# Welfare and Baby Bonuses - Our Goverment's Main Responsibilty?



## mo-litia (11 Feb 2005)

First of all, I've read 4 or 5 pages of the Political forum posts and couldn't find any similar topics; my apologies in advance to the moderators should this post cover ground already discussed!

My question is simple: I'd like to hear your opinions on what you feel a national government's primary responsibility to it's citizens is; along with your thoughts on how our current government is meeting (or abdicating) this responsibility.

Cheers


----------



## Rick_Donald (11 Feb 2005)

Education, defence and healthcare would all be looked after if our government would stop throwing money at useless social programs and commissions/studies into economic growth not to mention the feel good bleeding heart foundations that millions upon millions of taxpayer's dollars. This was all brought up during the last federal election campaign but Canadians still voted to waste taxpayer's money.


----------



## camochick (11 Feb 2005)

I agree that the only three things they should be responsible for is education,healthcare(this would include disabled persons, vets, etc) , and defense.  I think the government wastes way too much money on social spending. Why should hard working Canadians have to foot the bill for everyone else. Make education more affordable, bring in workfare and let the people help themselves. I see lots of disabled people who actually work hard for a living, why should we let perfectly able people sit at home and collect our taxes? The problem, IMHO in Canada is the lack of motivation by some of it's citizens. Why do something for yourself when the government can do it for you?


----------



## onecat (11 Feb 2005)

"This was all brought up during the last federal election campaign but Canadians still voted to waste taxpayer's money."

I'd agrue that Canadians did vote for change only our system still let the Liberals back in.   As first past post, is a out dated system and needs to be replaced with something more decomatic.   

The main problem I see is that conservative can't get past social issues, like gay marriage, and their too linked to christian right...   and it makes people who want change stay with the Liberals.   If the conservative could only stay the course and keep their polices limited to economics and how to run the country, it would much easier to vote for them. Polictics and religion shouldn't be mixed.  Another exmple would be Stockwell Day, saying durning the election he beleives planet is only 6000 years old. There is no need to bring that up, its his beleif, but he never made it clear that could let his religious beleive at home when he's running the country... and so the liberals win again because they don't let relgion run their party or create its policy.  The PC's were a much better choice the present conservatives.   If the conservatives ever to do get in, they need to run a few studies fingure out what programs are waste and what works and make major changes, without thinking of being re-elected.   They also need to go though each department and get rid of old dead wood that Liberals appointment to run the government, as its those un-elected managers that really make the polices works.


----------



## mo-litia (11 Feb 2005)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I agree that the government's responsibilities are many, with varying degrees of importance to the national interest. I think that I can speak for many of us when I state that our government does a reasonable job in meeting most of it's responsibilities but that it definitely needs to relvaluate the astronomical amount that it spends on it's bloated social programs in comparison to it's other ...more critical departments. I am not proposing that budgets be slashed (Although many could likely be reduced.), but rather that a serious, OBJECTIVE look be taken at the output, efficiency, and effectiveness of every department; including defence.

I think that, if a study about what our operational capabilities in the CF really are along with information on the effects that a neglected CF is now having on our international significance as a nation was given half the media coverage that the CBC gives to the latest feel good Liberal press opportunity, the ensuing public outrage would force the government to fix it's mistakes very quickly!

The thing that really angers me is that I feel that a government's most important responsibility, and the ultimate reason why we pay taxes, is to provide security and safety for every one of it's citizens.   Our government abdicated that responsibility decades ago. IMO, our social service programs won't do any of us any good if Canada ceases to exist because it was unable to counter foreign aggression.

To all of you out there who are content to suckle at the American teat: do you think the Americans would ever leave Canada if they had to send in their military to save our collective ass after years of successive US (and other allied) administrations repeatedly telling our government that our military readiness was becoming more and more pathetic with every round of cutbacks?   

A nation that can not or will not provide for the military protection of it's population has lost it's sovereignty.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2005)

Conservative-leaning people aren't the only ones who can't get past social issues.   When we go into the next federal election, pay close attention to who raises social issues most frequently and vocally.

I would not choose to allow the federal government to have anything to do with education.

