quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men are born with rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But not, interestingly enough, with guns.

The most effective form of self-defence is by taking away the reasons for which someone would find cause to hurt you.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever wonder just WHY the LIEberals refused to enshrine property rights??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because owning property is not a right?

---

How is it reasonable to presume that property ownership is not a right. I work hard for my money (please, no singing) and when I spend it on goods, I assume that they are mine.

Now there's a scary statement...one of which I have no doubt tyrants everywhere will endorse.

That the Charter of Rights does not include property rights is no mere oversight.

You enshrine property rights, you thus imply the right to defense of property...which opens up a can of worms for your dedicated socialists everywhere. Socialists like, f'rinstance, Trudeau...who chaired the entire creation of the Consitution and the Charter of Rights.

quote:

---

The most effective form of self-defence is by taking away the reasons for which someone would find cause to hurt you.

---

Yes. This is why the only people who ever get beaten, raped, robbed or killed in Canada are people who've given someone reason to.

If you're just a regular citizen who minds their own business, keeps to themself and doesn't harm others, you're perfectly safe.

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: Pogo ]

Also, the last time I checked, you can't own another person, or a nuclear weapon, or cocaine.

For this reason, framers of constitutions and charters of rights tend to avoid enshrining property ownership as an absolute right.

Jefferson, in writing the U.S. Declaration of Independence, adapted John Locke's "Life, Liberty and Property", changing the latter to "the pursuit of happiness". He and other U.S. founding fathers wisely saw some of the problems that could arise from fully enshrining property rights.

Property rights are normally dealt with through criminal law (e.g. against theft) and through other enshrined rights (e.g. the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure). Even there, there are usually terms like "unreasonable" which allow for considerable discretion.

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]

Other than of how State socialism/communism can destroy a nation to the point that it takes decades to even begin to get back on track.

If we're going to resort to extremes...

Then let's look at N. Korea, China, the USSR, the Warsaw Pact nations regarding what happens when the State denies property rights...or any rights at all.

Ownership is crucial to democracy and freedom. If nothing else, it gives citizens something to consider losing if they become too apathetic or complascent.

quote:

---

Yes. This is why the only people who ever get beaten, raped, robbed or killed in Canada are people who've given someone reason to.

If you're just a regular citizen who minds their own business, keeps to themself and doesn't harm others, you're perfectly safe.

---

As for propertah...

quote:

---

Without the fundamental right of property ownership, we open ourselves to governments stealing what we have earned through hard work.

---

Yes, but not everything you have is something you've earned. All property, essentially, is based on theft, whether its the land we're standing on or the sweatshop clothes we buy. That's not to say I'm in favor of abolishing it entirely, but I see what goes on in the States, where they have enshrined property rights, and how the collective often suffers because of a single individual's fetishistic belief in property.

quote:

---

Perhaps that is why they seek to disarm us first??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sir_springer:
How could Albania provide an example of anything?

---

reductio ad absurdum

(take an argument to its logical conclusion to show its folly)

and of course your reply is an

ad hominem

(ridiculing characteristics of the subject while ignoring the argument)

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: Pogo ]

quote:

---

All property, essentially, is based on theft, whether its the land we're standing on or the sweatshop clothes we buy.

---

How in god's name do you figure that all property is based on theft.

Are you indicating that we cannot own land in north america because the Indians were here first?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbringer:
All property is stealing??

Do they get any more LEFT than you??

---

Yes. Yes they do. Rather often.

quote:

---

How in god's name do you figure that all property is based on theft.

Are you indicating that we cannot own land in north america because the Indians were here first?

---

quote:

---

The "reasons" was referring to were, of course, the so-called "root causes" of crime, ie. poverty, drug/alcohol dependancy etc.

---

But I haven't caused anyone else's poverty, nor anyone else's habit(s). What's more, I can't prevent their poverty, nor can I do anything about their habit(s).

This can be explained as an evolution argument. The survival of the fittest. How is it reasonable to expect a stone-age culture to thrive when all the surrounding cultures are bronze-age or beyond?

You could even argue that since the natives did not own the land (they considered themselves stewards of the land, not owners) there was no theft committed. The base perceptions of land use and property were fundamentally different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

But I haven't caused anyone else's poverty, nor anyone else's habit(s). What's more, I can't prevent their poverty, nor can I do anything about their habit(s).

So this doesn't strike as "the most effective form of self-defense", so much as utterly the most ineffective.

---

quote:

---

The natives traded their land in the treaties. It wasn't stolen

---

The root cause of crime is a lack of moral fibre and the willingness to be corrupted, not proverty.

However, that is a duffing answer.

If you accept that the natives had some form of ownership of the land, then it is arguable that without treaties then the land could be considered stolen.

However, perhaps we could look at this in a purely native context. If one nation moved onto the land of another nation, the two nations went to war and to the victor went the spoils. With this in mind, the natives in Canada (I don't know enought about the U.S. situation to comment) simply lost the war in a far less bloody fashion.

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

quote:

---

The natives traded their land in the treaties. It wasn't stolen. They may not have bargained for what the land was worth BUT...... it wasn't stolen.
This can be explained as an evolution argument. The survival of the fittest. How is it reasonable to expect a stone-age culture to thrive when all the surrounding cultures are bronze-age or beyond?

You could even argue that since the natives did not own the land (they considered themselves stewards of the land, not owners) there was no theft committed. The base perceptions of land use and property were fundamentally different.

---

Also: so theft is only theft if the victim is aware of the value of what's being stolen? Gotcha.

quote:

---

The root cause of crime is a lack of moral fibre and the willingness to be corrupted, not proverty.

