and makes those poor chinese workers to gain a wage as those in Canada , Chinese economy increase must decline because all of those investors will go away.

Of couse, just as you have said, my model was to simplistic. If those unemployed people caused by the business moving offshore can shift their career to a high level successfully, developed countries will benefit from moving low paying jobs to developing countries. But if these people dropped into the poor and lied down on the welfare system, it might make the economy worse. These is why western politicians and economists always argue that China is a good factor or bad factor to west, I think.

Edited August 1, 2007 by xul

[Renegade]

To the owner of company and the employees who keeped the occupations, they will benefited from the business moving offshore. But to these guys who lost their occupations, the results are difference.

To the government and the country, if a business move away, it will lose the tax from this business and tax from consumptions of the employees employed by the business.

Just because the low-level jobs move offshore doesn't mean the business moves offshore. There are many examples of onshore businesses which manufacture onshore. In addition the government usually will collect consumption tax regardless of if the goods are manufactured offshore.

I didn't mean they deserving that. I just meant if they disappeared, a certain parts of others, such as the foremen, could lost their benefits.

While some have lost benefits, others gain beneifts. Net, net, when we allow free and open trade, it encourages the production in the location where it makes the most sense and gains the optimal benefit.

Unfortunately it is the fact. Why more and more west companies move their manufacturing business to China? Do they like communism or its corrupt officials? I guess they don't. They only like there are a lot of cheap labourers in China. Or we could think it in another way. If Chinese government adopts some anti-poverty programs and makes those poor chinese workers to gain a wage as those in Canada , Chinese economy increase must decline because all of those investors will go away.

Of couse, just as you have said, my model was to simplistic. If those unemployed people caused by the business moving offshore can shift their career to a high level successfully, developed countries will benefit from moving low paying jobs to developing countries. But if these people dropped into the poor and lied down on the welfare system, it might make the economy worse. These is why western politicians and economists always argue that China is a good factor or bad factor to west, I think.

In general you are right. The free movement of capital and goods is a good thing when looked at at a macro level, despite any micro-level disruptions.