Government's responsibility is to safeguard rights.   We (voters) are all government.   Someone who votes on the basis of moral issues or benefit programs is in effect saying he feels entitled to impose his values or help himself to the contents of your wallet.   I do not propose we leap headfirst into a libertarian frontier society, but people should stop hiding behind "government" when they make a grab for others' paycheques.


----------



## Stymiest (19 Feb 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> "This was all brought up during the last federal election campaign but Canadians still voted to waste taxpayer's money."
> 
> I'd agrue that Canadians did vote for change only our system still let the Liberals back in.   As first past post, is a out dated system and needs to be replaced with something more decomatic.
> 
> The main problem I see is that conservative can't get past social issues, like gay marriage, and their too linked to christian right...   and it makes people who want change stay with the Liberals.   If the conservative could only stay the course and keep their polices limited to economics and how to run the country, it would much easier to vote for them. Polictics and religion shouldn't be mixed.   Another exmple would be Stockwell Day, saying durning the election he beleives planet is only 6000 years old. There is no need to bring that up, its his beleif, but he never made it clear that could let his religious beleive at home when he's running the country... and so the liberals win again because they don't let relgion run their party or create its policy.  The PC's were a much better choice the present conservatives.   If the conservatives ever to do get in, they need to run a few studies fingure out what programs are waste and what works and make major changes, without thinking of being re-elected.   They also need to go though each department and get rid of old dead wood that Liberals appointment to run the government, as its those un-elected managers that really make the polices works.



You will find that the Conservative party is slowly changing the way it does things.   Right now the COnservative party is going through a very very big transition.   A new generation of conservatives is starting to break into the ranks who are a lot more left leaning with their social problems.   

I openly admit that I am a Conservative thinker, but I am also an Atheist.   I promote a very conservative policy when it comes to defence, economics, etc but I am very supportive of liberal social programs such as healthcare, gay marriage, etc.   

I think what the Conservative party needs to do if they want to win big is get a leader who isn't from Alberta(Where all the ultra right wing facists come from) such as Bernard lord from New Brunswick, and adopt a more moderate platform when it comes to social issues.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Feb 2005)

The longer you persist in waiting for the "perfect" conservative party, the less likely you will be able to break the grip of the Liberal party and its semi-permanent constituency of entitlement, or a coalition of Liberal/NDP/Bloc (all leaning toward welfare liberalism) parties.  And they all have their own morality they wish to impose.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And they all have their own morality they wish to impose.



The "imposition" since the 60s has been of a value system based on victimhood, "group rights" and entitlement. The so called social conservatives are attempting to draw a line in the sand, since they can reasonably point out that similar efforts in other countries (especially Europe) have had negative consequences. 

The other thing social conservatives (and Libertarians) hate is the use of appointed judiciaries to impose laws by fiat. The so called "Gay Marriage" legislation is being passed post ex facto by parliament, the courts have already indicated what they want. Notice how the electorate has been bypassed, supporters of "gay Marriage" know full well that if this was put to the popular vote, it would fail miserably. (In every US state where "Gay Marriage" has been put to the electorate, it has been soundly defeated. In the states where it is in effect, it was not legislated, but imposed by the States Supreme Court).

*Public and private morality can evolve without the imposition of laws and regulations by the government.* Their job is to act as the "night watchman", protecting us from physical and criminal assault


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2005)

Welfare and baby bonus are based on certain assumptions about human behavior. US welfare reform atacked different aspects of behavior, with encouraging results:



> *Lifting Up The People*
> From the November 29, 2004, issue of National Review.
> 
> By Robert Rector
> ...


----------



## Gunnar (24 Feb 2005)

Main responsibilities:

Armed Forces:  to protect us from foreigners trying to beat up on us.

Police:  To protect us from socially maladjusted people (those who opt out of society) trying to beat up on us.

Civil and Criminal Law courts:  to prevent people from beating up on eachother from within the country.

The only purpose of government is continuance of civilization.  We don't need welfare, health care, public roads etc. in order to maintain civilization.  All these additional things are "nice to haves" that ultimately become absorbed by the bureaucracy, thereby costing the common man more than if he had paid privately to support them.

Society consists of a bunch of people getting together, and based on common principles, agreeing that the use of force will be subject to mutually agreed-upon rules, thus leaving them free to get on with the business of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  To paraphrase, "it is for this reason that governments are instituted among men...."