Can you honestly say that Kenneth Lay has a poverty and drug problem?

---

quote:

---

Sigh. We need to create a society where people aren't driven to a life of crime and violence to ensure the safety of all citizens. Better?

---

Sure. Except I'm not sure how our current society "drives" anyone to murder a child, rape a woman, shoot someone in the face over a credit card, or beat a gay man with a shovel.

In fact, I think that we've actually gone a little overboard in blaming ourselves for the choices of others. Sure, nobody prefers poverty to wealth, but a great many poor don't go around mugging others. So then what "drives" a mugger to assault people for money? Can't be the poverty, or everyone living in poverty would do it. Must be a choice.

Likewise, lots of people are addicted to things... like my parents, who were alcoholics of the "breakfast brew" caliber. I remember seeing my father want a drink really badly when he had no money, but I never saw him jack a car for it. So it's hard to stomach the lip-flap of some other addict who harms someone to get their daily fix... y'know?

quote:

---

Sure. Except I'm not sure how our current society "drives" anyone to murder a child, rape a woman, shoot someone in the face over a credit card, or beat a gay man with a shovel.

In fact, I think that we've actually gone a little overboard in blaming ourselves for the choices of others. Sure, nobody prefers poverty to wealth, but a great many poor don't go around mugging others. So then what "drives" a mugger to assault people for money? Can't be the poverty, or everyone living in poverty would do it. Must be a choice.

Likewise, lots of people are addicted to things... like my parents, who were alcoholics of the "breakfast brew" caliber. I remember seeing my father want a drink really badly when he had no money, but I never saw him jack a car for it. So it's hard to stomach the lip-flap of some other addict who harms someone to get their daily fix... y'know?

---

I would never claim that a criminal's mind is wired differently. I merely state that they do not have the moral conviction to do what is right. My father was a dirt poor Irish immigrant and he didn't need to rob anyone to become a success. Neither did my mother-in-law, who was abandoned by her husband when my wife was a child.

Ken Lay had a fiduciary duty to his employees and Enron's shareholders which he did not uphold. This is nothing but personal weakness, which is the true root of all crime.

On the native issue, most of the negotiation were conducted with fluent Native and Western interpreters. All parties were given loads of time to accept the treaties and both sides did.

None of this changes my argument that the natives inability to own land on the reserves is not good for them. Look at the conditions in which they live and decide for yourself.

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

quote:

---

Not everyone is necessarily aware of the choices they have and not every decision a person makes is going to be rational. People don't develop in vacumns. That said, I ask you: do you think that reducing poverty would lead to less crime?

---

A person with a strong moral fibre will be far less likely to commit a crime .

To answer the question though, no, I do not think that reducing poverty will reduce crime.

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

quote:

---

That said, I ask you: do you think that reducing poverty would lead to less crime?

---

Some crime, yes. Other crime, no. I don't think the majority of crime, and certainly not the majority of violent crime, has roots in dollars and cents. How little money do you have to have to believe that it's O.K. to beat someone?

edited because: I actually wrote "dollars and sense". It must be hometime.

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
The natives traded their land in the treaties

---

Which were negotiated in bad faith on the part of the dominant party in the agreement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
The root cause of crime is a lack of moral fibre and the willingness to be corrupted, not proverty.

Can you honestly say that Kenneth Lay has a poverty and drug problem?

---

quote:

---

Ken Lay had a fiduciary duty to his employees and Enron's shareholders which he did not uphold. This is nothing but personal weakness, which is the true root of all crime.

---

The root of all crime is the supremacy of wealth and conspicuous consumption over all other values. Work is not valued for work but for the wealth it represents. The man who sweeps the floor is not entitled to a living wage as his work is not valued. But Kenneth Lay is worth millions every year as CEO because society worships the position regardless of the character of the person who holds it or what is done to increase the much vaunbted stock value: the much talked about bottom line.

quote:

---

I would never claim that a criminal's mind is wired differently. I merely state that they do not have the moral conviction to do what is right.

---

Okay, fine. So how do we make sure people have this moral fibre? Is there a moral All-Bran we can feed them?

quote:

---

Ken Lay had a fiduciary duty to his employees and Enron's shareholders which he did not uphold. This is nothing but personal weakness, which is the true root of all crime.

---

quote:

---

But I haven't caused anyone else's poverty

---

Are ya sure, Magoo? I'm under the impression that you supported Mean Mike Harris. You know the guy - took 22% of welfare payments away from society's weakest. Never raised minimum wages. Forced a 60 hour work week without overtime on those poor bastards.

quote:

---

Men are born with rights.

---

As soon as you set something down, you are depending on the consensus of society to keep that property in your name while you walk away from it.

The amount of property you can "own" is totally dependant on how much the rest of society is willing to recognize.

These type of "rights" occur either by general consensus, majority decisions, or dictatorial decree. You, as an individual (unless you are the dictator) have no say in how much property you can own.

I would generally put all limitations under the catagory of "hoarding". In a general sense, if I refuse to allow the government to run a power line along a thin strip of land at the edge of my property, I'm hoarding it. If I "earn" a million dollars, and I refuse to allow any of it to go toward educating children or healing the sick etc., I'm hoarding it. If I have a warehouse full of grain while thousands around me are starving I'm hoarding it.

quote:

---

This, of course, is nonsense. Kenneth Lay was a church going man and a pillar in his community. He was, for all appearances, the poster boy for moral fibre. Moral fibre becomes the issue of discussion because it cannot be quantified. So, Kenneth Lay so long as Enron is sucessful, he attends church on Sunday, provides donations to local charities, and conceals his crimes is a good man of good moral fibre. When his crimes are uncovered and Enron collapses, well, then he simply lacked moral fibre; the very thing he represented only a day earlier.

