Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!


Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Review it! I think I'm cool, but I think alot of things....
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
Review it! I think I'm cool, but I think alot of things....
Posted: 8/12/2012 5:33:48 PM
Bring it on. Criticize me, deny me and otherwise insult me. I can take it. As a matter of face, I want to hear it.

I'm batting like a 1/10 on this site so far. Unless it's my pictures, it must be my profile. I message with witty and engaging comments, but I'm not creepy. So, I don't get it. Girls say they want a relationship, but no reply.

Am I hard to look at? LOL I think I'm average looking...
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 54 (view)
What gives one person the desire and determination of ten people?
Posted: 1/15/2009 11:49:38 PM

Once when some crazy nieghbours and a few cops were going to shoot
the very bear that harmed my dog...i rambo'd it threw the back woods
to stand between them and the bear.....rambling god knows what till they

That's not determined. That's crazy.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 53 (view)
What gives one person the desire and determination of ten people?
Posted: 1/15/2009 12:21:18 AM
One person might be ambitious about making money while another cares more about personal relationships. When we see the success of the money maker, which is easily identified since wealth is a number, we would say he is "driven". However, it is harder to gauge the success of the one who cares about personal relationships without knowing him, thus he is not recognized as being as determined as the money maker. Maybe it's all relative to what you're looking for, and we're all for the most part equally passionate, but we value different things?
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 36 (view)
The Rise of the Corporations
Posted: 11/10/2007 10:41:36 PM

Early days of industrailzation Untied States used to tarrifs to build transportation links like canels, and railroads , and subidize industries that in the hopes they can take on industries from England later on. Being dependant on imported goods all the time is not good economy policy. Its complex, and convuted economics anyways, and free markets will work fine with right stimulus given from goverment incentives, and harmony of intrestests between worker, and producer. Any idoits would sign the Koyoto treaty as third world countries because industrailziation and moderization gets cleaner as you become a wealther country. China eviroment will clean up after its economy is developed and efficent engouh to devote time and resouces to it.

The problem with forcing the hand of economic development prematurely is that it is an oxymoron. You see, anything that requires a privileged treatment from the state, through grants, incentives or legislations, only requires it because the entity is trying to fool the laws of supply and demand. The laws of S&D always apply, no matter what product or service is being sold. So, if an entity cannot prosper within an unintervened economy, why should intervention even be considered? If an idea or proposal truly has potential, there will always be investors ready to gamble. Unfortunately, our governments have offered the easy way out to some idea makers, and we all pay for it in the long run.

Tarrifs and subsidies to the early methods of transportation, like you mentioned, cannot absolutely be proven to have improved our economy or quality of life. Automobiles would have been more in demand in the early days if they were more reliable than a horse, and could go faster with a smoother ride and be maintained for a price that was cheaper than horse food. So, did subsidies to automakers of that time make automobiles more in demand? No. All that was achieved was the ability for automakers to sell at a price that perhaps they could not have sold at before. Had subsidies not been handed out to automakers, they would have been forced to build a better vehicle, one that was more in demand, you see. So by giving these grants to automakers we actually succeeded in degressing the quality of our automobiles, and less effort was required to invent improvements on them. Hence, our quality of life was stimied in this instance.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 33 (view)
The Rise of the Corporations
Posted: 11/9/2007 11:11:02 PM
etownboy How do you reach the conclusion that lack of Government regulation over corporations is the is some rational answer?
If There were no regulations we would in fact be wholly subject to totalitarian corporations.

Because no corporation, business, free market entrprise or otherwise can force you to buy their products, and the preceeding entities only maintain strength by selling their good or service at a mutually profitable cost between itself and the consumer (provided there is no government involved).

It is only when government involves itself into the affairs of the economy that economic hardships are sure to ensue.

The use of taxes is one of the government’s favorite ways to make its presence known in the economy. While this method seems blatantly obvious, many of the ways the government uses the money collected by taxation is not. Some of the money it takes is used to fund other programs designed to “protect” consumers and to “create” jobs. Because of the money taken away from the consumer through taxes, there is less money movement in the economy. This money movement is what creates jobs in the economy. “So, each person’s money lost to taxes helps fail to create their part of a job” .

Economic interventions common in modern governments include targeted taxes, targeted tax credits, minimum wage laws, union shop rules, contracting preferences, direct subsidies to certain classes of producers, price supports, price caps, production quotas, import quotas, and tariffs. -Wiki.

All of the above, in any circumstance, only succed in negative time. They mitigate the damage of one economic effect in perhaps an unintervened economy, albeit a real and true threat, but replace that threat with a more costly alternative. The alternative is always more costly simply because of all the energy spent on implementing, supervising and enforcing the new law or procedure that is designed to reduce the damage. This, once combined with the new law that only succeds in spreading the imposing economic threat around, like butter on toast, to a larger congregation of receivers does indeed reduce the damage per receiver, giving it only the illusion of a cure. The truth remains that the cost of the threat or damage has not dissapeared, but has only been moderated because more entities are taking smaller shares of the burden, and now an even greater whole burden than before due to the extra costs associated. This happens in every case with all of the interventions mentioned.

This ties in to the original question, and my original post, because government intervention encourages business small and large to request other government intervention to alleviate the effects of the original intervention in an attempt to "level the playing field". The ultimate goal of the interventionists is an altruistic one, sure, but the only fair level playing field is one that doesn't have to be leveled. So, intervention is a self feeding machine, because intervention sets up the economy to require even more intervention, and we are left with a confused middle that tries to favour all sides and hurts all sides in the process.

The only cure to this conundrum is the abolishment of government power.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 31 (view)
The Rise of the Corporations
Posted: 11/8/2007 11:59:48 PM
Great post.

So, let's start a discussion on corporations, and their effect on capitalism and democracy.

Are these corporations the source of progress, or the source of the downfall of capitalism itself ?

Have they become too powerful and controlling, including now having their own armies of mercenaries ?

Why do we allow corporations to have such rights, and not others in society ?

Let the discussion begin.....

It is my belief that individual corporations each have the functional goal of earning and maintaining profits. This agenda is self serving to the individual corporation indeed, but is also undoubtedly harmonious with society as a whole since mega corporations, and even smaller businesses, succeed in making our lives a little easier and more convienient by following these rules. I for one don't want to imagine a life without Wal-Mart or oil (or alternative fuels). And most of these corporations started out as a small business that continually expanded to meet the needs of the desiring public, making them mega chains around their respective continent(s) or more. The idea of corportate profit is double-serving, the higher the profits, the more potential for undercutting competition, therefore the higher potential for consumer savings.

So, are you asking if corporations, in the worldly sense, are to blame for being able and allowed to maximize profits, or are you attacking the individuals that comprise the organizations? Whatever you're answer here, it seems to me that you're dipute is about their ability to collude with the governments of nations to meet their agendas. As you can see, the common denominator in this predicament is, of course, the governments of nations. Enterprises are only capable of profiting, and therefore suited to it, due to the styles of governments we have in reign. If government had less power, less ability to tamper with the economy the way it does, would corporate strangleholds on the state be an issue at all? The obvious answer is no, and therefore hypothetically corporate profits could be attained in a more "wholesome" manner, subjective to the opinion of the opinion's bearer.

So, is government to blame? No, I think it goes one step further, because the government in power is only a product of it's voters (assuming ballots are accurate and not tampered with). So, the people need to take away government power to solve this dilemma, and only then will your riddle be solved, as it can never be cured with current styles of rule we have today.

Vote Libertarian!

That is all.

P.S. Sorry if it seems like I was hijacking your insightful thread to proslethyze my own agenda, but I truly believe that a lack of government power is the only remedy to this and many other societal-governmental conundrums.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 104 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/8/2007 10:59:04 PM
Who said UHC was "free"....?
Sure as hell wasn't yours truly.

Yours truly said:

...I should know...went for physio on my knees for several months.
ALL under UHC/AHC.

You made it sound like it's as close to free as it can be in the previous statement.

So you do realize that you get charged up the ying-yang for this "free" healthcare through devious and underhanded methods, yet you continue to proslethyze it as a fair system, and one that isn't "raping" you. Why?
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 97 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/8/2007 12:26:05 AM
Was at the Foothills in Calgary yeeeaaaarrs ago.

NOTHING is "Free" is paid for through taxes and whatever add on programs you choose[ and pay into through the various government programs available} . However the process is not designed to rape people in the manner the US system is set up.

The physio angle being blown out of proportion is another ..
~*~*~REd Herring*~*~*~

What you just said there doesn't make any sense to me. I clearly provided you with proof that you still have to pay OUT OF POCKET (did you get that?), even in our free healthcare society. Why do you have a problem with this?

You're only getting raped when you're told something is free, but you actually have to pay for it through as many mediums as you do in the Alberta Healthcare Program, which is disguised as being cheaper than self treatment, but clearly and logically cannot be.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 96 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/8/2007 12:21:05 AM

In the USA many people with chronic conditions skipped medications, did not see a doctor when sick, or did not obtain recommended care and the reason is COST.

People with low income do NOT get Preventive Health since they can afford it and only when they are VERY sick go to an emergeny room for treatment which is very expensive

Yes, they can't afford it because they are burdened with the expense of healthcare taxes.

So, you would rather be forced to pay for helathcare just in case you become ill, rather than save 100% of your money which won't be mismamaged? That is a sad state of mind indeed. Furthermore, should you not have to use those savings for an unfortunate event, they may be passed on to your next of kin who may be able to use it for their better being. Don't you think this is the more logical course of action?
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 71 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/4/2007 10:58:34 AM
...I should know...went for physio on my knees for several months.
ALL under UHC/AHC.

I too underwent the same kind of treatment as I was wheelchair confined for 3 months after ripping the cartilage off my kneecaps in an MVA. I was driving really dangerously and way over the legal limit for alchohol consumption when my car hit that lightpost at about 140 km/h. What a stupid place to put a lightpost, lol. (We've all done things in our youth that we're not proud of, and this would be mine. I thank God everyday that I was the only one injured.) But I can use this to drive home a point.

First of all, I'm from Alberta too and I remeber paying fees for that physio which was at the builiding next to the U of A hospital. So either you are lying to us, or there will always be unlimited "administrative" costs to everything that is supposedly free in a state funded program like AHC. So, even when we receive free healthcare, the expenses from the actual treatment are just deflected to other registration fees and administrative costs and such, which may fool the average person by looking better on paper since they're not actually "paying for the service". And, I don't think you're lying to us, by the way.

Secondly, are you comfortable in knowing that all of my operations were subsidized with your income, despite my obvious atrocity and complete negligence?

In looking back on the situation I wonder if I would've acted the same way if I knew that I would actually be responsible for my own medical costs, instead of knowing that it wouldn't really matter. It really wouldn't matter because everything would be taken care of by big brother and it would turn out to be a 3 month holiday with some mild discomfort, the way it actually did. I can't rewrite the past, but I'm pretty sure the little voice in the back of my head would have been alot louder, and I probably would not have done the things I did.