When you have the government doing other things, you are allowing them to use their monopoly on force to enforce decisions that would not otherwise be unanimous.

Think of government as a club.  A bunch of people get together and say "hey, let's have a private club, with good rules so that we can exclude killers from our midst...we'll call it Society".  They get together, and form that Society.  It has police, law courts and a military.  It keeps the bad people out.  Then, due to the structure of the government they set up, a small minority (or even a majority) says "hey, let's change the rules of the club a bit...all the dues are going up, and we get "free" roads, health care and child care...of course, we can't afford everything, so we may have to cut back on police....".  People object, but at this point, Society is formed.  People are born into the club, and can't opt out without becoming criminals, because they've given up their right to the use of force to the State.  So all further social program implementations amount to a majority of people (or a minority of those in power) extorting resources from those who don't want to play their game any more, but are forbidden from leaving the club.  So power cliques form.  We call them political parties.  Most political parties don't clue into this problem, but instead (like cliques everywhere) seek to exploit someone different, instead of returning to the status quo of "let's all leave eachother alone, as long as nobody is injuring us".

So, the federal government's primary purpose in life is to "keep the bad people out".  However, being run by a clique, it has been busily engaged in making everyone who doesn't agree with the agenda of the day into de facto "bad people" if they try to opt out, or forcing them to pay for things they don't want.  Gun registry?  HRDC job creation?  Fat salaries for Mr. Dithers' staff?  Meanwhile, it has abdicated its primary purpose of "keeping the bad people out" by cutting the Canadian Military, destroying Customs' ability to patrol the ports, filling important government roles with politically correct (in-clique) personnel who do not advance the primary responsibilities of government & etc.

Under the original form of government, you could be a Socialist or a Nazi, and nobody would bother you.  You could form all sorts of cooperatives with like-minded people to do whatever you wanted...but you couldn't force anyone else to play your game because the State would stop you.  If people had been playing in your club and wanted to quit, they could (subject to any legal interpretation of contracts you signed--Law Courts)...because the State enforced the bare minimum of rules that everyone had agreed upon.  Nowadays, under a "democracy" that does more than enforce the bare minimums, you can be forced to give money to the State, so that it can WASTE IT, give it to the clique's friends, or use it to declare YOU a criminal.

Keep in mind that "Libertarian Land" needn't be the anarchy some think it would be.  Nothing stops you from forming insurance companies, farmer's co-operatives, credit unions, etc., etc.  Even today, some of the best organizations are still formed that way--except that only their members are forced to pay for them.  You want child care?  Well how about if the child care programme is staffed by people who have kids in the programme, and who actually care about the level of care that is provided?  Or would you prefer to have it staffed by faceless functionaries who are just filling a job classification, taking salaries voted to them by an equally uncaring (and in some cases, hostile) public at large?  Education, as taught by people who want their children to *read*, not as taught by bored professors with a pet theory on education to prove....imagine...responsive institutions, not faceless government bureaucracies...

Ah well, I'm done.  Someone asked, and this is what I believe.


----------



## dutchie (24 Feb 2005)

I agree that the core responsibilities of the Gov is to provide Defence, Police, and Courts. I also agree with Gunner's analogy about the club. I immediately thought of a Mess when I read that post.

What I don't agree with is the idea that unless it is one of those 3, the Gov shouldn't be involved. Those are basic requirements. We elect people to represent us and our interests, and not to sound naive and altruistic, if we don't like it, we should tell our reps (MPs). I suspect that most Canadians want to keep Gov run infastructure, Customs, EI, CPP, etc., so I wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2005)

I suspect most Canadians want to keep and adopt every program which offers them something at what they perceive to be the expense of others.  Not many people will stand up and say, "No, I could sure use it, but it's unfair to those who pay for it."  You shouldn't have to guess where that vector leads.


----------



## dutchie (24 Feb 2005)

I disagree Brad. That's why we have qualifying conditions for any gov assistance. If you want to discuss abuse of EI, Welfare, ect, fine, but I think the solution is enforcement of the established rules, re-evaluating the qualifying conditions, etc, not the termination of an otherwise legitimate program.


----------



## mo-litia (24 Feb 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> The only purpose of government is continuance of civilization.   We don't need welfare, health care, public roads etc. in order to maintain civilization.   All these additional things are "nice to haves" that ultimately become absorbed by the bureaucracy, thereby costing the common man more than if he had paid privately to support them.