---

Wingnut, attending Church every Sunday does not make you a moral person. Lay is the equivalent of the guys who walked around in the middle ages flogging themselves publically and praying on public street corners. Just because you look moral doesn't mean that you are. People who behave as he did are, by definintion, lacking moral fibre.

I do partly agree with you next premise

quote:

---

The root of all crime is the supremacy of wealth and conspicuous consumption over all other values. Work is not valued for work but for the wealth it represents.

---

quote:

---

Okay, fine. So how do we make sure people have this moral fibre? Is there a moral All-Bran we can feed them?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Lay had a fiduciary duty to his employees and Enron's shareholders which he did not uphold. This is nothing but personal weakness, which is the true root of all crime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

---

A strong upbringing in traditional values combined with a true respect for 'others people money' goes a long way.

quote:

---

The root of all crime is the supremacy of wealth and conspicuous consumption over all other values. Work is not valued for work but for the wealth it represents.

---

This may have some truth for certain types of property crime, fraud, embezzlement, etc., but I don't know how much it has to tell us about violent crime which is violent for its own sake.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

This may have some truth for certain types of property crime, fraud, embezzlement, etc., but I don't know how much it has to tell us about violent crime which is violent for its own sake.

Seems to me that in days gone by a burglary was just that - someone entered your house, took your silver candlesticks, and vanished. Now it seems as likely that they'll stay to beat on you and your family for a while before going. Likewise if someone mugged you they wanted your wallet, and once they got it they fled. Now there's a good chance the mugger will shoot you, even after getting the wallet. Just for fun, I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Nope. Just from reading the newspapers now and 15 or 20 years ago. Violent crime may indeed be on the decline, in sheer numbers, but anecdotally it seems what there is has become more brutal than it used to be, and more gratuitous. We even have new words for new crimes we've invented, like "drive by" or "swarming" or "carjacking". It sure as hell isn't about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children anymore.

---

quote:

---

At least you admit that even rich white fellas can commit crimes. The way some right-wing folk act, and especially some of the American right-wing folk I've dealt with, rich people walk on water and no white person ever commits a crime.

---

DrConway

The majority of right-wing folk (including yours truly) believe that no-one is exempt from commiting crimes. 'Rich right wing white-folk', church leaders, drug-addled prostitues, inner city minorities and priveliged children. It all comes down to character. You will do what is right or you will do what is wrong.

I think the difference is that we right-wing folk can acknowledge the faults within ourselves, not just in other people.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
The natives traded their land in the treaties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which were negotiated in bad faith on the part of the dominant party in the agreement.

---

Back that one up with some facts. This is a shibboleth of the left and the aboriginals but I havn't seen a whole lot of evidence that this happened in Canada on a grand scale.

quote:

---

Are you saying that 20 years ago it was common for a woman to amputate her neighbour's hands with a machete, or for groups of punks to gang-stomp other teens, but for some reason the newspapers chose not to report it?

---

quote:

---

A strong upbringing in traditional values combined with a true respect for 'others people money' goes a long way.

---

Ah. So a nice little right-wing upbringing would do it...what about Paul Hill, eh?

So how can you tell ahead of time whether someone has adequate moral fibre?

quote:

---

I hope you aren't implying that we cannot discuss the root cause of evil in people unless we are perfect.

---

I'm saying that it's awfully easy to accuse people who commit crimes of lacking "moral fibre" when you don't actually know a damn thing about them or where they're coming from, and not only is this arrogant, it isn't helpful at all.

quote:

---

Are you saying that 20 years ago it was common for a woman to amputate her neighbour's hands with a machete, or for groups of punks to gang-stomp other teens, but for some reason the newspapers chose not to report it?

---

Exactly how often do we read about people amputating their neighbours' hands today?

quote:

---

I think the difference is that we right-wing folk can acknowledge the faults within ourselves, not just in other people.

---

Don't fucking make me laugh. "I am good and they are bad" ("I have moral fibre and they don't") is "acknowledging the faults within ourselves"?

quote:

---

The way some left-wing folk act, and especially some of the American & Canadian left-wing folk I've dealt with, poor people walk on water and no non-caucasian person ever commits a crime without some 'mitigating factor' (poverty, cultural disadvantages, drug addiction).

---

I don't think a lot of people commit crimes without some sort of mitigating factor.

quote:

---

These 'factors' mean that it wasn't really a crime, just a way of leveling the playing field.

---

No, they mean it was a crime, but it wasn't a simple case of "lack of moral fibre." They mean there are shades of grey, and there are factors that can contribute to crime other than an individual's waking up one morning and deciding, out of nowhere, to do a Bad Thing.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by black_dog:
Treatise drafted and negotiated in OUR language using OUR legal system and carried out under force of arms: yeah that's sounds fair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Are you saying that 20 years ago it was common for a woman to amputate her neighbour's hands with a machete, or for groups of punks to gang-stomp other teens, but for some reason the newspapers chose not to report it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by black_dog:
[QB]

Sigh 2.
Not everyone is necessarily aware of the choices they have and not every decision a person makes is going to be rational.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:

No, they're not. They're born with gunk all over them and teeny weenies. Rights are something they make up as they grow bigger and get more stuff. The idea of rights becomes more complicated, the more stuff men have. Once they get guns, the idea of rights becomes too complicated for any earthling to understand. That's why they don't put it in the constitution: constitutions are slower and more cumbersome to change than ownership.

