Libertarians

[FrenchAffair]

Obviously part of that cost is subdiszed by Sandy Hill hockey association then. The fact remains, 200$ or 400$ that the cost is greatly less (10x at minimum) than that of the cost in a region where the government does not provide any funding.

 

[FrenchAffair]

What I don't get is how anyone can claim that it is fair that that people who have kids who don't play hockey (or don't have kids at all) have to subsidize the parents of kids who do play hockey: why can't they use their money on their own kids for a sport that their kids play?

Because having children (poor or rich) being able to participate in sports benefits all of Canadian society, not just those who have children. 

You want a world where only children in well to do families are able to participate in organized sports. The children of the working class would not be able to participate in these organized sports and activities with out government subsidies on them.

Not only do not want to make it impossible for poor families to send their children to school, but you want to eliminate the ability for them to participate in these activities.

I suggest you take a look at the inner cities of large American cities. Situations there are very similar to what you are suggesting, and look what happens to the children there. With out these organized activities they join gangs, get involved in crime, drugs (which would be legal if up to you).

Maybe it is not “fair” that some individuals are forced to pay taxes, of which a portion will go towards programs that they will not directly participate it. But these programs benefit all of society and create better circumstances in our nation which we all benefit from.

Similarly, why is it that people who work after high school have to subsidize the tuitions of the other people that go to college/university (and tend to get higher-paying jobs as a result)?

Because the more people in our nation that are college or university educated the higher the standard of living and quality of life in our nation will become and it will encourage individuals to achieve higher education which benefits all of society in too many ways to list.

Libertarianism is about being able to use your own resources to provide the best possible life for your family

Which is why it is immoral and goes against the foundation that western society has been built upon.

I am far from a socialist, but western society, the society we live in, that I benefit from and you benefit from was created from the fundamental principle of maintaining a standard of living and quality of life for our citizens. The welfare of the citizens of Canada is the responsibility of our government, that includes ensuring that they are able to provide the minimum standard for themselves and their family. If that requires that every citizen of Canada contributes portions of what they earn each year to help these people then so be it. If you don’t like that you are welcome to move.

But I for one will never support a government that would stand by and do nothing well millions of Canadian families lived in poverty and starvation.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Obviously part of that cost is subdiszed by Sandy Hill hockey association then.

And where did they get their money from?

The fact remains, 200$ or 400$ that the cost is greatly less (10x at minimum) than that of the cost in a region where the government does not provide any funding.

  The fact remains that the cost is less to the hockey Moms and Dads only: the cost to everyone else is infinitely higher.  Check out "What is Seen and What is Not Seen" "The government" doesn't have any money to provide funding: "the government" extorts it from "the taxpayer."

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Because having children (poor or rich) being able to participate in sports benefits all of Canadian society, not just those who have children. 

You want a world where only children in well to do families are able to participate in organized sports. The children of the working class would not be able to participate in these organized sports and activities with out government subsidies on them.

Not only do not want to make it impossible for poor families to send their children to school, but you want to eliminate the ability for them to participate in these activities.

I suggest you take a look at the inner cities of large American cities. Situations there are very similar to what you are suggesting, and look what happens to the children there. With out these organized activities they join gangs, get involved in crime, drugs (which would be legal if up to you).

Maybe it is not “fair” that some individuals are forced to pay taxes, of which a portion will go towards programs that they will not directly participate it. But these programs benefit all of society and create better circumstances in our nation which we all benefit from.

If you are really believe this starry-eyed idealist B.S. notion that subsidies improve society, then provide a direct subsidy (i.e., tax break) to all parents and let them choose which sports to enroll their kids in: then kids who don't play hockey can enjoy the benefit of organized sports, too ... it ain't rocket science. 

Because the more people in our nation that are college or university educated the higher the standard of living and quality of life in our nation will become and it will encourage individuals to achieve higher education which benefits all of society in too many ways to list.

Ah yes, the poor subsidizing the rich for the "benefit" of the poor: is it any wonder why socialism is always a disaster?

 

[FrenchAffair]

If you are really believe this starry-eyed idealist B.S. notion that subsidies improve society, then provide a direct subsidy (i.e., tax break) to all parents and let them choose which sports to enroll their kids in: then kids who don't play hockey can enjoy the benefit of organized sports, too ... it ain't rocket science.