Nicely said, Gunnar!


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2005)

Abuse of the system doesn't have to enter into it if the system itself is unjust.  EI is one of my pet peeves, but I'll try not to rant too much.  I don't consider it to be an insurance program; I consider it to be a wage subsidy.  A proper insurance program would assign benefits purely on the basis of earnings and have a uniform qualifying time.  Premiums should be assessed based on risk: the greater the likelihood of you being unemployed, the higher your premiums would be.

What we instead have is a system which cushions some employers against having to pay reasonable or satisfactory wages - a wage subsidy.

EI is a blatant handout, and people (and in fact identifiable regions of Canada) who benefit by it seem unwilling to say "no" and demand reform.

For anyone who cares to try, save yourself the trouble of trying to convince me that I have a duty to pay someone else to live in the location of his choosing, following the lifestyle of his choosing.  You can't.  If you want to fish or plant trees and spend 6 months in idleness, then either demand enough wages to cover yourself for the year or find complementary off-season employment.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2005)

New thread: "Welcome to the Libertarian Revolution!"


----------



## Gunnar (25 Feb 2005)

> What I don't agree with is the idea that unless it is one of those 3, the Gov shouldn't be involved. Those are basic requirements. We elect people to represent us and our interests, and not to sound naive and altruistic, if we don't like it, we should tell our reps (MPs). I suspect that most Canadians want to keep Gov run infastructure, Customs, EI, CPP, etc., so I wouldn't hold your breath.



But that's the point, eh?   Most Canadians want to keep the government run infrastructure...but not all.   So to the extent that you force these social programs on me, and force me to pay for them, you're misusing the first three powers.   If you only give me the "basic requirements", then anything above that is up to the interested parties to provide, and believe me, I'm not interested.

Customs doesn't really belong to your argument, BTW...it is a legitimate function of government, to keep the bad people (and and threats to national security) out...think of it as an arm of the military, or the legal system, a way to keep the club closed.

Basically, I don't support the rights of the majority to exploit me.   I agreed to submit certain rights to the government so I wouldn't get attacked or killed in my home by enemies foreign or domestic.   I don't recall being asked about whether or not I would like to give my money to Joe Welfare, artists who make $60,000 dresses out of Alberta beef, or spend exorbitant amounts of money on paintings that consist of three coloured lines....and yet somehow, they can do this with MY tax money, which I pay primarily for the privilege of being safe in my home.   I didn't ask for these other "privileges", and in fact view them as wasteful indulgences which steal my money away from things I'd rather spend it on...so why am I being forced to pay?   You want it?   You pay for it, like any other insurance policy.

Am I telling my representatives I don't like it?  Sure.  But somehow they seem to believe that the needs of the many (votes) outweigh the needs of the one...and the logical extension of that argument is legal gang rape...Society was formed so that the strong, or the many, couldn't exploit the few or the weak...yet here you are, using my voluntary compliance to exploit me further.  Seems kinda self-defeating, doesn't it?


----------



## Gunnar (25 Feb 2005)

> New thread: "Welcome to the Libertarian Revolution!"



Can we all adopt funky accents?   Yell "Viva la Revolution!"   Get T-shirts with Che Guevara  Ayn Rand on them?


----------



## dutchie (25 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> EI is one of my pet peeves, but I'll try not to rant too much.   I don't consider it to be an insurance program; I consider it to be a wage subsidy.   A proper insurance program would assign benefits purely on the basis of earnings and have a uniform qualifying time.   Premiums should be assessed based on risk: the greater the likelihood of you being unemployed, the higher your premiums would be.
> 
> What we instead have is a system which cushions some employers against having to pay reasonable or satisfactory wages - a wage subsidy.
> 
> ...



There are problems with the EI system, and I feel you are not incorrect in your criticism here, but I think you are not necessarily 100% correct either. Yes, I suppose some employers, mainly of seasonal low-wage employees, do benefit from their employees collecting EI in the off-season. I don't think it's as rampant as you suggested. I agree that EI is not really a true insurance program, it is a social program. It's premiums are not true premiums, they are a tax. I feel that the biggest problem with EI is fraud and the ever-growing surplus. There just aren't enough   fraud investigators to catch the many people who are stealing our money. The fraud consists of fraudulant Records of Employment, bogus job searches (or none at all), working while on claim, on vacation while on claim, etc. As far as the surplus goes, the Budget announced included a reduction in premiums to reflect the fact that less and less is being paid out of the EI fund every year. 