---

quote:

---

I'm saying that it's awfully easy to accuse people who commit crimes of lacking "moral fibre" when you don't actually know a damn thing about them or where they're coming from, and not only is this arrogant, it isn't helpful at all.

---

My whole point is that mitigating factors shouldn't count. You commit a crime because you willingly break the social fabric and do something wrong. A mitigating factor is just a cheap excuse.

quote:

---

Don't f****** make me laugh. "I am good and they are bad" ("I have moral fibre and they don't") is "acknowledging the faults within ourselves"?

---

Not at all. Acknowledging that I have the temptation to commit a crime is acknowledging the faults within ourselves. The moral fibre comes from the strenght to resist the temptation to actually go through with it.

I also don't think that many people wake up one morning and decide to commit a crime out of nowhere. They think about it, work up the courage, supress their guilt with 'mitigating factors', and then go out and do it. After a few times, they start to believe the mitigating factors and it get easier. Soon, they don't think that what they are doing is wrong.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve N:
At best, you have a "right" to as much property as you can carry around with you at one time.

As soon as you set something down, you are depending on the consensus of society to keep that property in your name while you walk away from it.

The amount of property you can "own" is totally dependant on how much the rest of society is willing to recognize.

These type of "rights" occur either by general consensus, majority decisions, or dictatorial decree. You, as an individual (unless you are the dictator) have no say in how much property you can own.

---

Typically leftist, and totally wrong.

You have the right to as much property as you can legally acquire, and then are able to defend.

This defense can be the laws of a nation, the morals of a society, or the force of arms of the individual.

Or does the ownership of my car cease because I park it on the side of the road? Does it make it alright for some criminal to steal it because I am not standing there defending it?

Theft is a crime because it infringes upon my right to own property.

quote:

---

I would generally put all limitations under the catagory of "hoarding". In a general sense, if I refuse to allow the government to run a power line along a thin strip of land at the edge of my property, I'm hoarding it. If I "earn" a million dollars, and I refuse to allow any of it to go toward educating children or healing the sick etc., I'm hoarding it. If I have a warehouse full of grain while thousands around me are starving I'm hoarding it.

---

All of which are simply the left's complaints against "selfishness" when someone has something they want.

They use the guilt trip of "compassion" to try and convince people it's wrong to be "selfish".

quote:

---

Ownership of property requires the recognition of that title by the society you find yourself in the middle of. Society puts reasonable limits on that title. Ownership is not "absolute" unless you are the sole occupant of a deserted island.

---

quote:

---

Ah. So a nice little right-wing upbringing would do it...what about Paul Hill, eh?

---

Commiting a crime to protest another is wrong. You get no argument from me on this one. I never said a right-wing upbringing would give a person a strong moral fibre. What I said was

quote:

---

A strong upbringing in traditional values combined with a true respect for 'others people money' goes a long way.

---

quote:

---

Or does the ownership of my car cease because I park it on the side of the road? Does it make it alright for some criminal to steal it because I am not standing there defending it?

---

It remains yours only because there is a social and legal consensus that it is yours. Laws like that aren't innate; they have to be created.

The fact that something isn't completely "natural" doesn't make it wrong; but it does have to be recognized as an artificial construct.

quote:

---

A strong upbringing in traditional values combined with a true respect for 'others people money' goes a long way.

---

The "traditional values" part tipped me off. Generally, when people say "traditional values," they don't just mean "love thy neighbour" or "say please and thank you"; they mean things like prayer in school and criminalization of homosexuality.

The "true respect for other people's money" thing goes the same way. Did you expect me to think you meant just "not snatching old ladies' purses"? You meant "not taxing the rich to pay for stupid things like social services."

I'm all for property rights. But I don't think taxes at their current rates - or the rates they were at in the '60s, for that matter - constitute theft, any more than I think not being allowed to wander into strangers' houses constitutes an infringement on my liberty. There are certain liberties we give up so we can live in a reasonably civilized atmosphere.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]

As to homosexuality, who cares. You are who you are and if that means gay the so be it. I couldn't give two hoots.

quote:

---

taxes should be spent responsibly and for the greater good

---

I dare you to find anyone, from the loony left to the radical right, who would disagree with this statement. Anywhere.

quote:

---

You should be aware that not all right-wingers are bible-thumping bigots.

---

I apologize. I misinterpreted your use of the phrase "traditional values."

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]

quote:

---

I dare you to find anyone, from the loony left to the radical right, who would disagree with this statement. Anywhere.

---

Now, (but without admitting the contradiction) there is a great claim that "property rights" should be placed in the Charter, and thus beyond the competence of the legislature.

The main posters to this thread do not explain to us why rights such as the right to marry should NOT be subject to the Charter, but the right to property should.

quote:

---

Now, (but without admitting the contradiction) there is a great claim that "property rights" should be placed in the Charter, and thus beyond the competence of the legislature.

---

Placing something in the charter should be only done by Parliament, not by the judiciary or the PMO.

I will not respond futher to marriage in this thread but for this: marriage should be enshrined in the charter by the parliament.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

quote:

---

This is a shibboleth of the left

---

quote:

---

Jeff, this thread has nothing to do with marriage questions.

---

This thread has to do with whether "property" should be enshrined in the Charter, thereby denying the legislature the right to entrench upon that right. The Alliance says "property" should be in the Charter. On virtually every other question, it wants to DENY the courts the right to consider the matter. Instead, they bray that only Parliament is democratic.

This contradiction can be ILLUSTRATED by the gay marriage case, or by criminal law cases, or by women's rights cases. In each instance, the Alliance has spouted its US-made screed that the courts are undemocratic.