So then only people who choose to have that tax break contribute to hockey should be allowed to use the facilities? Should we issue them special identification cards indicating that they contributed to the construction of the Arena and only they have access to it?

The government builds these facilities and every individual has the right to use them and take advantage of the benefits of them.

I’ve never had cause the call the police or require their services, should I be forced to pay for the police services provided to other people?

Ah yes, the poor subsidizing the rich for the "benefit" of the poor: is it any wonder why socialism is always a disaster?

We live in a social democracy, big difference from socialism. And the subsidizing of education has been very successful in the western world. Each generation more and more people are able to attend post secondary education and the benefits of that to our society can easily been seen. 

 

[a_majoor]

All your arguments can be parsed quite simply in the hockey example:

1. "I want to play hockey"
2. "I am unwilling to make any but the most notional sacrifice to fulfill my wants"
3. "I demand others contribute $3800 so I can play hockey"
4. "It does not matter that these contributers might have other uses for the $3800, or wants of their own; my wants are paramount"
5. "Since they might not wish to contribute to my playing hockey, I will invoke the armed power of the State to enfoce these contributions"

You can substitute any "legislated right" for hockey, the arguments are always the same, and have the same results. Stealing frrom others  is not a right, and using the power of the State to steal from legislatively disarmed people is moraly disgusting. In EVERY example you have thrown out, the true benefit of this theft goes to the individual who is able to receive the bounty of others. Saying "society benefits" is a hollow rationalization since the concept is so elastic as to be meaningless; you can arbitrarily include or exclude any person, group or institution in order to support your position.

The empirical evidence simply and totally contradicts everything you say; people are not better off, ouor standard of living is increasing at a far slower rate than more Libertarian jurisdictions, Health care standards are not only declining (i.e. wait times) but we now hear serious suggestions of rationing and arbitray discrimination to conserve the dwindling resources. You have certainly made our point, and out of your own mouth too.

Live your life, enjoy the benefits hard working people provide you. I suspect you will never break through that level of self involvemeent to either study the arguments or thank the hard working people on whom you feed, but there is always hope.

 

[FrenchAffair]

a_majoor, so you are saying that the state has no right to tax citizens?

ouor standard of living is increasing at a far slower rate than more Libertarian jurisdictions

Examples?

Live your life, enjoy the benefits hard working people provide you.

It is incredibly likely that not only do I pay far more taxes than you do each year but that you use far more government services than I do.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The government builds these facilities and every individual has the right to use them and take advantage of the benefits of them.

Access is irrelevant to someone who has no interest, and culture and leisure are exactly the last areas in which governments should be involved because in order to pay for one person's pleasure, another must be denied his own.

> I’ve never had cause the call the police or require their services, should I be forced to pay for the police services provided to other people?

Unless you manage to avoid using public roads - either your own vehicle or transit - you at least indirectly use police (traffic) services.  Public infrastructure is much the same, and those functions are why most people who might be sympathetic to riding on the libertarian bus get off at the stop marked "classical liberal" or not much further along. With respect to most infrastructure, the role of government boiled down to basics is to accept a risk or write-off that a private concern can not (because a private concern does not have the power to go door-to-door to demand payments).  Nearly all infrastructure can be operated privately; much of it is difficult to develop privately.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>We could end world poverty and hunger with in a matter of months… easily.

Yes, and we have governments of almost every conceivable type around the globe - including many welfare states - and the problem persists.  They've failed.  Time to try something else.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Nearly all infrastructure can be operated privately

At which time the chief concern stops being to benefit the people and begins to be making a profit, in which case access to infrastructure stops being nation wide and becomes restricted to the select few who can afford it. 

Yes, and we have governments of almost every conceivable type around the globe - including many welfare states - and the problem persists.  They've failed.  Time to try something else.

If anything the “welfare” states have succeeded. America was very close to your ideal nation pre 1930’s and that ended in the great depression which resulted in the implimation of social initiatives, which in turn brought board wide increases in the standard of living and quality of life, not to mention economic gains.

The states in which the government does not provide health care, education, welfare are the ones that are failing, the ones where people are starveling and in poverty.

90% of the world wealth exists in these “welfare states”, combined with the highest standards of living in the world so obviously we are doing something right.

 

[George Wallace]

a_majoor, so you are saying that the state has no right to tax citizens?

It is incredibly likely that not only do I pay far more taxes than you do each year but that you use far more government services than I do.