With that in mind, perhaps the best form of preventive medicine, the topic of our discussion, is a system where the individual is responsible for his own health, and not entitled to free cures. If we all agree that the ounce of prevention is worth the pound of cure, then I'm sure most of us would pay that extra attention to our health, especially when it means that paying a little money for checkups and vaccines means saving alot of money when the illness is prevented. And in doing so, we would surely become the healthiest nation in the world.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 42 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/1/2007 10:37:15 PM

Why don't you Google Wal-Mart for shitz and giggles...and see who is one of the strong promoters of UHC?

Please elaborate, I wasn't able to find what you sent me to find. Can you provide a link?

I know that Wal-Mart has some employee benefits that help pay for healthcare costs, but I'm not too sure exactly how they work it. Is this what you're referring to?
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 36 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/30/2007 11:51:42 PM
there are many competing economic theories

So why do you disregard them?

So here, find me a country with a public healthcare system in the industrialized world, that spends more per capita on healthcare than the American system.

Well, I did take a long look at the graphs and charts, and yes, clearly it states that the U.S. spends more 'per capita' on it's health care. I don't disagree with you on that. I could not find a clear answer to my next question though, which is whether those figures are concluded specifically based on government spending, or if they include all costs, private or otherwise. The answer to that changes the perspective somewhat.

Also, there seems to be a direct relationship between the average wealth of a nation and their spending on healthcare. This proves to me that if the country has it, they'll spend it, which means spending money on the issue is not entirely the answer, but it seems most people on this thread seem to think it is.

Another question that comes to mind is whether these stats include all of the recent immigrants from poorer countries that don't even have access to some of the basic care technologies we have. If so, and if the USA is a leader in the stat of landing immigrants ( #8 in legals and probably higher in illegals), how many of them did not receive necessary medical attention in the past, leading to expensive treatments and premature deaths? This has to be considered as a factor.

Yet another factor is the dollar itself. Who's dollar are they basing it on? An American dollar is more easily parted with to an American than a Canadian dollar is to a Canadian simply because things cost less in America than in most, if not all other countries. I know this is a weak argument by itself, but all of these little factors (and more that have been left unmentioned) that aren't considered in these comparisons could make a big difference.

The bottom line is this. If the USA is indeed the most lavish spender on tax money funded health care in the world, than Americans have the most to gain by eliminating public funded health care entirely. Right? Since this would mean that there would be even more money in every Americans pocket to self provide for their own health, and as I've said before and I'll say it again, the individual is far more aware of their health needs than the bottomless tax feeding state is and the individual can therefore allocate their own expenses more appropriately.

The idea of preventive health care is a great one, I was never against that. I'm only against the idea of your preventive health care being paid for by me. You see, you should be the only one in charge of you, and none of us should have to defeat our own buying power by allowing the unfrugal governement to decide where our spending goes, and then taking a healthy chunk of that for themselves as compensation for their poor decisions and wasteful management of our money.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 31 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:08:53 AM
So which is it?

For one simple reason, in the one first world nation that doesn't have government healthcare, the government spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world


January 2007.
Canada government healthcare expenditure per capita: 2,998
USA government healthcare expenditure per capita: 5,771

So now is your position that the US government spends too much on healthcare, or that we don't spend enough? I'm confused, because you've really shown me nothing more than more ammo for my argument against state spending. What you really need to look for is a comparison between government spending in a fully subsidized state versus the spending allocated in a fully privatized state by insurance companies or otherwise with no government healthcare to compete with, in a first world country. You'll also have to consider medical bills, which will be cheaper when compared against the same procedure at a state funded level.

It's not that somebody get's paid, it's about what systems are more efficient in particular sectors. Namely healthcare.

So what historical knowledge do you have that supports this belief that healthcare is more efficient when it is tax money funded?

Oooooh I get it, education is a tool of those people that don't agree with you. So you go by your gut?

You see, it's about what I, me, myself spend, or am forced to spend, now, versus what I would spend if I was self providing. That's all I need to care about.

An Economist will tell you how the economy works, a business person will tell you how they make money, and will tell you whatever it takes for them to make more money.

An economist, according to you, knows all about how the economy works, which suggests that they should know all about how money works, however I don't know of anybody who got rich being an economist only. Where are all the help wanted adds for "economists"? A business person makes money because they actually understand how money works, and they can calculate risk. This is why I'd listen to what they have to say, and not what some student thinks he knows.

a business person will tell you how they make money, and will tell you whatever it takes for them to make more money

So I guess if they said that they were pro-privatization of healthcare then that would just be a ploy to make more money? Well, they and you would be right, but I guess you would rather spend more money than you have to, and would rather not listen to proven individuals who know about their money, because a first year economics prof. told you what was in the curriculum.

Actually it doesn't, it relies on extracting premiums, minimum pay outs for treatment, and rejection of anyone with pre existing health concerns that might cost the company.

Tell that to the people who have cromes disease but can't get the proper prescription in Canada because of unecessary government regulations. I know a person that has to get their treatment from abroad, through private means.

Going by your gut on large issues is never a good idea.

Neither is blindly following others.

Don't claim education is propoganda and then claim I'm refusing to see the big picture. Worse you've now shown yourself to be actively hostile to the process of learning.

AHHH, not learning.... my worst enemy. Don't accuse me of being some caveman with a vendetta against books just so you can appear to win you argument in front of these people.

A student who pays $20,000 in tuition is forced to believe what they are told at school, no one can blame them for that. It would be a very difficult mental process to pay that much money and then have the audassity to question what is being taught to them.

You don't know anything about natural monopolies

Naturally, I don't know anything other than what I have to pay for things. You still haven't proven to me that taxes other than healthcare bills aren't linked to healthcare spending, because you can't.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 29 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/10/2007 1:38:11 AM

in the one first world nation that doesn't have government healthcare, the government spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world.

So, where is your proof of this?

You state this clame again, yet you can't back it up.

Charles, how do you suppose that something that has to be payed for by somebody gets paid? I don't need to be a first year e.s. to prove this to you.

Your viewpoint is simply in error, in most cases the private system is in fact more efficient, there is no argument on that, but a first year economics student will tell you that not all industries function in this manner.

A first year student will be able to tell you what he's been told in one year. In fact, schools are one of the many propoganda vehicles for socialist causes anyway, so anything a first year student tries to proslethyze to me will already be at a loss.

What would a one man economical superpower, like a Ray Kroc, or a founder of Wal-Mart or a Bill Gates tell me, is what I'd be more interested in hearing, since they clearly have a better understanding of money than you or I.

I find it amusing that you don't see how health effects the protection of person.

And I find it amusing that you still want to think that a giant unaccountable state controlled operation has your best health in mind, as opposed to a corporation that is accountable to it's customers and actually relies on your health for it's means of profitable gain.

Which is why the average Canadian has a 24% income tax at the federal level.

And I suppose you're "okay" with that, even if it were true.

What about provincial and municipal levels? Those are tax generating too, you know. Why do you consistently refuse to see the big picture. It is not okay that they nickel and dime you to death just because it looks better on paper, because in the end they are still getting nearly half of your money (on average). And, unfortunately we have a graduating tax system which actually makes the people that employ us pay even more to the government, which hinders the employers ability to pay me fairly, and instead you and I have to settle for less than we're worth. We've been stimied from every angle by our "generous" governement that was kind enough to give us free healthcare, that it charges us a service fee to use anyway. I wish you could see that.

Roughly speaking, out of $15,000 in total spending per capita, there's $5000 for social services, $5000 for health and education, and $5000 for everything else, including $1500 for interest on the debt and $1200 for protection of persons and property (meaning military, police, legal system, firefighting). Here's the detailed breakdown.

That is the big picture, and it's true. Everything else is just circumstantial. It doesn't matter how, all that matters is why.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 27 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/10/2007 12:46:47 AM
you state " then your either a drug dealer or naive"

nice ASSumption there.

I suppose I could have been a little more graceful with my argument, and I apologize, I was only trying to drive my point home with a snappy one liner.

PS...we were discussing health care and how some were using the arguement that income taxes rise to pay for it. Why in the heck are you bringing up cigarettee taxes and alchoal taxes. ...I dont even smoke...completely of topic.

Not at all off topic. Why do you suppose there is such a heavier tax burden on those things here than there is south of the border? It's because it's used for extra income that goes toward the collective pot that our "free" healthcare system feeds from. How do you suppose people like yourself are able to get free healthcare after applying for subsidies and such? Do you suppose that money just appears out of thin air? Ofcourse you don't, but you still have to realize that someone has to pay for you everytime you use the system. And the point I am still trying to make clear is that it is even more expensive and less efficient to put the state in charge of healthcare matters, or any social program for that matter. This is because of their inability to correctly manage funds and the rules of economics that have proven time and time again throughout history that socialism just isn't as efficient because people don't care when it's not their own money being used to pay for things. All of this is explained further in one of my earlier posts. So you see, healthcare is no more free for us than it is for our friends below, in fact the opposite is probably true.

if your paying 40% in taxes, net earnings, then that sucks to be you. I'd say do some reading, education yourself or at the very least seek some professional advice on tax deferral strategies.

How do you dodge GST at the supermarket or any other retail store? How do you manage to get out of paying "at purchase taxes" when you visit a liquor store, convienience store, bar, gas station, electronics store, tire shop, restaurant, movie theatre etc? How do you get them to stop taking away your C.P.P. fund (which you'll never get reimbursed for), income tax, E.I. tax and other dues? The only ways that I know of that actually allow you to get back everything you put in to your paycheque taxes are if you acutally earn very little money in the first place, in which professional tax advice is not a luxury you could afford. Or if you work under the table. Or if you actually are an entrepreneur that is paid on gains, not on wage, which I don't think you are. So, please, don't try to insult me and everyone else by pretending that you have found the ultimate wage earners tax loophole that gives you everything you pay in back to you, and then pretending your strategies are common knowledge to all except me. There is a reason they say the only two sure things in life are death and taxes.


I think you don't understand what "NET" is. Net is the ammount you have after those tax deductions. So it certainly doesn't feed into your argument about "40% of net income is taxed"

Oops, busted on a blond moment. I'm glad you were smart enough to know what I meant though. 40% of my GROSS income is taken from me by all forms of taxation put together. I still think that's a fair estimate in my case, and I'm sure I fit into the category of "average" among the rest of Canadian taxpayers.

Hey, if your answer is no. Then thats fine. Just say so.

You know as well as I do that if you try hard enough you can google search just about anything to support any cause you may have, yours and mine both, so I'm not going to put much effort on this, but if someone else's gathered numbers mean more to you than my common sense spelled out for you in plain english, than here they are.


According to the OECD, total government revenues for 2004--federal, provincial, and municipal--will be 41.3% of GDP, down from a peak of 44.5% of GDP in 1997 and 1998. This means that Tax Freedom Day is May 30 (since 41.3% of 366 is 151 days into the year.)