But when it comes to property, they take PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE position. And they try to fudge the contradiction.

quote:

---

I will not respond futher to marriage in this thread but for this: marriage should be enshrined in the charter by the parliament.

---

Parliament can't do it, not alone anyway, any more than they could enshrine property rights. Either one would be a constitutional amendment, which requires the consent of 7 provincial legislatures representing 50% or more of the population, as well as the consent of the federal Parliament.

Enshrining property rights would, among other things, mean an end to the building of any new infrastructure in the country. If people have a right to something, they're not supposed to be able to give it up; so no government could expropriate property to build a highway, say. Or, if the property owners could successfully argue that they should be allowed to give up their property rights, it would only be in order to hold governments to ransom for exorbitant compensation. After all, giving up a right is far more serious than merely being compensated for the expropriation of property needed for the public good, yes?

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smith:
quote r does the ownership of my car cease because I park it on the side of the road? Does it make it alright for some criminal to steal it because I am not standing there defending it?

It remains yours only because there is a social and legal consensus that it is yours. Laws like that aren't innate; they have to be created.

---

Isn't that more or less what I said:

quote:

---

This defense can be the laws of a nation, the morals of a society, or the force of arms of the individual.

---

Laws flow from rights - theft is against the law, because it infringes upon my right to own, use and dispose of such property how and as I see fit.

Ethics also flow from rights - we know theft is wrong, because it infringes upon the rights of others.

Laws and societal behaviours are simply expressions of rights. Rights *are* innate.

quote:

---

The fact that something isn't completely "natural" doesn't make it wrong; but it does have to be recognized as an artificial construct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The Canadian Alliance and its ilk

---

We can do without the aspersions, thank you very much.

quote:

---

The main posters to this thread do not explain to us why rights such as the right to marry should NOT be subject to the Charter, but the right to property should.

That is a sine quae non for being treated seriously. They haven't met the test.

---

This is because "marriage" in and of itself, is *not* a right. If I had the right to marry, no one could deny me that right, and some poor soul would have to suffer in order to uphold my right.

It is, however, dependent upon *other* rights, such as the freedom of association. That is why laws against same sex or multiple partner marraiges are unconstitutional.

Property, however, is an inherent extension of the self, through work, which is the application of your effort over time, which is your life, which is yours to conduct as you see fit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andy Social:
What's with righties and the word shibboleth?
Seriously, the only place I see that word is in right wing letters to the editor, opinion columns and Internet posts. I have never heard anyone say that word out loud.

---

I guess you've never watched The West Wing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
Enshrining property rights would, among other things, mean an end to the building of any new infrastructure in the country. If people have a right to something, they're not supposed to be able to give it up; so no government could expropriate property to build a highway, say.

---

The operative words, already in the Constitution, are "without due process".

If you had the absolute right to liberty, you couldn't be locked up for committing a crime.

quote:

---

Or, if the property owners could successfully argue that they should be allowed to give up their property rights, it would only be in order to hold governments to ransom for exorbitant compensation.

---

And who better to decide what is fair compensation? It is the individual's property after all.

How would it be if the State could just come along and tell you to get out, without any recourse, for a dollar?

Checks and balances. That is what the courts are for.

quote:

---

After all, giving up a right is far more serious than merely being compensated for the expropriation of property needed for the public good, yes?

---

quote:

---

The operative words, already in the Constitution, are "without due process".

---

The idea that the property distribution in the United States flows from "work" is comical in this century, though. Recently, a 19 year old basketball player received a $90,000,000.00 contract from Nike to front their shoes. Does that represent "work"?

Or, to choose an example closer to Texas, did the Enron billionaires enjoy that status because of "work"? How is inherited wealth, for example, a result of "work"?

quote:

---

This thread has to do with whether "property" should be enshrined in the Charter, thereby denying the legislature the right to entrench upon that right. The Alliance says "property" should be in the Charter. On virtually every other question, it wants to DENY the courts the right to consider the matter. Instead, they bray that only Parliament is democratic.

---

quote:

---

Parliament can't do it, not alone anyway, any more than they could enshrine property rights. Either one would be a constitutional amendment, which requires the consent of 7 provincial legislatures representing 50% or more of the population, as well as the consent of the federal Parliament

---

quote:

---

Property, however, is an inherent extension of the self, through work, which is the application of your effort over time, which is your life, which is yours to conduct as you see fit

---

quote:

---

I gotta quit going to meetings.

---

quote:

---

What? Are you nuts?
Those are the fun ones. We sit around with the Iluminati and plot ways to take over the world.

---

What? Tri-lateral commision? Who are they?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Quoting Lockean doctrine from the 1660's is hardly a basis for arguing that Canada, or any modern nation, should place "property" in a Bill of Rights or Charter.

---

Why? Because *you* say so?

Well, I say different.

quote:

---

The idea that the property distribution in the United States flows from "work" is comical in this century, though. Recently, a 19 year old basketball player received a $90,000,000.00 contract from Nike to front their shoes. Does that represent "work"?

---

In a free market, you negotiate for a "wage" in return for the "work" you perform. If someone was willing to pay me for $90M for sitting on my behind, well, that's between me and them.

That's the problem with neo-libs - you can't mind your own business. It's not up to you to decide what qualifies as "work".

quote:

---

Or, to choose an example closer to Texas, did the Enron billionaires enjoy that status because of "work"?

---

Theft is not "work".

quote:

---

How is inherited wealth, for example, a result of "work"?