Ewwwwwwwwwwww!

Someone assuming!

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

At which time the chief concern stops being to benefit the people and begins to be making a profit,

Yeah, the benefit of the people: how come everything that is for the "benefit of the people" begins with "you give us," then continues with "we pay ourselves and our friends," and ends with "then we'll give you.?"

If anything the “welfare” states have succeeded. America was very close to your ideal nation pre 1930’s and that ended in the great depression which resulted in the implimation of social initiatives, which in turn brought board wide increases in the standard of living and quality of life, not to mention economic gains.

The recession was caused by market forces; the depression was caused by tight monetary policy and exacerbated by the New Deal.

The states in which the government does not provide health care, education, welfare are the ones that are failing, the ones where people are starveling and in poverty.

Yeah, sure whatever you say ...

90% of the world wealth exists in these “welfare states”, combined with the highest standards of living in the world so obviously we are doing something right.

Just because something is popular, it isn't necessarily optimal: have you ever heard of national debt?  Do you have any understanding that the standard of living of my generation is lower than that of my parents?  Do you know why?  I'll tell you: the "me" generation went out and 'maxed their credit cards' in the name of the kind "social progress" you seem to think is such a wonderful thing: the problem is that they (well, the smarter ones among them) have already accumulated their wealth ... it is the younger taxpayer that will shoulder the burden of most of their benefits.  It happens over time, but is inevitable.  Where do you think the interests of your 50-something professors, who rely on the taxpayer for most of their salaries and their retirement pensions, lie?  Do you honestly think that they would try to convince you to shortchange their lifestyle for the benefit of yours?

 

[FrenchAffair]

Ewwwwwwwwwwww!

Someone assuming!

I’m making an educated guess. If his given career in his profile is correct I can ensure you that I make more money a year than any sergeant in the Canadian forces does and that I and my family use far less social services than someone in the working class would.

Yeah, the benefit of the people: how come everything that is for the "benefit of the people" begins with "you give us," then continues with "we pay ourselves and our friends," and ends with "then we'll give you.?"

Even if that was so, what we get in return from the government for the amount of money we pay each year is far in excess of what we would be able to buy with that same money in terms of private services.

The recession was caused by market forces; the depression was caused by tight monetary policy and exacerbated by the New Deal.

The New Deal reversed the effects of the unregulated economy and brought the US back into a position of prosperity. The Depression started with the crash of the stock market in 1929, the New deal was implemented in 1933. With in a year the effects of it were felt accost the nation and world for that fact.

Yeah, sure whatever you say ...

It is not an issue of what I am saying. It is an issue of world trends. The developed nations of this world are progressive social democracies, the nations with the highest standard of health care are the ones that provide universal health care to all it’s citizens, the nations with the highest levels of education are the ones who provide free public and post secondary education to it’s citizens, the nations that have the highest GDP are the ones that balance free markets with rational regulations to ensure workers rights and standards.

Nations in which the government does not provide these things (as Libertarians would have) are not developed nations.

Just because something is popular, it isn't necessarily optimal: have you ever heard of national debt?  Do you have any understanding that the standard of living of my generation is lower than that of my parents?  Do you know why?  I'll tell you: the "me" generation went out and 'maxed their credit cards' in the name of the kind "social progress" you seem to think is such a wonderful thing: the problem is that they (well, the smarter ones among them) have already accumulated their wealth ... it is the younger taxpayer that will shoulder the burden of most of their benefits.  It happens over time, but is inevitable.  Where do you think the interests of your 50-something professors, who rely on the taxpayer for most of their salaries and their retirement pensions, lie?  Do you honestly think that they would try to convince you to shortchange their lifestyle for the benefit of yours?

I don’t support deficit spending. Our national debt was racked up by Liberal ministers back in the 70’s. It is not my idea of intelligent finical policy.

 

[a_majoor]

I don’t support deficit spending. Our national debt was racked up by Liberal ministers back in the 70’s. It is not my idea of intelligent finical policy.

Yet this sort of spending was for precisely the results you are arguing for, with precisely the results we are highlighting.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Yet this sort of spending was for precisely the results you are arguing for, with precisely the results we are highlighting.

The ends do not justify the means. Just because they used the money they borrowed to bolster social institutions doesn’t mean that I support the ways they got that money.