Oh hooray, thanks for that slight unnoticable drop in per capita tax spending across Canada, you left winged politicians.

Acutally, the report suggests that my number might be closer to 50% at a national average when you factor in business gains.

Here is some more interesting facts that they lay out for you.

Roughly speaking, out of $15,000 in total spending per capita, there's $5000 for social services, $5000 for health and education, and $5000 for everything else, including $1500 for interest on the debt and $1200 for protection of persons and property (meaning military, police, legal system, firefighting). Here's the detailed breakdown.

38,400 GDP per capita

15,000 total public spending

1,500 interest on the debt (30,000)
4,600 social services
2,600 health
2,100 education
1,200 protection of persons and property

615 transportation and communication
590 resource conservation and industrial development
510 general government services
370 recreation and culture
320 environment
160 foreign affairs and international development
130 housing
100 labour, employment, and immigration
66 regional planning and development
59 research
30 other

I rest my case.

Actually marriages are legal contracts. It's a service provided by the government, which is why the government is responsible for legislation on marriages, once again a no go on "taxes" Unless you think services like paying for a lawyer is a "tax"

What you are failing to realize is that marriage only became a "service provided by the government" when the government decided to make it a service you had to pay for. Do you think that no one could get married before the government made you pay a fee for a licence? I stand firm that the state need not conern itself with it's legislations on MY marriage, yet I still have to pay to make it legal, and it only need be legal in the first place because of the states unrequested involvement in my affairs.

No I call you innacurate. Unless you spend the majorit of your money on alcohol and tobacco, there is simply no way that "40% of your net income goes to taxes"

Ya, a like to go to the bar once or twice a week, and I am a pack a day smoker with no apologies about it. So that means I do pay a fair bit more into the bottomless tax piggy bank, which means I have a right, nay, a justification for saying the things I am saying.

This all ties in to healthcare too, because nothing is really "free", especially healthcare. The funds to support it are just diverted from other inflated tax assets like alchohol and tobacco for example. And, as I described earlier, it is more expensive to allow the state to control healthcare as opposed to privatizing it because of the states inability to be fiscally responsible or accountable for anything, not just healthcare.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/4/2007 12:55:10 AM

Got any actual statistics to back this up?

God I hate how some people need someone else to give them a "statistic" just to tell them what's obvious.

I don't need to look this it is in black and white.

- If you smoke you pay approximately $7.00/pack. Average that out to one pack/day per smoker in the country. Do you need a stat on that to know that's huge income?

- If you're an adult (approximately 75% of us are) you pay income tax, C.P.P., E.I., and others. This, on my "barely above poverty line" salary, equates to better than 30% of my income with a couple hundred dollars per year "gifted" back to me by way of a "rebate". I suppose the only "stat" I have to prove this is on that little slip of paper you call a paystub that you throw in the garbage every two weeks as you assure yourself that everything that has been deducted from your gross pay is going to a "better cause".

- No matter what age you are, you pay GST. In most provinces, you also pay a PST on top of that. Now 7-15% more of the already diminished funds you have left are depleted every time you buy something. Most of us have to buy things to survive and be you need a stat to prove that?

- Ever had a drink? Guess what? That was outrageously taxed too. The liquor and tobacco in the U.S. is also taxed and costs well below half of what those things cost here even when marked up high. I don't need a stat to prove that, I've been all over the country, so you'll just have to take my word for it or ask someone who has been there too.

- Ever thought of getting married? You actually have to pay a fee for that. Why? Who knows, but it shouldn't cost anything to the state since the state has no right to be interested in who I marry.

- Ever purchased fuel. That's taxed about another 15% on top of GST/PST. Don't believe me, it says so right on the pumps here at petro-canada. I suppose you want "proof" of this since you're so stubborn about politics even though you're a sheep to the prime ministers party.
Fine, here it is, right out of the government of Canada's mouth.

As a national average, the provincial tax rates on gasoline are about 14.5 cents per litre.

Source? Here (notice the ending on this site. That means it's posted by the government of Cana-duh!) Here....

And that was in 2005, when prices were still below a buck/litre.

Even if you don't own a car, common sense should tell you that the buses and taxis you transit also have to mark up their costs to accomodate the raise in operating expenses. In other words, you still pay for that tax whether you own a car or not.

- Property taxes you pay for whether or not you own property, since renters only pay a higher rent to accomodate the increased cost of the property. Common sense tells me that no landlord is going to LOSE money on a property, what would be the point of that?

-How about oil tax, recycling tax, electronics tax, RRSP withdrawl tax? There are countless others that you and I don't even know about or can't remember. Do you need a stat to prove that these exist?

-Oh ya, and healthcare STILL isn't even free in a "free healthcare
country" ?!?!?!? Why do you figure that is? Still think your government has your best interests at heart? Ya, sure you do.

And you call me a sheep?

God I hate how some Albertans just swallow the Klien propoganda.

Klein didn't get rid of any old taxes by the way, he's just another politician that was fiscally.....oh how do you say it, at the head of the retard class, the smartest of the stupid etc. At least he didn't invent any new taxes (that I know of) while he was around.

But you just go on propagating your anti-Klein, pro-tax/pro-communism argument to the rest of us, like you were told to do, while you accuse others of "swallowing the propaganda" of the fiscally semi-responsible. Smart move.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 20 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/1/2007 12:38:12 AM
In essence my tax bill is Zero.

Then you must either be a drug dealer, or just naive.

in British Columbia Canada i pay about 20% of my gross income for all my taxes...federal, provincial and municipal.

Please, for your own sake and for the love of god, don't believe without question what the people that are stealing your hard earned money from you tell you what they are stealing from you just because they typed it on paper. They have taken much more from you than that.

Even someone who is working "under the table" and gets paid cash daily will never be able to 'even out' against the forced donations they give to government. You have forgotten about the taxes on every good and service you purchase, which I belive B.C. takes away 14% of your already taxed income right there. This is forgetting to mention oil taxes, cigarette taxes, alchohol taxes, taxes because you bought property, taxes against withdrawing from your own hard earned R.R.S.P. fund, taxes on the private utility companies service you contract and, oh ya, somehow there still isn't enough money left over to give you free health care.

All together, most of us are paying about 40% of our NET earnings back again in taxes, some a little less, some alot more, but that's how it averages out. Take some time to think about it.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
The Stupidest People On Earth
Posted: 9/26/2007 7:30:24 AM

Governments are supposedly created to keep order and protect people but, instead, it is the people who need to be protected from the government.

Enter anti-gun laws, stage right.....your only method of self defense from the government. I'm not trying to open up that can o' worms or anything people, in fact, I don't even own a gun, I just find it convienient that that 2nd ammendment right was also stripped from most of you.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 9/26/2007 6:52:53 AM
Problems with state funded healthcare:

- Grossly mismanaged (as all government programs are) causing high operational costs.

- Doctors dictate prices, not competition and demand, therefore price for services inflate and no one cares since it is not coming out of their own pocket. Price caps aren't really the answer here since those simply will incurr extra supervisonal costs, again overseen by government.

- Eliminates all possibility of insurance companies and private enterprises to succesfully undercut individual costs of it's competition, since it's competition has the ability to reach into a collective tax pot that doesn't discriminate about withdrawals from itself.

Problems with private insurance coverage:

- You aren't sure what you're covered for.

The easier battle here is against privatized companies. The government has no one to answer to so it can go on making mistake after mistake as it always does. On the other hand, a private industry does have to answer to it's customers. Repeat offences by any one company is a sure way to lose all of your business. Privatized companies will also have to answer to shareholders, are they managing costs efficiently and what are they doing to cut those costs? When costs are cut, that company can now undercut it's competition, offering the consumers a better value for their dollar. Wal-Mart didn't become a multi-billion dollar chain by ripping customers off and mismanaging it's costs.

I live in Canada and even though healthcare at face value might appear cheaper than in the U.S., I know us Canadians are paying individually more for it through other facets of communal taxes. We just don't get that memo from our governements spending analyzers or risk managers...probably because government has never used those tools.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 90 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 7/3/2007 2:15:27 AM
I was not aware that the ideas I've presented have been tried in history, but a few differences exist now between a barbaric age and the modern monolith.

I was also under the impression that the foreign countries you mentioned were in fact made that way by means of force from a totalitarian rulership that imposed on it's people a very heavy burden of taxation....not just monetarily but by killing it's own people in war times. Thus it would appear that they have very little rule simply because all of the people's ressources were forced from them and they now have nothing left to give. It will take them alot of rebuilding, at which point I'm sure the cycle will repeat itself.

Also, you had asked how the "golden rule" would be enforced.

Well, as I said, in commercial property it would have to occur naturally, in fact it is in the best interests of the property owner to enforce this golden rule to ensure future business since no one will want to go to a business that doesn't.

In a private property I suppose it would come a little less naturally, however, if you are going to someones house you are always taking your chances. Whether we have police or not, if someone plans to do something hurtful to you at their home you probably have an inclination about that now and you probably wont go. Furthermore, if someone feels inclined to do you harm in their home, that would imply that this inclination is something pre-meditated and therfore I don't believe the law is going to change their minds since clearly they are already deranged. So, crime still happens within a governed system, and possibly it happens more since people are disgruntled about the feeling of big brother constantly looking over their shoulder and intruding in their personal lives.

One more point:

I would not be against a government system that would only pool money and support basic surivalist civil police, military, fire. Not health care since that can easily be afforded when there is no subsidizing for insurance companies to compete with. Not welfare....since your ability to keep a job is no concern of mine....and none of that other crap regulations that require specialized government departments that are an absurd waste of my money, ie Health Canada, Fire Marshalls, Departments of Agriculture, etc etc etc.

But alas, once rulers and lawmakers realize that they can strategically make the public suck from it's hypocritical tit through use of dependency programs, they do, and they love it. So I think the best way to avoid this is to cut them off completely and let us handle our problems individually, or find some way to make it absolutely impossible for government to use political systems in self-interest. Perhaps, if government positions were voluntary, and not paid....................

What will it take for us to rebel against the gross mismanagement of our time/labour/hard earned money. I EARN about $64000 a year. I get about $42000 of that on my paycheques. I then use that $42000 to buy things that have a 6% mark up on them just for the government, again. I also use that $42000 to pay for gas for my car which is about 1/4 tax, and for property taxes, then healthcare (which I'm forced to pay), then my cigarette addiction which should cost me about $2.00/day costs me $10.00/day....that extra 8 dollars going back to health canada. But I thought I just paid my healthcare??? Finally, what little I have left that hasn't been squeezed out of me I get to save for the end of the year so that I can pay my government more money since I earned a little too much in their opinion. So I finally end up with about $20,000 for me I figure. How can you not be sickened by this? It makes me want to vomit a corossive acid all over anyone in a suit in office. GOD IM MAD, why do I even talk about this.?!?!?!?