---

Inherited "wealth" is simply the disposition of property, based upon the wishes of the owner. Which is their right.

quote:

---

No, forgive us, but we

---

Who is "we" - you got a gerbil in your pocket?

quote:

---

prefer not to enshrine archaic ideological foolishness in our Constitution.

---

"archaic" = "old" = bad

"ideological foolishness" = something with which you disagree.

quote:

---

We hope you will allow us this right.

---

Nope. This is denying the right of the individual to contract for, earn, and dispose of "property" as they see fit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
Some of the hardest working people on the planet do not have any property.

---

Like who?

quote:

---

Do you think we should take away the property of people who are not working and give it to these workers?

---

Did I say that? No.

quote:

---

Kind of sounds like communism to me.

---

quote:

---

Nope. This is denying the right of the individual to contract for, earn, and dispose of "property" as they see fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
Ah-ha, I thought it might be. But waittaminute... aren't the Masons, Bilderburgers, and Trilateral Commission there too? I think we should be told!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
I have said too much. I can say no more.

What? Tri-lateral commision? Who are they?

I know nothing about the Iluminati! Please, dont repeat anything I have said or they will kill me and ruin the lives of everyone in my life.

---

You do not hear the sound of black helicopters hovering over you house.

There are no black clad jackbooted thugs breaking down your door.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

You claim to live in Texas, so you really can jabber on all you want about want you are going to allow Canada to do, but it will bear very little fruit.

---

quote:

---

quote riginally posted by Scout:

You claim to live in Texas, so you really can jabber on all you want about want you are going to allow Canada to do, but it will bear very little fruit.

As I said to some other intellectual giant here "Don't believe everything you read".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Your a right Einstien yourself aren't you. I did say you claimed, I didn't indicate if I gave a rat's ass if it was true or not or what I believed. I was just commenting on info you have provided. But to claim Texas as your home and then yap about what you are going to allow Canada to do makes you like an idiot.

---

I don't need you to point this out to me, thanks.

quote:

---

Property is not a right?

Now there's a scary statement...one of which I have no doubt tyrants everywhere will endorse.

That the Charter of Rights does not include property rights is no mere oversight.

You enshrine property rights, you thus imply the right to defense of property...which opens up a can of worms for your dedicated socialists everywhere. Socialists like, f'rinstance, Trudeau...who chaired the entire creation of the Consitution and the Charter of Rights.

Which, IMHO, are barely worth the paper upon which they are written.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
And your post ad so much value.

---

Again with the eyerolls, like it adds credence to what you say.

If you get somewhere near a point, let us know, 'kay?

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Scout ]

quote:

---

That's the problem with neo-libs -.

---

A neo-liberal is someone in favour of open markets.

quote:

---

you can't mind your own business. It's not up to you to decide what qualifies as "work"

---

quote:

---

Sorry to burst your bubble but Trudeau had no probelm with including property rights in the Charter, it was removed at the insistance of the Tory Premiers.

---

Now, that's the first really interesting thing in this thread. Can you elaborate, Mycroft? What was their reasoning (Trudeau's and the premiers', I mean?)

And MasterBlaster, re: your earlier claim:

quote:

---

The operative words, already in the Constitution, are "without due process".

---

I repeat my question: which Constitution? Can you find these words in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or in the Constitution Act, 1982, of which it forms a part? 'Cos I sure can't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
You and your little Get Along Gang would know a point if I walked up a stuck you with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

I repeat my question: which Constitution? Can you find these words in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or in the Constitution Act, 1982, of which it forms a part? 'Cos I sure can't.

If you mean the US Constitution... well, nothing personal, but a fig for the US Constitution. We've taken a different course here.

---

Yeah, I was going to get back to you on this, but I got sidetracked by Jughead over there...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mycroft:

Ah yes, the market determines work. So why is it that CEOs bonuses go up even when the companies they lead are losing money. And can you really say that, say, Ken Thompson's "work" is worth 3000 times that of one of his employees? Does he really "work" that much harder?

---

Again, it's what the market will bear. If someone in authority is stupid enought to give someone a bonus for losing money, that's their business. If someone is willing to pay someone 3,000 times more than another employee, well, that's their business, too.

It isn't the actual "work", it is the value that is *placed* on that work, and what the two parties concerned can decide is a fair value.

So it was the nine other provinces who vetoed property rights, not Trudeau as part of some great crypto-socialist plot. If one recalls at the time there was one PQ Premier (Levesque), one NDP Premier (Blakeney), one Socred Premier (Bennett) and *eight* Tories. Had all the Tory/Socred Premiers wanted property rights in the constitution, it would have happened.

As I recall the provinces were against it because it would cripple them as far as getting any public works projects done whether they be the building of roads and highways, dams and power plants and other projects all of which require expropriation of land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like who?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Do you think we should take away the property of people who are not working and give it to these workers?'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did I say that? No."

Are you saying that you know of nobody that is a hard worker and doesn't have any property. I do.
Let's ignore the large portion of the world that wakes up not knowing if they will find the necessities of life.

I know of a woman who works at a minimum wage job and 80% of her income goes to covering the rent on her small apartment. Her son's child tax credit is what supplies the food on the table. She wouldn't be in this situation except she married a man who then beat her. Is she a hard worker? When she was sick her company had to hire two people to replace her, yet they refuse her a raise. Other than a small amount of chattel, she has nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mycroft:
[QB]

Lorne Gunter is my hero.

[quote]
As I recall the provinces were against it because it would cripple them as far as getting any public works projects done whether they be the building of roads and highways, dams and power plants and other projects all of which require expropriation of land.

---

If I'm not mistaken, there was also the belief that enshrining property rights in the Charter would reduce the power of the Provinces to "regulate property" under the Constitution.