I think that seasonal workers should be pushed into retraining. Give them skills to get an off-season job, get agreements with employers for the off-season work so that the employee is committed to going back there. 

Also, push the Self-employment Program. This program gives training in how to run a business, and financial assistance in starting up a business, provided the applicant meets certain criteria. This also gets people off the EI cycle.


Gunnar:

Where I agree with you:

'artists who make $60,000 dresses out of Alberta beef, or spend exorbitant amounts of money on paintings that consist of three coloured lines....'

I'm was referring to the more traditional programs, not this circus act you've mentioned.

Where I disagree:

'I didn't ask for these other "privileges", and in fact view them as wasteful indulgences which steal my money away from things I'd rather spend it on...so why am I being forced to pay?   You want it?   You pay for it, like any other insurance policy.

Am I telling my representatives I don't like it?   Sure.   But somehow they seem to believe that the needs of the many (votes) outweigh the needs of the one...and the logical extension of that argument is legal gang rape...Society was formed so that the strong, or the many, couldn't exploit the few or the weak...yet here you are, using my voluntary compliance to exploit me further.   Seems kinda self-defeating, doesn't it?'

That's democracy. You have a vote. Those programs were democratically proposed, debated, and passed in the Commons by your elected MP (or MLA in the case of welfare).


----------



## Infanteer (25 Feb 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> That's democracy. You have a vote. Those programs were democratically proposed, debated, and passed in the Commons by your elected MP (or MLA in the case of welfare).



Does this automatically justify the programs?  Where does the line get drawn on the "Tyranny of the Majority"?  Can a reasonable claim be made that it is okay to enforce upon the public an ideological system based upon a failing and easily abused centralized socialist bureaucracy while at the same time condemning other coercive government measures for "public good" such as putting an immigration tax on Asian immigrants or keeping Natives segregated, economically and socially, in what amounts to third-world conditions in some places?


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2005)

Democracy, absent vigilant respect on the part of the majority for the natural human rights (eg. life, property, freedoms of conscience), is merely tyranny of the majority.

Should we have a democracy which respects minority rights, or a self-indulgent tyranny of majorities?


----------



## dutchie (25 Feb 2005)

Re: "Can a reasonable claim be made that it is okay to enforce upon the public an ideological system based upon a failing and easily abused centralized socialist bureaucracy while at the same time condemning other coercive government measures for "public good" such as putting an immigration tax on Asian immigrants or keeping Natives segregated, economically and socially, in what amounts to third-world conditions in some places?"
I'm a little unclear on what your saying here. I got your description alluding to EI (or other Social Program), ie- idelogical system...but I don't get the connection to the Asian 'Head Tax', segregation, etc. One is clearly rascist, one is a Government social program.

Re:"Democracy, absent vigilant respect on the part of the majority for the natural human rights (eg. life, property, freedoms of conscience), is merely tyranny of the majority."


Since when is "freedom to not pay EI premiums" a human right? In what country can individual constituents manually direct where, and where not, their tax dollars go? If you feel that it is your human right not to pay EI premiums, launch a Charter lawsuit, or become self-employed. 

Re:"Should we have a democracy which respects minority rights, or a self-indulgent tyranny of majorities?"

The first one. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


----------



## Gunnar (25 Feb 2005)

I think it has more to do with the price of tea in Boston, actually.   

Infanteer is saying "If we can force socialism and a government bureacracy on people, why can't we force racism on them too?   What's the difference?   If it's OK to force people to do stuff, where do we draw the line?"



> Since when is "freedom to not pay EI premiums" a human right?



Since always, actually.   See, rights are things which are required by your nature as a human being.   Freedom of action implies freedom to dispose of one's personal property, including wealth, as one sees fit, particularly as one gains it through their own effort.   For the majority to take my money to spend on programs I don't want, support, or agree with is to deliberately force me to act counter to my best interest.   As I said before, legal gang rape.   The smallest minority is the individual...