If someone robed a bank and gave all he money to starving children in Africa, of course giving money to those in need is something I support, but just because they used the money for good does not mean that I would support robbing banks to do that.

The Liberals subscribed to fiscal philosophies that were incorrect, borrowing large sums of money does not benefit the nation in the long run. Canada did not need to do that to institute the needed social reforms and to better both the lives of Canadians and our economy. It just provided for a convient source of large amounts of money effectively to buy them support.

Our nation generates more than enough income where a moderate tax rate will give our government more than enough funds to provide and sustain the social institutions required in a developed nation.

 

[aesop081]

I’m making an educated guess. If his given career in his profile is correct I can ensure you that I make more money a year than any sergeant in the Canadian forces does and that I and my family use far less social services than someone in the working class would.

Shall i run and get the measuring tape now so you can feel superior about your apendage or are you just naturaly this arrogant ?

want a cookie ?

 

[FrenchAffair]

Shall i run and get the measuring tape now so you can feel superior about your apendage or are you just naturaly this arrogant ?

want a cookie ?

I wasn’t the one who brought it up. If he wants to accuse me of being on welfare, benefiting off the hard earned wages of others and wanting to cheat the “rich” our of their money I will simply state the very simple fact that I was born into a family which is better off (financially) than 95% of this nation and that unless he is the head of the Canadian Armed forces I both make, and pay more taxes than he does and as result of that use up far less social services and benefit far less off these government institutions.

If I wanted to gloat about the position I was born into it would have been the first thing I mentioned when writing in this thread. It wasn’t, because really I think it is irrelevant, that is irrelevant in till these people accuse me of only supporting the political philosophy I do because “I am poor and like to benefit at the expense of others”. Such accusations will not stand and in such a case I will simply point out that if anyone is benefiting off anyone, it is others off me. Something I have absolutely no issue with as I fully support reasonable distribution of wealth to ensure that all Canadians are able to provide for their families and enjoy a lifestyle demanded of a developed nation.

 

[a_majoor]

The ends do not justify the means. Just because they used the money they borrowed to bolster social institutions doesn’t mean that I support the ways they got that money.

Funny, that's exactly what we are saying. How many times can you sum yourself up, I wonder?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Even if that was so, what we get in return from the government for the amount of money we pay each year is far in excess of what we would be able to buy with that same money in terms of private services.

Depends on who you are referring to when you say "we": if you mean the population as a whole, you are definitely wrong: the opposite is true.

The New Deal reversed the effects of the unregulated economy and brought the US back into a position of prosperity. The Depression started with the crash of the stock market in 1929, the New deal was implemented in 1933. With in a year the effects of it were felt accost the nation and world for that fact.

And how has every nation managed to recover from every other recession without a New Deal?  The economy recovered despite the New Deal, not because of it: the New Deal slowed and reduced the degree of recovery.

It is not an issue of what I am saying. It is an issue of world trends. The developed nations of this world are progressive social democracies, the nations with the highest standard of health care are the ones that provide universal health care to all it’s citizens, the nations with the highest levels of education are the ones who provide free public and post secondary education to it’s citizens, the nations that have the highest GDP are the ones that balance free markets with rational regulations to ensure workers rights and standards.

Sure and all of the various Asian economic miracles occurred because they increased their minimum wages and and social program spending while we reduced ours, right?  Think a little before you write such absurdities ...

I don’t support deficit spending. Our national debt was racked up by Liberal ministers back in the 70’s. It is not my idea of intelligent finical policy.

Uh, but I thought that was the reason for our economic 'miracle'  ...

 

[Brad Sallows]

>90% of the world wealth exists in these “welfare states”, combined with the highest standards of living in the world so obviously we are doing something right.

Modern welfare states were prosperous and on track to more prosperity long before the welfare part was grafted on.  Check the time lines.  A prosperous state is a prerequisite for a bountiful welfare state.  There are several states which provide education, health care, welfare, etc but that has not helped them to become prosperous.  The key to prosperity is relatively unbridled human ingenuity and industriousness.  All a welfare state does is trade gross opportunity costs to obtain specific outcomes.  In most cases it appears that the wealth lost to the transaction costs of a public bureaucracy far outweigh the wealth "lost" to the profits of a private undertaking.  Otherwise, fewer public corporations should fail or be threatened with failure in a competitive environment when their funding and legislative advantages are removed.