Of course, this doesn't matter any longer, since the SCC has determined that the Federal Government can usurp this Provincial power willy-nilly in the name of "crime prevention purposes" - the Firearms Act saw to that.

This probably would not have been possible if property rights *had* been enshrined in the Charter.

quote:

---

don't see why this is such a difficult concept to understand, unless it's because you don't want to.

---

I *understand* it, I just don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it's a rational way to organise a society.

As for aboriginal rights I went to a presentation by someone from the AFN a few weeks ago. Native groups are not asking for treaties to be overturned, all they've been asking for is that treaty rights be respected since governments have been ignoring them since they've been signed.

quote:

---

As I recall the provinces were against it because it would cripple them as far as getting any public works projects done whether they be the building of roads and highways, dams and power plants and other projects all of which require expropriation of land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

Are you saying that you know of nobody that is a hard worker and doesn't have any property. I do.
Let's ignore the large portion of the world that wakes up not knowing if they will find the necessities of life.

---

No property at all? No clothes? No bed? No food?

I find that hard to believe.

Oh, did you mean *real estate*?

Sorry, there is no right to own real estate.

quote:

---

I know of a woman who works at a minimum wage job and 80% of her income goes to covering the rent on her small apartment. Her son's child tax credit is what supplies the food on the table. She wouldn't be in this situation except she married a man who then beat her. Is she a hard worker? When she was sick her company had to hire two people to replace her, yet they refuse her a raise. Other than a small amount of chattel, she has nothing.

---

<*sniff*>

I"m touched, truly, I am.

<*honk*>

quote:

---

If work is the justification for alienating property, then clearly hard workers deserve the property of loafers living off revenue generated by capital.

---

What about those loafers living off my hard earned tax dollars?

She made choices, just like everyone else on the planet does. Nobody forced her to marry an abuser. Nobody forced her to have a child. Nobody forced her to work at a crappy job.

She could have decided to stay in school, get a degree, improve herself, and make her skill set more "valuable" to the marketplace.

quote:

---

You're welcome to try - remember, we're the ones with the guns.

---

Big man with the threats eh? Or is that another attempt at humor? How do you know I don't have guns too? Or live in a home with firearms? If I poked you and you over-reacted and showed me your gun, I would be quite justified in returning the favour and capping your ass wouldn't I? I surely can't stand there and let you shoot me over a silly little poke right? I am well within my rights in your eyes? But then again I am only likely to met you in a public area and if you showed me your gun (hee hee) that would be breaking the law big time. Gee, wanna meet up so I can poke you? The sooner you are in jail the safer we'll all be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mycroft:
I *understand* it, I just don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it's a rational way to organise a society.

---

It's called "Freedom" - try it, you might like it.

Of course, neo-libs don't believe in freedom, they believe in totalitarian control, don't they?

quote:

---

As for aboriginal rights I went to a presentation by someone from the AFN a few weeks ago. Native groups are not asking for treaties to be overturned, all they've been asking for is that treaty rights be respected since governments have been ignoring them since they've been signed.

---

Who was talking about Aboriginal rights? I wasn't.

quote:

---

BTW, the US forced several Native nations to give up reserves in exchange for fee simple land rights. The result has been a disaster and the populations that participated in the scheme are far worse off than those groups who refused.

---

quote:

---

Of course, neo-libs don't believe in freedom, they believe in totalitarian control, don't they?

---

quote:

---

She made choices, just like everyone else on the planet does. Nobody forced her to marry an abuser. Nobody forced her to have a child. Nobody forced her to work at a crappy job.

---

Hey, genius, she probably didn't know the guy was abusive when she married him, and she may not have known it when she got pregnant. And good jobs aren't always that thick on the ground.

Sometimes things happen to people that they cannot control. It sucks. It's life. We can't stop these things from happening, but I don't think we should let people's basic needs go unmet because they had a run of bad luck, okay?

quote:

---

She could have decided to stay in school, get a degree, improve herself, and make her skill set more "valuable" to the marketplace.

---

What makes you think she could afford the tuition fees? Do you imagine she could get a loan that would cover not only her tuition, but a significant portion of her living expenses too, since going to class would render her rather less free to work, no?

quote:

---

She can still decide to do these things, if she refrains from plopping herself down in front of the tube and scarfing down a box of beer every night.

---

Charming.

You try working more than full-time (just guessing, since they had to hire two people to replace her) and taking care of a kid singlehandedly and stretching and worrying about every dollar you make and see how much time or energy you have left for "self-improvement."

quote:

---

Of course, neo-libs don't believe in freedom, they believe in totalitarian control, don't they?

---

Oh, go shove your Newspeak up your ass, you ignorant cowboy wannabe. *plonk*

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]

2) Why do you keep misusing the word neo-liberal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Big man with the threats eh?

---

And expressing the desire to poke me isn't a threat?

quote:

---

Or is that another attempt at humor? How do you know I don't have guns too? Or live in a home with firearms? If I poked you and you over-reacted and showed me your gun, I would be quite justified in returning the favour and capping your ass wouldn't I? I surely can't stand there and let you shoot me over a silly little poke right? I am well within my rights in your eyes? But then again I am only likely to met you in a public area and if you showed me your gun (hee hee) that would be breaking the law big time. Gee, wanna meet up so I can poke you? The sooner you are in jail the safer we'll all be.

---

If you kept poking me after I told you to stop, you would be committing the crime of assault, and I would be well within my rights to stop you with the appropriate use of force. Since you were committing a criminal act, I could place you under arrest and use such force as I deemed neccessary to restrain you.