Since when is the freedom not to be molested a fundamental right?

Note, I'm not saying that I should somehow be exempt from EI premiums and public taxes, and yet still enjoy these "benefits".   I'm saying that Canadians should be exempt from EI premiums and publically imposed taxes, and that THOSE WHO WANT THEM can pay for them, and only those who have paid for them can colllect them.   That's how insurance works.  I'm willing to pay my invasion and public molestation premiums...I'm just annoyed that there's only one policy being offered, and it includes the cost for all these other things I never asked for or wanted....


----------



## Infanteer (25 Feb 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I'm a little unclear on what your saying here. I got your description alluding to EI (or other Social Program), ie- idelogical system...but I don't get the connection to the Asian 'Head Tax', segregation, etc. One is clearly rascist, one is a Government social program.



Both are founded upon ideological convictions (be it "Anglo-superiority" or "Socialist-egalitarianism") and wish the government to use the coercive powers of the government to further their goals.   What I was getting at is the fact that you justified our social programs because an elected government put them into place - although I hate to use it as an example, remember that the NSDAP was elected.


----------



## dutchie (25 Feb 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> Infanteer is saying "If we can force socialism and a government bureacracy on people, why can't we force racism on them too?   What's the difference?   If it's OK to force people to do stuff, where do we draw the line?"
> 
> Freedom of action implies freedom to dispose of one's personal property, including wealth, as one sees fit, particularly as one gains it through their own effort.   For the majority to take my money to spend on programs I don't want, support, or agree with is to deliberately force me to act counter to my best interest.   As I said before, legal gang rape.   The smallest minority is the individual...
> 
> Note, I'm not saying that I should somehow be exempt from EI premiums and public taxes, and yet still enjoy these "benefits".   I'm saying that Canadians should be exempt from EI premiums and publically imposed taxes, and that THOSE WHO WANT THEM can pay for them, and only those who have paid for them can colllect them.   That's how insurance works.   I'm willing to pay my invasion and public molestation premiums...I'm just annoyed that there's only one policy being offered, and it includes the cost for all these other things I never asked for or wanted....



I also would love to pick and choose the 'programs and services' that I will pay for, but that's not how the system works. And seeing as no country works that way, I suspect it is impossible to do. 

If "freedom of property" includes optiing out of EI premiums, then by extension you could opt out of taxes, which will never happen. "I'm sorry Mr. Gunnar, you can't drive on this road, you don't pay taxes. And no, you can't appeal it as the appeal board is government run, and because you don't pay taxes, you can't appeal. You can call, oh, sorry, you don't have a phone.....can't mail either......you could walk? But make sure you stay on private property, and not on crown land, you didn't pay for the upkeep.....would like to arrange payment of back taxes for the last year? Here's your bill."

It seems you want to live in some kind of free-market capitalist utopia, and I can't argue that. But you will have to find that utopia elsewhere, or start changing the minds of around 20 million people.

Oh, and you draw the line when you start violating human rights. Recognized human rights, not human 'wants'.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2005)

The easiest place to draw a line is where safeguarding negative rights ends, and we enter the realm of positive rights.  But, while we may surely dispute the number of programs we need which provide benefits, the key should always be that the benefits are at least in principle universal - for example, education and health insurance.

If the injustice of transferring money from my pocket to the pocket of able-bodied adults or to businesses which can't stand on their own isn't self-evident, I doubt any infringement of negative rights will be thought unjust by those who fear for their security, whether it be economic or against the threat of some yet-to-be-encountered analogue of "yellow peril".


----------



## dutchie (26 Feb 2005)

Although I don't 100% agree with your view, I can't argue with that logic.

Ei, for instance, is universal. Any Canadian who works in insurable employment pays premiums, and if they are unemployed (through no fault of their own, to care for a newborn/adopted child, or to care for a gravely ill family member), they can collect temporary financial benefits. That is universal. Yes, it is a 'positive' right, and there are flaws with that system (including fraud), but it is a 'right' that most Canadians want to keep. 

The Self-employment Program is designed to improve to chances of a new business succeeding. It is very temporary support, and that support is mainly educational, rather than financial.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Although I don't 100% agree with your view, I can't argue with that logic.
> 
> Ei, for instance, is universal. Any Canadian who works in insurable employment pays premiums, and if they are unemployed (through no fault of their own, to care for a newborn/adopted child, or to care for a gravely ill family member), they can collect temporary financial benefits. That is universal. Yes, it is a 'positive' right, and there are flaws with that system (including fraud), but it is a 'right' that most Canadians want to keep.