I hope you did well on your exams,

Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 88 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/21/2007 4:19:53 PM

This situation is ripe for corruption and what I meant about fracturing spheres of influence was by eleiminaeing the government in place of the private sector the nation breaks down and becomes indivdual kindoms, instead of one greater nation.

Is there not a monumental amount of corruption within our current system of law and it's enforcement now?

I should have also clarified something. In the free society I'm attempting to proselytize to you, a land owner would only have the jurisdiction to make law within his own property, and that law must be in coherence with the simple constitutional golden rule that reads: " A person has the right to do whatever they wish to do, as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's right to the same". So, as a private property owner, you would have the right to enforce your own constitutionally obedient rules, or in your words, one's own kingdom. Why do you see this as a negative? You would have the right to not allow tresspassers one day (door-to-door salesmen come to mind), and host a party the next, all without the interference of a gov. funded self-interested police force. If people wanted to attend your party, you should have the right to charge whatever you feel, and they should have the choice to attend or not, all exempt from the sniffing nose of those who would seek to take a portion of that income (tax collectors). So please explain how it would be "unfair" if someone were to enter another's property boundary knowing full well what that property owners' ground rules were, yet entering regardless?

So you see that the property owner should be the one to make the "law of the land", and this would work both in private property (home) and private property that is used commercially. If the commercial property owner has strange restrictions in place for the use of his land, then many will chose not to use his land for their commercial needs. Once that happens, a potential competitor will emerge since clearly there will be a market to fill the void of the other tyrannical commercial property owner. This is basic supply and demand, and this rule will force commercial property owners into being reasonable and "playing fair". Besides, why would a businessman want to repel customers?

Then of course the compition would do the same, at which point we have a very tense environment, it would not take much for a shot to be fired and then we would be in the deadly grips of a civil war! A war no longer between corperations but between warlords!

You see, the problem with granting universal power to any one man or institution or organization (i.e. a police force that is funded by a self-interested government) is exactly what you fear would be the problem with my ideal society. Tell me how our current law force isn't strongly influenced by corporations already? Tell me how a book of laws, that is enforced with violence if one attempts to evade a potentially unfair capture, can determine what's right in EVERY situation? Examples off of the top of my head?...

1. One day you drink too much and attempt to walk home instead of drive: You get slapped with a hefty fine and possibly the night in jail, despite whether or not you were a threat to the population.

2. You drank too much and need to wait for a cab in the freezing decide to wait in your vehicle and turn on the get a criminal record D.U.I. if caught doing that.

3. You try to protect your family from a late-night home invader by knocking him out with a baseball get an assault charge/attempted murder etc...

If you try to challenge the law in these circumstances you can expect to be answered with a billy club.

These corruptions won't exist in my society. In my society, corporate influence on the law will only be as big as the size of that particular corporations property, since that is all that the corporation needs to supervise for profit interests in a free market society. The corp will not have to resort to politics to give itself an edge in the fiscal world, in fact it wouldn't have that option in my society since politics wouldn't exist to determine social behaviour the way it does now, it would only at most revise constitutional teachings, based or stronlgy influenced by public demand.

This is one thing that democracy does very well is allows for national stability because it governs by majority, and as im sure you are aware, corperate owners are not in the majority.

What do you think would happen if C.E.O.'s and corporation owners were the majority of people in a democracy rule society? Think about that seriously, I am interested to know what your answer would be.

As for your argument on an increase in spending power without a strong cental athority to keep wages high and uphold emplyee rights then corperatations will use there strong ecnomic influence to create an instutionalised unempleyment rate (i know we already have one) but the difference is without the proper government protection of labour laws then your opinion on the 30% increase in spending power will become a moot point, when there is a significant drop in wages of the working class.

That would only be true if there was little or no demand for employment. I submit to you that in a free market society with increased spending power there would in fact be a higher demand for competent employment. In a society with a high demand for employment, employee wages/treatment standards raise naturally, and no employer will want to lose it's competent staff, therfore staff will be treated better than before there were laws regulating their treatment from employers. Certainly at least this logic is flawless, no?

As for your comment about building owners would use their money to provide securtiy for the low income families, I know from experience that they really dont care about their tenants. Slum lords often use intimidation and threats to force their tenants to comply with their demands.

Agreed, the building owner will provide security for the building, protecting his investment. This provides the tenants with building security by default. As far as using underhanded tactics, well, increased buying power again will offer the victimized tenant a better chance to move elsewhere. If the bad landlords' tenants keep moving out, he'll change his ways pretty quickly if he wants to make a return on his property.

This means that individual companies BECOME the centralized athorithy in the form of a monarchy or oligarchy system which must answer to no one.

They'll have to answer to themselves when profits drop due to mistreatment of their customers. That will be reason enough to invoke change.

Here's an example: Wal-Mart, undoubtedly the biggest department store corporation, doesn't even require a receipt if you want to return something which you claim you bought there. There is no state law that requires them to do that. So, in the interest of profits, Wal-Mart has extended credit to it's customers based on good faith, knowing full well that they will get burnt from time to time. This doesn't sound like a menacing corporate agenda to me.

whereas a system like you are discribing would be controlled by only the company owners

Constitutionally speaking, not on my land, only on theirs. I'm fine with that.

For example lets say we have (i shudder to think) but the "soverign state of Wal-mart" then doing as coreprations do it would continue to buy up small related bisnesses.

It's only possible to force ownership to a larger company in the current system we have now. In my system, it would be completely up to the small business entrepreneur.

Just as an example for the reason privatized police force couldn't work with as you say with the land lords paying for it. An old friend of mine from high school lived in a low income apartment for several months up till late last year. During that time she was being forced by the manager to have sex with him or else she would be evicted on trumped up charges.
She certanly could not afford to pay for a private secrutiy company to came and protect her from her building manager.

An unfortunate story to say the least. In my system, how long do you suppose the landlord could keep that up? Another part of property ownership is your own flesh, you own your body, and you would have the right to defend yourself, or leave. You do not always have that right in our current system. Situations like that almost never end up in convictions in our current system, and it's only "my word against yours". So you see, her options are still grimm, but certainly more plentiful in my society than in the one she lives in now. Another downfall in our current system is that he has the extra blackmail leverage of the "trumped up charges" against her, as you said. Would those charges hold weight in my society? No, she might have more options in my society.

I'm not claiming to be able to fix everything. If someone does something to hurt someone else, that isn't going to change. But our current system doesn't seem to be getting the job done either, you know?

so dosen't it make more sence to make people who can afford to pay help them rahter then rely on personal generosity?

No! Who are we to decide if Joe Blow can afford to pay or not? Forcing his hard earned pay only sucks every ounce of generosity right out of him, making him more susceptible to a life of crime. The system of tax kicks itself in the behind this way.

I mean after all, we have all passed the homeless guy on the streets and not given him a peny at least once in our lives. So cutting off the social safty net places even greater strain on already overused charities. So unless we all decide to change our ways and give to these people everytime we see them, they would starve. Corperations woundn't even get tax breaks for charitable donations so they would make little if any contrbutions. So its vital to have taxes as a leveling mechinism.

More buying power in my society = more employment = lowered standards of hiring = easier for homeless guy to get a job. He has to want to get that job, if he does not, and has no family to take care of him, and no charity will put him up, and no one cares for him....he dies. Sorry, that might sound cold, but more people are dying in our current system as they anticipate the next handout that they might or might not get. The problem with tax funded welfare programs is the sense of entitlement that it's receipients harbour. This false sense of entitlement (which is encouraged by our government to buy more votes) kills far more people than would the odd guy who slips through the crack in my system. Not working to earn your money, then expecting to be taken care of leads to things as bad or worse than death. I.E. Alchoholism..leads to drugs...leads to crime....leads to violence....death. I'd rather they just die before it gets to that point. Actually, I'd rather they have a fighting chance in my society where they can actually receive every penny of what they earned with their labour, get a sense of pride for themselves, buy some things that they like and care about, and become responsible contributing members of society.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 81 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/13/2007 10:06:33 PM

you were upset about paying for an ambulence service, but you want it to be privateized, as I said that will make you have to pay more.

Well, if we assume that a private industry would charge more (which is hypothetical anyway)for the ambulance ride in an emergency, let's say $1000 for argument sakes, instead of $450, than yes, I would directly be paying more for that ride. But would I really be paying more if there was no health care tax? $1000, $550 more than the public ride, but meanwhile I've never had to pay a dime to A.H.C., G.S.T., liquor tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, income tax, C.P.P., property tax, airline, tire tax, R.R.S.P. overpayment tax, enviro fees, E.I. tax, and then a final end of fiscal year tax if you're deemed to have not paid enough taxes after all of this.......all making a collective tax burden of about HALF of my total income at least. I submit that the more expensive ambulance ride is quite favourable when compared to the crippling costs of all those taxes, if the ride really was more expensive at all.

A list of "needs", some of which MAY OR MAY NOT get more expensive to use if there was no government involvement:

-roads -health care -policing -fire protection -ambulance

-co-op housing -hydro -passport and travel documents -child care

...I'm sure there are a small handful more that I can't think of.

Many of these things are not absolutely mandatory, and the poorer population would not be directly paying for most of these services. For example, fire, hydro, and possibly home police protection would be covered by the homeowner since we can assume that the majority of the poor are home renters. This will not be reflected in the cost of rent since the homeowner can now allocate the existing funds paid on property tax and all other taxes to offset the new expense. Roads may or may not be required by the poor since we can assume that buses are taken by the majority of really poor people, students etc.. and it would be the busing system that foots the bill for that. This will not increase travel costs by bus since the bus operator can now allocate the existing expense paid from gas tax and all other taxes to offset the new road expense. If anything, these services will now have a lower overhead and that will reflect positively in the pricing of these services. Travel only if they are rich enough to leave the country, child care only if they have a child.

Now consider this; if all of these things were privatized, would the bottom line cost of these services equate to a higher price than HALF of your income, like the government is charging now? I think it would be foolish to believe that it would, especially with the advent of insurance programs that are optional to buy into in which case my ambulance ride would have costed me nothing more than my yearly subscription to the program.

Also, with the abolishment of taxes, everyone will have at least 30% more buying power, since the poorest minimum wagers in our country pay about 30% of their earnings to taxation, therefore stimulating the economy naturally by purchasing more goods, some of which will get recirculated into wages and naturally increasing them since the business owner is profiting more, therefore giving the minimum wage earner even more buying power. When the economy is allowed to grow this way naturally we see an economic boom that will be unstoppable. The government has different plans though, to increase minimum wage. They do it unnaturally which further hurts the economy. They decide to make it unlawful to pay less than X amount of dollars. The struggling businessman can't keep up with the new demands on his wage cost sheet and is forced to fold....this takes buying power AWAY from the economy, thus increasing the pool of struggling businessmen. The businessman who is not struggling simply raises the prices on his goods/services for sale, or is forced yet again to make cutbacks to offset the new wage expense, thus decreasing our buying power.

As for your arguement on undercutting of the steel argument although you are quite right that it COULD caues a drop in the value of the canadian dollar, we are not talking about 1 cent of every dollar. If we were i would agree with you in a second. But we are not, the differnce would be so small there would be little to know real impact on our econmy.

Sure, one little thing like steel might even go unnoticed. But it also creates a snowball effect. What happens when steel becomes even more costly to manufacture, since it will certainly do so under the supervision of the poorly managed government company? Will they re-raise taxes, or will they abort the program? What about all other things that are "unfairly" expensive to produce? If they can fund a steel program, why can they not fund my "insert other element here" program? That would only be fair, no? And then how many of these programs does it take for us to notice the effect on the dollar? And will the government yet again make the wrong decision in trying to compensate for the unnatural stimulation of these sectors' influence on the economy by raising taxes, burning money etc.? Eventually the economy will come crashing down on it's foundation, unable to support it's own structure, and it's this tinkering that causes depressions/recessions.

Not everyone can afford to pay for privatized roads and health care. So do we simply make them go with out?

Again, refer to top. Would they not be able to afford these things if they weren't so burndened by taxation? At least taking away tax would offer them the option to plan for themselves, and if they refused to buy for the things they need and managed their money poorly, than yes, unfortunately they are S.O.L. I imagine though that charities will still exist to help the truly needy, and these charities will have never before seen giving power when they and their donators are not burdened by the oppressive taxes they pay.

because if a nation allows there to be private police it may as well allow it to have private militaries as well.

Please clarify/elaborate, I don't understand...or I fail to see the problem.

I welcome your arguemnts and your critsims I am enjoying this:)

Me too.

P.S. try to shorten them up I have homework to do

Sorry, I tried, really I did, but you don't have to answer until you're done your studies.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 79 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/13/2007 5:17:11 AM

You left out parks, and all open space.
Police protection.

What about parks? There are plenty of them that charge admission and do fine.

Open space is up for grabs by auction as well, and the highest bidder shall use the land as he pleases.

DMV for what? Don't I have an inalienable right to travel according to the constitution? What do I need a licence for?

Police, I admit, would be a little more difficult, but still privatizable as explained in previous post.

Military defense would be a bigger challenge, and on that one I admit that I am a little bit stumped. Perhaps charitable donation, likely bigger donations given by bigger corporations to protect their own investments?

I myself am in favour of the elimination of borders anyway. If there is no such thing as a political border, there is no such thing as immigration, customs etc and therefore no need for defense other than a global one. Hopefully one day that will be the case.

Vicroy Bremer did this in Iraq, it seems to be working very well.

U.S.S.R. eliminated it's communistic ways, it didn't seem to be working well for them either. Do you believe that they should've resorted back to their old ways? Or do you belive it was a matter of time for them to rebuild and become more prosperous than ever?

Dump all Goverment ownership and let the money men take over. Yes they will take over.

This will cease to be a national threat/problem when the money men have no political ties to lawmakers to win their favour.

We have that in the health care system in the US. Banking, and Corp America.

And you will continue to have that, but under the guidelines of the constitution that guarantees your freedom above all, and you WILL have a choice with which "money men" you choose to invest in.

You dont what to pay Taxes you dont get any service.

God I wish I had that option!
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 78 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/13/2007 4:36:30 AM

I see where you are coming from but, and you have the right idea about how money should be spent and spread, but, in my opinion you have one fundamental misconception about economics that is crucial to your misunderstading of the simplicity of libertarianism, and anti-taxation theory. Actually, this misconception is shared with you by many, big government advocators and more...please let me explain...

What you have not mentioned, is the inpracticality of the libertarian system, by asking the populus of their opinions on just about everything, it slows the process down,

First of all, libertarianism and absolute democracy are two very different things. Libertarianism would be ruled by strictly adhering to the guidelines of the American Constitution, or in our case the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All, if any, govermental decisions would be decided and implemented based on the principles and rules laid out in these documents, and big government would not be allowed to manipulate this document in favour of it's own gain the way it currently does. In an absolute democracy, I agree, that would be impractical, but that is not the case with lib.

Now to the issue at hand:

But what I must ask you is why would a Public owned industry charge more for the use of a road then the private sector?

Don't forget the private sector is looking to pay for the cost of running the road AND must make a profit as well, whereas the public realm does not need to do either.

I know that was the same paragraph but I intentionally seperated the two. Firstly, what do you think you pay for, say, ambulance protection? Is it covered by health care (Canada)? Have you had to use their services before? I did once, and let me tell you it was an expensive ride. About 30km (20miles) and a sedative to knock me out cause I was in shock. Later that month I got a bill for the ride in my mailbox to the tune of about $450 smackers. Where's the sedative when you really need it, lol, since that one put me right back into shock. If I'd have known that I would have found the nearest Jamaican cabbie, flagged him down, and given him a tip for some of his green sedatives, lol....would have been around the tune of $60 bucks, and he would have made a profit.

So, I guess in a way our ambulance service is already privatized, and boy is it expensive. But wait! What about life insurance services, banking health plans, red cross/blue cross, and don't they cover emergencies like the one I had in their plans for things you should sign up for anyway? And blue/red cross cover any drugs I would need, usually around 80% of the cost for a basic plan, for like $35/year. If I was signed up for it when my accident happened 6 years ago, I could still be signed up now and still be ahead of the game (if I actually paid my ambulance bill, which I refused to do). Furthermore, these are all private companies, so they must be profiting, and charging way less than the pre-supposed "free" health care we are supposed to be getting here in Canada. That's because they are more efficiently run, you just have to take an hour of your time every few years to renew your subscriptions. Oh ya, and by the way, that "free" health care that we get now still comes with a bill of about $160/quarter here in Alberta, it's called the Alberta health care plan. What do you pay in your province for our public service called health care that we pay tax into, and should be free to all citizens? Isn't Canada known for having "free" health care?

Now to consider what you said about the public sector not having to concern itself with profits, well, I submit that it does. Where do you suppose it's money would keep coming from? Profits would be necessary to keep a smooth operation of any particular service, and funds are required for : wages, buildings, power, water, heat (the gas/water companies don't give free ressources away to a civil building just because it's a civil service building (unless ofcourse there is a tax break involved, either way they maintain a profit), ressources, departments etc.etc.etc. So, if one civil service runs in the red, they will ofcourse request more funds out of the collective tax pool, and in turn your taxes will go up somewhere along the confusing labyrinth of tax collection. So while you don't directly pay extra for these services, you pay dearly for them and you aren't even aware of it.

The real problem comes when what you described happens. The reason that public services don't concern themselves with profits is the same reason that public services don't profit. The minute any institution loses it's ability to pay the bills, is (should be) the minute it should not be allowed to pay the bills, since clearly it's services are no longer required. When these institutions fail to concern themselves with profits they become poorly managed, and therefore become even more of a leetch on my tax dollar, whereas a private industry has a vested interest in itself, and will do whatever it takes to remain accessible to the public. This makes the private industry more efficient in it's spending, management etc. until ultimately the service actually costs less. The mistake you are making is in assuming that if one of our public services became private, and the new private industry found itself struggling to profit, that immediately they would raise their prices and force gains by "gouging". This is not always true, and I would go so far as to say that it would more likely be false. The new private service would make itself more efficient, perhaps even lower prices to increase sales, find new and better systems for itself and implement them. Unfortunately, when you have the big fat cushion of tax dollars funding you, the only way to get more money in times of despair is to simply ask for more of my tax money, and things like efficiency, labour costs, systems and sales tactics all become irrelevant, and ultimately cost us, the taxpayers, more $.

For example a better example then a road lets use the steel industry (it's a little easier to explain) a public steal factory could intentionally run at a loss in order to provide cheap steal for the rest of the society.

Why would I want it to do that? Someone still has to pay for that steel, and guess who that payer is going to be if the public steel factory is under cutting itself? You and me, the taxpayer.

If we, in the country of Canada, can't privately produce steel at a rate that is cheaper than importing it, than shouldn't we be importing it? If I was aware of the Canadian gov. publicly "funding" (our tax money) a steel plant that is more costly than importing it from somewhere that steel is made cheaper...I would get my gun and march straight to parliament hill. (joking of course) but that would be a system of governance that would emmulate that of the 1980's U.S.S.R.....very bad!

If a car maker needs steel, it should only have one of two options. Raise it's prices (if the plant cannot be made more efficient/labour smart etc.) or find alternative materials. Fiberglass is used to make the body of Corvettes and many other vehicles, it doesn't rust, it's lighter so more fuel economical........But if it gets federally funded steel for next to nothing, why should it try and find alternatives. So our cars become a little cheaper, and our taxes become significantly higher since we have to pay for a poorly run steel plant, wages for union workers, management, materials, property etc etc etc....all for an inefficient factory. :(

This allows cars and boats and what have you, to be produced by the private sector cheaper then its competitors over seas, giving the econmy a huge boost.

In fact, every time big government steps in and toys/funds with the economy it hurts us and costs us more. This is a more advanced fact of economics, but I'll try to explain anyway.

First of all, if a car importer can offer a car cheaper than we can than it should be allowed to do so. We will still need people to manage those vehicles, salesmen, reception, a car lot, builders to make that lot, people to pave that car lot, electricians to wire up that car lot etc. So for every "lost" job that wouldn't be there for a north american car factory, just as many jobs are created by the new import lots' construction, shipping of new cars etc.

Secondly, and more importantly, imagine what happens when the economy is funded by unnatural means (i.e. the under cutting of steel prices). This is where inflation comes from. Let us assume that you, and everybody else in your country goes to bed tonight and has a total of one dollar. Overnight, our federal goverment has thrown more money into the system by means of under cutting itself on the price of steel with the help of your tax money. That essentially means that they put more money into circulation. So, let's say they put the equivalent of 1 cent more into circulation for every person that is sleeping in your country tonight. This un-natural surplus is a short-term relief on one part of the economy that was struggling, but what you didn't notice was that the $1 you went to sleep with is now worth 99 cents. You still have $1, but you only have the buying power of 99 cents now, as compared to yesterday before you went to sleep. I am not the best at explaining this, and it is difficult to grasp, but once the proper person explains it to you it becomes very obvious. The goverment does this quite often and tries to repair it's damage to the economy by eliminating some of the tax money you pay. Yes, it's true, some of the tax money you pay gets burnt, or taken out of circulation somehow, just to compensate for the unnatural stimulation of the economy that was done by the gov in the first place. This makes that steel plant cost us double!

The public sector has an indispensible roll in its ability to keep an econmy going.

Just the opposite, it has a duty to not interfere.

As for seeing little return on you taxes, well your alive arnt you? There are police you can call if your in danger, ambulances you can call if you get hurt, and a fire deparntment you can call if your house in on fire. And yes roads to carry the crews to you, street lamps to guild them, and training to make them function right.