The concept of "rights" is being so bent out of shape that it is almost meaningless. The NDP would have you believe there is a "right" to a double latte with milk, while the Liberals operate under the assumption they have a "right"  to spend your money.

The American Consitiution has a very limited list of rights enumerated, "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness" being the most important, and the bill of rights:



> U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
> www.archives.gov 	February 27, 2005
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> ...



Notice articles 9 and 10 are very clear that any power or right not ennumerated in the Constitution is automatically "your" right, and one the Government cannot infringe upon. Our own constitutional scholars gave the 1981 document so many weasal words and "outs" that effectively the government holds "all" rights, a situation which is unfortunatly common throughout the world.


----------



## Gunnar (28 Feb 2005)

> Oh, and you draw the line when you start violating human rights. Recognized human rights, not human 'wants'.



You'll get no argument from me there.   And I *am* proposing a capitalist country.   But you asked our government's main responsibility.   I outlined that, and then told you why.

As far as which roads I am allowed to drive on, it isn't a matter of opting out of road *taxes*.   It's a matter of privatising roads, then you can pay the toll or not.   As far as opting out of taxes, yes, that too is an option...but by opting out of taxes, you opt out of the things taxes pay for...If you get killed in your home, police will find the perpetrator and arrest him because he could endanger other people who do pay their taxes.   If you get swindled and lose your house because you signed a bad contract, you won't be able to sue.   You need to pay for law courts first...and since you didn't, you can't.

I'm not proposing today's system with opt-out clauses.   I proposing the bare minimums with freedom to organise apart from the government to provide other things that are of interest to you and people of like minds.   I really shouldn't have to convince people to take their hands out of my pocket, because a "Majority" thinks its a good idea to spend my money.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law a second time, a majority thought it was a good idea to disenfranchise Jews once.   Money they'd worked for, houses they'd purchased, art masterpieces they'd acquired--all were taken by "the State", because the state was held to be more important to the individual.   Their rights, money, dignity and lives were sacrificed to that ideal.   In fact, the ultimate expression of "the majority needs your money to fund something you don't want" is taking someone's money not to fund welfare programs, but to build the concentration camp in which they will be excecuted.   The difference is a matter of degree.

I think we've pretty much exhausted the polemical aspects of this discussion.   You understand me, you simply don't agree with me...and since any argument of this nature ultimately has to rest on shared principles (we don't), I think we're about done.

But now you know what I think of our government's primary responsibilities, with a side-dish of why.     ;D  Whether or not you agree with the ultimate conclusions of my argument, if you accept the premise that these things are the *primary* responisibilities of government, you can see just how our current governments are NOT living up to their responsibilities.


----------



## dutchie (28 Feb 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> I think we've pretty much exhausted the polemical aspects of this discussion.   You understand me, you simply don't agree with me...and since any argument of this nature ultimately has to rest on shared principles (we don't), I think we're about done.
> 
> But now you know what I think of our government's primary responsibilities, with a side-dish of why.     ;D   Whether or not you agree with the ultimate conclusions of my argument, if you accept the premise that these things are the *primary* responisibilities of government, you can see just how our current governments are NOT living up to their responsibilities.



Agreed. We actually DO agree on one thing: The Governement's primary responsibility is policing, a judicial system, and of course National Defence. Our differring opinion is on what (if anything comes after that.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2005)

> *The Beauty of the Flat Tax*
> It's fair and it works.
> 
> On his trip to Slovakia last week, President Bush praised Prime Minister Dzurinda for the flat-tax system he instituted last year. Bush noted that the new tax regime simplified tax collection, attracted foreign capital, and created economic vitality and growth.
> ...



Lower taxes and more revenue; treating ALL taxpayers equally, now there is a model for Canada.


----------



## Gunnar (2 Mar 2005)

Viva la revolucion!  Viva Las Vegas!


----------



## mo-litia (2 Mar 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> Viva la revolucion! Viva Las Vegas!



LMAO! Thanks, it was getting too serious in here! ;D


----------