Do you believe that these things would not exist if their hands were tied out of the public treasury?

imagine a privatized police force! They would only helping you if you can pay for it, the Nation would split into fractured spheres of influence!

As opposed to what it is now?

If policing was privatized, there would most likely be a flat rate insurance card you would have to purchase, and the private police would come to help you in times of need, much like the system in Chicago with the fire. Than, you see, each individual's protection would cost the same as the next individuals regardless of salary or influence, so where would this division you hypothesize come from?

If I'm a minimum wage earner that wants police protection for, let's say, $100/year, I'll be paying the same as the CEO of Wal-Mart, who also wants his personal protection plan for $100/ spheres of influence there, quite the opposite.

(ever wounder why they couldn't stop the great Chicargo fire? Now you know.)

No, not it at all. It wasn't just in houses and barns that it started, it also jumped to streets, forestry and other places that were insured. The fire was unable to be contained by current firefighting technology, and conditions were right to make it go out of control.

So you see there are certain things that you cannot place in the private realm of else risk much more then you could possibly hope to gain and there are certanly reasons to keep particual industies in the public domain

You would still have the ability to purchase an emergency fire extinguishing by professionals, it might cost you a little more than insurance would have though. They won't deny you service simply because you aren't insured, lol, they are still a business and they still want money.

After if things like roads were privatized you would have to pay more for everything you wanted to buy, becuase shipping companies would have to charge more to use the private roads to cover the increase incost and then the cycle come right back to you the consumer.

Shipping companies would be paying no taxes, thus rendering their service more affordable for them and all of their competition, thus rendering competition between it's competition and ultimately lowering prices.

At least with the publicly owned sector the money that is poured into the system is placed into the hands of those that you elect and not some private business owner.

Ya, that's been working out really good for us for the last couple of centuries lol. I trust ANY businessman, who is clear about his intentions on earning a profit for himself while providing the best service that he can than I trust some lying politician that maybe 30% of the country voted for (natural freedom explained why 50% of the population would never vote for one leader party, thus rendering him chosen by the minority). The businessman is way more honest.

So wheater is as a tax payer or as a consumer of goodsyour still footing the bill of the cost of roads.

At least I get to decide where I spend my money.

Most importantly once you build up a state/public trust like this to provide certian servies to your citizens, it is extremly important to maintain that trust with your public.

Name one incidence where that has happened and I will be made a believer. The theory is good, the reality/history tells a different story.

So just remember this, is will never be cheaper to privatize something because the private sector is in it for profit whereas the public sector is consernd with providing a service to those that need it.

The poorly run public service will always need to pay it's bills, and with a running cost of double that of a self-interested private service, it will cost me more.

Government should truly only be responsible for one thing, the freedom of the people by the adherence to the constitution/charter of rights. The first time government stepped in and made a decision based on ethics, money or it's version of right and wrong was the first time we began our downhill descent.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 75 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/12/2007 12:50:38 PM
^^ A new government system could auction off it's roads and sidewalks to the highest bidder, that bidder would then privatize the roads and some sort of toll system would be implemented. That may sound dismal to some, but consider the amount of gasoline and property taxes we pay, both of which should solely contribute to the transportation facilities in our country. No private sector toll operation would charge nearly as much for the use of their roads/walks etc as we pay in those accumulated taxations.

I do wish to pay to someone who offers me a service I require, I do not wish to pay forced taxes of which we see very little return.

I am not advocating anarchy, but anarchistic behaviour is what is required to counterbalance our current system, which we could then "compromise" to institute a small government, republic style rule (libertarianism). I am however in favour of anarchy when compared to our current anti-freedomist, fiscally crippling style of rule.

I invite other examples of occurences where you think it would be impossible to dodge the taxman as his service is "necessary", like the example of walking down the sidewalk that you proposed, because I think all things we are told are "necessary" for us are just big brother trying to get his thumb on your head, and there are always viable alternatives.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 62 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/8/2007 2:48:08 PM

Won't someone just start the revolution already!?! Let's take back what's ours! I'd do it but I'm busy right now, so someone else....c'mon already!
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 11 (view)
Not everything natural is good.
Posted: 2/4/2007 4:43:34 PM
When one component of the ecosystem, the population of deer for example, is changed, reduced by too much hunting, the predators that have deer as a staple part of their diet then begin starving and those animals that feed off them....

I understand the idea of a potentially harmful chain reaction possibly occuring, but I do think that we are technologically advanced enough as a civilization that this possible problem should no longer be a concern.

What of do-do birds? They went extinct a long time ago, mostly as a result of human hunting, and we have no way of getting that species back. What about the animals that fed on these birds? Do we have any other indications of species loss as a result of this? We are talking about a bird...which in my opinion would be a bigger player in the species ecosystem game than wasps or a mosquitoes, yet I know of no real consequences from losing them. Please provide info if I'm mistaken.

Many of you consider yourselves to be somehow uninvited by nature, and you seem to want to scold yourselves for it, but we forget to include the human factor on this earth. There are 6 billion of us on this planet, and we all occured naturally (so far), so perhaps our involvement is all part of the plan. I mean, there are probably more humans than any other mammal on this earth, and it has probably been that way for a relatively long period of time, yet mother nature hasn't let us down yet, or even come close to doing so. Any theories of mother nature backlashing on our existence are still highly debatable at best, if not completely false. So, why suddenly has our existence become a concern of self-preservation? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we be using every ressource provided by her so that we can promote human self-preservation, as opposed to the argument that seems to promote human suffering and inconvienience in the name of some invisible anamoly called mother nature, that seems to be the ultimate of self-preservationists anyway?

Also, the technological advancement era has provided us with the ability to clone life. If that isn't the ultimate argument for hakuna matata in this discussion, I don't know what is. Just relax about the species', cause if we run out of one we can always just clone some more anyway, right? Is there anything wrong with that statement?

One of the reasons that something like DDT is so harmful is that it gets into the food chain and some chemicals really do not ever break down totally so after X amount of time, the toxins are hundreds of miles from where they originated and as one contaminated organism eats another, the level also rises with each ingestion of contamination.


Male weanling rats were fed semipurified diets with and without essential fatty acid (EFA) and DDT (150 ppm) for 14 weeks to determine the effects of the pesticide on physiological and biochemical aspects of EFA deficiency (EFAD). DDT did not affect EFAD-induced reduction in growth rate or final body weight, nor did the pesticide affect EFAD-induced changes in feed efficiency or skin dermatitis. The pesticide did increase liver/body mass ratios, but did not interact with EFAD, which also increased this ratio. The pesticide produced complex changes in total fatty acid composition of liver and tail skin: liver levels of 18:0, 18:2 and 20:3?9 were increased, whereas levels of 12:0, 14:0 and 16:0 were decreased. In both tissues, DDT interacted with EFA to increase 18:2 levels. DDT did not change the total fatty acid 20:3?9/20:4?6 ratio in either tissue. In this study, although DDT did not exacerbate the physiological aspects of EFAD, DDT-induced changes in fatty acid composition of liver and tail skin indicated that 150 ppm DDT in the diets did alter lipid metabolism of the rats in an unexplained manner.

Okay, so it looks like there were finally some mediocre side effects from a rats direct ingestion of DDT, but only after prolonged exposure over 3 1/2 months. So it sounds to me like an animal ingesting another animal (which would already make it a very diluded effect) every now and then would probably not have any kind of side effects. In fact, even if it was a frequent ingestion of DDT through the consumption of other animals, a feeling similar to that of feeling "under-the-weather" might be about the worst case scenario for animals eating other DDT traced animals.

And companies are making money off of continuing to manufacture and market products that have chemicals like DDT in areas of the world where there are no laws to protect people from using them.

Why does it always have to be somehow impure or criminal if someone wants to help someone else and manages to make a profit from it? How long could that person afford to be helping if he wasn't making a profit from it?

where the concern is generating revenue, stimulating the economy, ,

Those are the things required if they want to be able to keep helping, and if the region can only afford the least effective of treatments, than that's all it shall get, and rightfully so otherwise the companies would not even be able to offer the slightest amounts of treatment.

and feeding rapidly increasing populations,

So your against feeding the hungry humans, but pro not inconvieniencing other, lower and more primitive animals??? Please clarify if I have taken your statement our of context.

not long-lasting damage to the environment

Perhaps, perhaps not, that issue is still on the chopping block as far as I'm concerned.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
Not everything natural is good.
Posted: 2/4/2007 2:08:06 PM
Thanks for the DDT info, and if there are safer and more effective ways, than I would totally promote using them. Still though, someone does have to pay for it, and it's not "evil" if certain corporations don't offer to pony up the dough to fix everything in this world, since alot/most of them already do make regular contributions to charitites of their choice.

I would suggest setting up a well run charity group for this cause, that could probably work alot better than sitting here complaining about it.

Yeah, if a species doesn't directly contribute to the well-being of us arrogant humans, let them be wiped from the planet. Let's not worry about how various species becoming extinct thanks to human interference is affecting ecologies around the globe..

I don't see how we/nature would suffer if we lost certain species. Also, human interference isn't the only cause of a species going extinct, sometimes it's a question of evolution, and survival capabilities of that species.

I swear sometimes I think mankind is determined to see how much damage we can do to this planet before it won't support *our* life.

That's sounds like usual fear-mongering to me. If the environmentalist cause really does have a case, than they've blown it so far out of proportion with claims like how we were supposed to run out of trees by 2008, that it's becoming desensitized to me and many others. Their agenda should've been more carefully considered for sure.

Here, check this out, a couple of smart guys huh?:


if it were within my power to, say, wipe every spider off the face of the earth, I wouldn't do it. Even I'm not that dumb.

Even YOU aren't that dumb? Well, I must be really really really dumb to like, not care and stuff, ya know, cause you're already so dumb but you're like, totally above wiping out annoying wasps and stuff, and I guess I'm just not that smart yet, but it's okay if you kill that one that just landed on your arm....DUH
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
News Sources?
Posted: 2/3/2007 8:12:53 PM
Actually I'm starting to think that POF forums are where I'm learning more of the most interesting news. When you have people like "MontrealGuy", with his seemingly endless lists of links to sites I would have never found by surfing, to some of the other usual suspects' well written views, I think I get a pretty diverse and multi partisan coverage of some really interesting topics.

Other than that I usually flip on the local news, since it has everything local, national, and international, and that pretty much covers everything.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
Not everything natural is good.
Posted: 2/3/2007 7:48:02 PM
It's just as effective and doesn't cause the species death

Are we referring to disease harbouring mosquitoes? Who cares? Kill em, especially if there's a human need and a market for it!

I don't know anything about DDT, but if it's not harmful to humans, but kills off potentially harmful insects, AND those insects really contribute nothing to the human race, what's wrong with it?

"Not everything natural is good"...that's a perfectly acceptable statement. I don't believe that God ever had any intention of making everything good and pure. That statement is proven by the existence of evil in this world. It doesn't make you any less compassionate to the environment if you were to admit that you hate certain things in nature, like mosquitoes, or snakes etc.!
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
Tories Unveil Attack Ads
Posted: 2/3/2007 3:40:55 PM
I'm no Harper enthusiast, nor am I in favour of any environmental programs to date, but in Harper's defense I think I'll point out some inconsistencies in the complaints posed in this thread.

1. One poster said he would like to see a government body that listens to the people's requests. The letter from the Canadian Press clearly indicates that some new polls have concluded that the issues surrounding the environment are becoming a "top priority" among Canadians. Perhaps then, Harper actually is listening to the people, and doing something they think they want, despite what Harper himself believes. Irrelevant is the fact that he may be playing into the favour of the voters, because he is at least taking action to do what they want.

2. This thread is based on the perceived anger that could surface from some possible upcoming tory attack ads that we haven't seen yet, directed at liberals. Further into the thread, "ewok" posted a newsletter from the Canadian press. The newsletter contains some left-winger quotes that are clearly attacking Harper for his flip-flopping on the envronment issue. So, then, is it okay to criticize a possible attack ad that we haven't seen yet, with the help of other attack ads? My point is that atttack ads are totally acceptable as long as they're truthful. If your opponent has made a mistake, expose him for it, since his credibility is just as much on trial as are his political agendas. However, I realize that if Harper is using tax funded dollars to campaign himself during the expensive time slots of the superbowl, and not using sponsored dollars by some large corporation(s), I would be totally opposed to that. I would not be opposed to corporate sponsorship though, since that money doesn't come out of my pocket.

That's about it I guess. Other than who is financially responsible for the ads, I don't think there's any real issue here.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 57 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:00:03 PM
Unless there have been billion dollar inheritances, or their is a state lottery that pays over 1 billion...did not the rest of the billionaires earn their money by setting themselves up for it? In the process of becoming billionaires they would have created jobs that were obviously paying an acceptable wage for the labour exerted, since if it were otherwise no one would have worked for them? I hardly see that as riding on someone elses back, I see it as ingenious if anything.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 40 (view)
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:54:36 PM
In the meantime I should decide how I spend my money...if I want to "invest" in a social program I may need to make use of one day, I should have that right. I should equally have the right to possibly dig my own grave by not contributing to these programs, it should simply be my decision alone...not yours.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 38 (view)
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 6:14:24 PM
Cape....for the second time...I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULD BE FORCED TO CARE FOR THEIR PARENTS. That would be silly, the parents should also have been smart enough to plan for their retirement and old age needs. The child taking care of the parent is offered as an alternative only, and by all moral rights it should be what happens as long as the parent wasn't a raving lunatic or anything, however, since it won't always happen it is the person's job to plan for these kinds of things. It certainly isn't my job to care for someone else's poor planning.

News...I don't believe that your era of youth had any kind of economic least not moreso than now. That was a poor effort at attempting to win my favour, because I'm quite aware of economic situations in recent history, and the 50's and 60's were more a plateau than a recession. Besides, there was still rich people in those days, you could have tried harder to be one of them, and any reason for not being one can only be blamed on yourself.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 1207 (view)
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 2/1/2007 6:01:43 PM
I'm not sure what part of my arguments incited your feathers to be ruffled (to those of you who either called me stupid, morally snobbish or purposely defiant), as if I was personally attacking your sole reason for being. And how can I be asked to provide "empirical data" when your entire argument is based on pure hypothesis in the first place, since legalizing it has never been done, yet you feel you can claim as fact that doing so would not be as harmful to society as proposed, hmm?

In any case, I have no really strong feelings about it, just presenting the other side of debate since the thread seemed to be lacking any anti-legalizers, but since I've got you all in a "smoking" rage (lol), I'll just duck out and let you all pat yourselves on the back while you reassure each other of your reasons for justification. Bye.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 30 (view)
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 1:04:40 PM
No one is saying that the child has to care for elders...that would be an infringement on freedom. An equally disturbing infringement would be to force me to pay for someone elses care.

The bottom line is that we as a society are all responsible for each other.

Absolute non-sense. Let me ask you a question... If you were told that you HAVE to choose between option A, B, or C, what would it be?

A: Care for your sick mother while you earn 100% of your wage, tax free, to ease the expense of a nursing home should you choose to put her there.

B: Have your wages cut nearly in half by income taxes, GST's, taxes on fuel, Pension taxes etc, all of that money to be thrown into a collective pot that you have no say in it's management, but you know from history will be poorly managed and the social rewards reaped from your money will equate to about half of the expense you put in

C: Do nothing and exercise your right to freedom.

Why does "B" seem like the choice that you 2 want to make? What are your agenda's...I mean really, are you hoping for a free ride one day as you suck out the life from the collective gravy train? I have news, that ride will never be free. The answer should be A or C. And no, I should not be forced to pay if I don't want to, and if I choose not to than I'm not entitled to any of the benefits of such programs. Forcing me to pay is totally anti-constitutional in American terms, and is an infringement on basic human freedoms and rights...unquestionably!
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 1202 (view)
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 2/1/2007 12:35:43 PM
Not naturally occuring...they are by products of MJ......some refinement must take place to create those substances.

By that logic fossil fuels are not naturally occuring either then, since they need some refinement before they reach our gas tanks? As you said, it's a bi-product of a natural growth. And what of magic mushrooms?

Since when does something have to have social value to be legal?

Than why do you wish to legalize it if the oppostie is true as you say?

store owners interested in keeping their license have a vested interest in seeing that underage kids don't buy it...

It was always easier for me to get smokes as a child (bought my first pack at 11 years old)than it was to find a pot dealer. Perhaps store owners have a vested interest in making a profit also?

Chocolate produces a chemical reaction in the brain very similar to sexual arousal...i would say that is mind altering

Uh I guess the next time you get that burning feeling in your loins you won't bother taking care of'll just grab some M&M's, huh?

Chocolate is food, and could be lived on if it was the only food available, therefore it COULD be considered life supporting. Also, people don't do things that they normally wouldn't under the influence of sugar, do they?

Since when are you not allowed to carry a weapon? With handguns in some places you must have a carry permit but I could walk down Main St. with a broadsword and no one could do a damn thing about it as long as I don't threaten anyone.

Where can you carry a gun without a permit? With a broadsword, a person still has the ability to run away from it's a lot less dangerous but it must still be concealed, no? You can't very well hold it upright with both arms while walking down Main, can you?

It would be much more difficult if he had to find someone of age to buy it for him

Not if it's at every corner store in the nieghbourhood. All he has to do is ask people to buy it for him, and even if the first 9 people say no, the tenth usually says yes. BTW, I am saying this from experience since I took up regular smoking at the age of 13.

Silly assumption on your part with no basis in fact, or even personal experience I'm guessing....what makes you qualified to make such a sweeping statement?

Well, maybe, but what other reasons are there for experimenting with illegal drugs for the first time? The medicinal argument, which might apply to 1-3% of first time users?

As a kid I could get pot(illegal)anytime I wanted it. Alcohol, on the other hand, i had to find someone to buy it for me or get a fake ID.

Than you didn't try very hard. It was always pretty easy to get someone to buy you booze, especially if you offered an incentive of a few bucks. On the other hand, if you dont' know any dealers, or if your usual dealer is unavailable???
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 28 (view)
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 12:03:13 PM
not all families had parents that their adult female children want to take care of nor should they if they were/are abusive

But you are incinuating that if the immediate family doesn't want to take care of their own that I should be forced to even if I don't want to? That seems ridiculous, the first owness should be on the family of that recipient...not me.

There was a thread that was deleted entitiled "Is government attacking the family?". It contmeplated the entire scenario surrounding the everymans dependence on social programs and how that action was tearing apart families. In summation, by forcing the state to care for individuals' finances, and not just their freedoms, we tear apart the family unit to a point where people no longer want to care for their mothers and fathers. There is something fundamentally wrong with that, and worse yet, is that I'm expected to increase my tax contribution to pick up their slack. Rubbish! More important to me is my freedom to take care of my own parents in their time of need and have the freedom to opt out of paying into a social program, than is my desire to see Michael UK above the poverty line. Sorry folks, but if my priorities were otherwise, I'd have my head examined.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 27 (view)
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 11:52:23 AM
Further proof of my original statements that incite you to take care of yourself first, and not place your trust in a federally operated machine.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:40:13 AM
No etownboy79, it is a matter of "caring", and our two countries getting their priorities right.

Unfortunately, the only way for that philosophy to work would be if EVERYONE cared about EVERYONE. As you know, that is not the case, and you can't force people to care about you, so it stands to reason that you shouldn't be allowed to force people to pay your way into the later years of your life. In accordance with that, you should not have been forced to pay into pension plans in your youth, and therefore you would've been able to put that tax money aside for retirement, and, as long as you did that, you would have no complaints. The minute you promote the idea of forced retirement savings via the federal government's treasury is not only the minute you have set yourself up for dissapointment, it's also the minute you hand over a piece of your FREEDOM!

The big problem is they are mismanaged and money is wasted.

And what makes you think that will ever change? Basic rules of economics will tell you that a state operated program is doomed to failure since there is no vested interest in keeping the operation alive like there would be if it was a privately owned operation. The attempt to "crack down" on political spending is like trying to teach an old dog new tricks, it just won't happen.

Without it, they would be out on the streets, using the ER for healthcare visits, and YOU the taxpayer would foot that new tax increase along with your healthcare insurance premium increase

That logic doesn't make sense to me since I am clearly promoting the abolition of such tax funded programs like healthcare. No it would not cost me more money if I had things my way, but if we weren't tax burdened the way we are we'd all have more money saved to help our friends and family in need of medical support, like your clients :)
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 1200 (view)
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:16:59 AM
Also, if we legalize pot on the grounds of it being a natural substance, what of mushrooms, and hash, and hash oil? If you're in favour of legalizing pot why don't you assert the social value of these drugs as well, which are naturally occuring? Perhaps it's because you don't use them regularly, which makes you indifferent about them, in which case you should question your real motives about legalizing pot, should you not? Is this thread a self-pity thread after all? lol j/k
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 1199 (view)
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:06:25 AM
Keeping MJ illegal does NOT make it more difficult,in fact it makes it easier.If a kid wants liquor or cigarettes,he's NOT going to get them legally.

I don't necessarily agree with that assessment. Again, I use the gateway argument which I think is still valid, because pot certainly more often than not comes after the experimentation with cigs and alcohol.

I would say that all hard drug users started off with Chocolate, or mothers milk. Lets ban those too.

Yes but those are not mind altering chemicals, in fact they could be considered life supporting chemicals. Clearly that does not really apply.

Substance abuse and addiction are built into the Character traits of some (regradless of the drug). Not everyone reacts in the same way. Just like not everyone who has a beer becomes an alocoholic.

What if we let all people above the age of 18 carry deadly weapons? Certainly it's up to the carrier to decide to use that weapon in the heat of anger, and not all people would react to anger the same way, no....but I'm certain the national 3rd degree murder rate would get higher.

The only way pot leads to "harder drugs" is because the pushers have them on hand.

Good point, but the question is, after the child tries pot(which will be easier to do if it's made legal), will he seek out the pusher in search of the newer high...since he liked the feeling from pot so much. Whereas, if pot wasn't as easily accessible and he never had a chance to try it before this phase in his life wore off, would he be saved from that life completely?

So does it naturally follow that 95% of people who have tried pot have moved on to harder drugs?

No, the number is smaller than that. I would say that just about everyone who tried pot for the first time did so either to "fit in", or to try a new high. There aren't really any good/wholesome reasons for trying pot, are there? So, what does naturally follow is that anyone with the inclination to try pot has the pre-disposed personality it would require to try something harder. The only reasons he wouldn't try something harder would be because either A: Because that drug is MORE ILLEGAL (proving that making a substance illegal makes it more difficult to try) or B: He exercised self-control and understood the risks were too great for his body and mind. The answer B will almost never be the case for someone trying to fit in, and for the one searching for a new high the answer B only becomes a reality if that person's wish for a new high no longer outweighs his self-respect for his body and mind.

I would probably be correct in assuming that 99% of all murderers who killed doctors who ran abortion clinics have read the bible, so ought we not to keep people from reading the bible in order to prevent pro-life induced killings?

Clearly at times in our society, violence is the only course of action when trying to halt an existing murderer from commiting more murders. That example all depends on where you stand on the abortion issue...not really a fair example.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 12:55:07 AM
Perhaps then, the answer once again is not to put your trust in any federal programs. Time and time again we are re-taught this lesson, but we never seem to want to believe it. 'Tis a hard lesson indeed, but the answer is certainly not to pump out more social program funding, 'tis a matter of education and planning :)
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 1195 (view)
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 2/1/2007 12:30:26 AM
I'm a believer that pot leads to other drugs, drugs that we can all agree should be illegal, in the mind of an impressionable youth. I don't think this is disputable, since I think I would be correct in assuming that at least 95% of hard drug users and addicts have smoked pot, and probably did so before they moved on to harder drugs. So then, the question is, would legalizing M.J. serve to de-sensitize to a young person the world of substances to be taken in moderation, or would it make the leap in to the really illegal drugs more difficult to make? I think if pot were to be legalized it would certainly have and age restriction, and therefore would still make the endeavor exciting to a rebellious teenager, only now it would become more readily available, and not something you'd have to make a special appointment with a shady character to receive. So, indirectly, the question of "Why is smoking pot a crime?" is answered by posing the question "What if smoking pot wasn't a crime?"

Although, making it illegal only makes it a little bit tougher for a determined child to get, but that's better than nothing.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 47 (view)
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/23/2007 11:45:15 PM
Hey Kabio or NF,

Are either of you familiar with the founder of this quote:

"Democracy only works until the public realizes it can vote it's own hands into the public treasury"

Whoever it was, it's also a great argument against the opression which we are harbouring.

I have an idea that I would love to play out if only I had more money. I'd send my own "Declaration of Independence" to my rule makers. One for my county Member of Parliament, one for my municipal mayor, one for my provincial premier, and one of course to the feds, my Prime Minister. I will declare that I am no longer in need of their property taxation ritual and therfore I respectfully decline to continue paying taxes on the land that I "own". Shortly thereafter, I'd build a strong, impenetrable steel welded wall around my land, and a dome to blanket that wall from the top. I'd have a sign on the outside of my wall offering the tax collectors and law enforcers the gentle reminder that I have declared independence from their services, and that any attempts to force me into submission to the old ways will be met with brutal and desperate force.

You think that would work? would only take one person to get it right to kickstart the overdue revolution for actual freedom.

Great thread NF....I agree with you completely.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 53 (view)
What is Canada?
Posted: 1/14/2007 6:50:52 PM

Unless you are not from this earth, most logical people will agree that alternative fuels will have to be develop within 10 years from now if we want to continue to live on this planet.

Only most logical people will agree? Hmm, if your position is so logical, why not all logical people agree? lol
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 52 (view)
What is Canada?
Posted: 1/14/2007 6:28:57 PM
As far as nightcowboy goes.....I didn't notice his earlier and more cinical post where he was indeed a little crass. I only saw your answer to his second post which seemed to be an unfair and uncalled for retort, so, sorry. However, I agree with most of what he says despite his lack of tact in his approach.

You just love to switch things around don't you? We are not talking about religious beliefs at all!

What we were talking about was how other countries have conflicts. Your position was that even small countries have conflicts just like Canada does ergo Canada is not too big since the size of the country is irrelevant to it's inner harmony. I submitted to you that most other small countries have their inner conflicts due to a difference in religious beliefs within, which is not one of Canada's problems ergo that argument was invalid, that's all, I wasn't trying to switch anything around on you and play dirty.

England being a perfect example with Catholics and Protestants

But England doesn't have a problem with their own religious diversity like the other small countries do, protestants let Catholics be Cathoilcs and vice versa, so that example doesn't really apply.

Again, we are not unique in regards to disagreements with our government decisions.

Agreed, but I think if we were able to downsize the country into the regions where the people living there seem to have a fairly unison political view that things would just be easier and no one could complain about the unfair voting power of Ont. which usually decides the way the country will be run anyway. Seriously, I don't expect you guys to understand, but how is it fair that a party like the Reform party, which works great for Alberta, will never see more than a place in the oppositions seat just because it doesn't work well for Ontario, and we get federally out muscled by vote count? That's why Canada is too big.

Which provinces are you talking about? Predominantly as in polical power? New-Brunswick? Nope..Liberal Nova Scotia? Nope again...PC. Maybe in Prince Edward Island? Naaa PC were elected after the Liberal scandal.

I thought that historically the provinces were predominantly what I said they were, was I wrong? Before the last election, for at least the two elections before that, wasn't Ont always liberal until the scandal, and most maritimes NDP?

You kinda lost me on that one. Although I agree with that comment, have i mentioned anything about the type of person it takes to work on an oil rig???

You commented that Alberta was only doing well because of the oil sands. I offered that maybe it was the people that work on the oil sands that actually make the difference, and not the location of the geography as you would have me believe. Anyone can have oil sands, not everyone can work them.

I'm sure that the great citizens of Ontario would find that one quite comical.

I don't know why that was a three laughing guy moment to you, because it made perfect sense to me.

Again switching things around huh? Who talked about a “doomsday prophecy”?

You did when you said:

You still have a good ten years left....Enjoy!

Please explain how you expected me to receive that differently?

Unless you are not from this earth, most logical people will agree that alternative fuels will have to be develop within 10 years from now if we want to continue to live on this planet.

More highly debatable green party rhetoric, but thanks for incinuating that I must be from another planet if I don't agree with you and another small handful of extreme fear-mongering enviromentalists. The world is gonna end, that's a three laughing guy moment to me and many others.

Childish at best!

Wah wah wah

So was this....

You still have a good ten years left....Enjoy!
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 49 (view)
What is Canada?
Posted: 1/11/2007 7:56:40 PM

ALL THREADS are about peoples opinions...period! But if you look around, you will notice that most bullshit will be addressed immediately as others have opinions as well.

So then attack the opinions, not the person.

WRONG!!! The size of the country has nothing to do with getting different perspectives about leadership or the diversity between citizens. Very small countries deal with the same problems as not everyone can possibly agree with government decisions. We are far from being unique on that issue

I agree that small countries have their own inner conflicts, usually due to a difference in religious beliefs though. Canada, on the other hand, has it's inner conflicts because of it's size. We here in Canada are usually indifferent about other peoples' religious followings or their race etc. But, when it comes down to the region that you live in in Canada, different answers to political questions seem to be favoured. If you don't agree with this, than please explain why the maritimes are predominantly NDP, the east is historically very Liberal, and the west more Conservative?

Alberta is doing amazingly well because of the oil sands and of course the high demand for fuels. This will not last fact, as soon as we truly start to work on alternative fuels, provinces from the west will be very pleased to be a part of this great nation but it will not prevent ****ing as that's what people do when they do not agree.

Well, that's your theory, and that's fine. I happen to know that is takes a certain breed of person, usually the type of person that grew up on a farm and is no stranger to back-breaking labour, to actually be able to go up and stand working on the rigs. So, no, I don't think just anyone can do it. If the sands existed in Ontario I don't think it's as likely to produce the same numbers as it does here....but I can't back that up. What I'm more certain of is that Ontario would become more conservative quickly, because that seems to be the norm around the areas where oil is produced. Why do you suppose that is?

On the plus side, you have another 10 good years in front of you...Enjoy!

Well, thanks for that doomsday prophecy, I really appreciate it...I only hope that at your age (46 for those of you who don't know), and with that recoiling attitude and the mouth to back it up, that the same can be said for you sir.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 46 (view)
What is Canada?
Posted: 1/9/2007 8:29:30 PM
Hey!! Last 2 posts....RELAX!

Your sarcastic comments directed at nightcowboy are way out of line. The thread topic is about what peoples opinions are of Canada today...not what you think of nightcowboy's opinion of Canada, which was a gentle and uninsulting opinion that was hardly deserving of your high school girlish hissy fits.

As an Albertan I can sympathize with night. Depending on where you live in this huge country you get different perspectives about our leadership and it's politicians, and that's to be expected. Perhaps you might also feel a little alienated if the roles were reversed. Imagine that all the parliamentary decision making happened in Calgary, by a team of bureaucrats who have hardly ever been to Montreal or Toronto, and they are making decisions that are supposed to affect all of Canada. These people think they are making the right decision for their area, and perhaps they are, but what works out here may not be the best answer for issues happening 1500 miles away in the east. Add to this hypothetical equation that you have a ressource which is used not only by the rest of Canada but the world as well, and you have some know it all bureaucrats making decisions on how this oil will be taxed, supervised etc.. It gets kind of frustrating to be the ones making everything happen and the second you turn your head there is some new law or policy which you have to work around that helps no one but the people on the other side of the country.

Other things that night talked about are fair arguments for the topic on this thread, whether you agree with his opinions or not doesn't really matter. He is right about the fact that the country is too big and the geographic distance between regions is enough to create the diversity between citizens which becomes a huge obstacle when national decisions are made.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
Miracle on 75th Street
Posted: 1/5/2007 3:57:35 PM
Did you catch the highlights of the Edmonton Oilers vs. Dallas Stars game on Jan 4th?

If not you MUST check this out:

then click on "recent media" and then click the Jan 4th goal!

Interestingly, the last time the Oil played Dallas, Edmonton had one of the most horrible calls against them to disallow a goal that would have won them the game. Karma works in very strange ways, does it not?
Show ALL Forums