Of course, your little wet dream scenario of me "over reacting" just wouldn't play out, and you'd be the one in the crowbar hotel with the new boyfriend.

quote:

---

And "jughead"? Gee thanks. Love to you too sunshine.

---

Mmmmmmmmmmwah!

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

What "neo-libs"? Neo-liberals believe in open markets, as Mycroft says, or turbo-capitalism, as I prefer to call it. I don't doubt he'd be quite insulted to be called a neo-liberal -- I would, and so I suspect would most people frequenting this board -- except that, on this bit of terminology at least, you evidently don't know what you're talking about.

---

If you bothered to read along with the others, you would know that "neo-libs" are the current crop of lefty liberals who use the term "neo-con" as their codeword for "those rotten bastards who are intent on ruining everything we've worked for over the past 50 years".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smith:
quote:She made choices, just like everyone else on the planet does. Nobody forced her to marry an abuser. Nobody forced her to have a child. Nobody forced her to work at a crappy job.

Hey, genius, she probably didn't know the guy was abusive when she married him, and she may not have known it when she got pregnant. And good jobs aren't always that thick on the ground.

---

And that is somehow *my* fault, that *my* pocket should be picked to make up for *her* mistakes?

No, it should be the rich - or is it the uber-rich?
I keep forgetting. Things aren't as simple as they used to be. When the CPC-ML used to shout "Make The Rich Pay", you knew exactly who they were talking about.

quote:

---

Sometimes things happen to people that they cannot control. It sucks. It's life. We can't stop these things from happening, but I don't think we should let people's basic needs go unmet because they had a run of bad luck, okay?

---

Then *YOU* pay for her basic needs.

Forced charity is not charity, it is theft.

Or was that all property is theft. Man, this stuff is hard to keep track of...

quote:

---

quote:
She could have decided to stay in school, get a degree, improve herself, and make her skill set more "valuable" to the marketplace.

What makes you think she could afford the tuition fees? Do you imagine she could get a loan that would cover not only her tuition, but a significant portion of her living expenses too, since going to class would render her rather less free to work, no?

---

That's not my problem now, is it? There are co-op work programs now, you know. Scholarships. Bursaries. Grants. All kinds of shit. Get off your ass and look.

Better yet, go to the library and take out a book. Lots of people are self taught.

quote:

---

quote:
She can still decide to do these things, if she refrains from plopping herself down in front of the tube and scarfing down a box of beer every night.

Charming.

You try working more than full-time (just guessing, since they had to hire two people to replace her) and taking care of a kid singlehandedly and stretching and worrying about every dollar you make and see how much time or energy you have left for "self-improvement."

---

Boo hoo hoo. Your story has touched my heart.

Here's a quarter - call someone who gives a damn.

*LOTS* of people work hard and manage to pull themselves up by improving themselves. If they can do it, she can do it.

quote:

---

quote f course, neo-libs don't believe in freedom, they believe in totalitarian control, don't they?

Oh, go shove your newspeak up your ass. *plonk*

---

Oooooo, I guess *I've* been told!

I'm shattered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mycroft:
1) What does having a few hundred people control a majority of wealth in the world have to do with freedom?

---

What does robbing them blind through usurious taxes and pure theft in inheritance duties have to do with justice?

quote:

---

2) Why do you keep misusing the word neo-liberal?

---

Why do you keep insisting that I am using the word "neo-liberal"?

quote:

---

3) I know this isn't the US but just because something happens in the US doesn't mean social and economic laws cease to apply. The fact is that the conversion of collectively owned reserve land into individually owned fee simple property has been a disaster where tried and has left the impacted population worse off.

---

And just where did I espouse that I thought that this should be done here, or that it was a good thing when it was done in the US?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
I prefer the word "neo-conservative", myself, as liberalism in Anglo-America is identified with the left and not the right, and so using the term "neo-liberalism", while correct in the European or Latin American context, just creates confusion in the Anglo-American context.

That having been said I know that the usual use of the term "neo-liberalism" is with respect to the "new classical liberals", and not modern welfare-state/government-interventionist liberals.

---

And these welfare statists use "neo-con" as an epithet to mean "those rotten bastards who are out to ruin everything we've worked for over the past 50 years"

quote:

---

Here's a quarter - call someone who gives a damn.

---

Ah, there's that classic Texan attitude...

quote:

---

Of course, your little wet dream scenario of me "over reacting" just wouldn't play out, and you'd be the one in the crowbar hotel with the new boyfriend.

---

Did Canada get co-ed prisons all of a sudden? And "wet dream scenario"? Grow up fuck wit and quit projecting.

quote:

---

Bend over, I"ll drive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smith:
Ah, there's that classic Texan attitude...

---

If bothered to read along with the others, you would know not to believe everything you read...

quote:

---

Why is this sociopath bothering us again?

---

quote:

---

If you bothered to read along with the others, you would know that "neo-libs" are the current crop of lefty liberals who use the term "neo-con" as their codeword for "those rotten bastards who are intent on ruining everything we've worked for over the past 50 years".

You don't have to thank me.

---

But my dear fellow, pray don't worry your head about that. The merest shadow of a possibility of my considering thinking about thanking you hadn't even begun to start the preliminaries necessary for insinuating itself into my consciousness.

*plonk*

quote:

---

I think MB thinks he's making a point, when really he's just showcasing his complete ignorance of the subject he's trying to discuss.

---

Smith, you're absolutely right. He is a dreamer; let us leave him.

[ 04 July 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Did Canada get co-ed prisons all of a sudden?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smith:
My understanding of the usual uses of those terms is that neo-liberals are private-sector jocks like Friedman, while neo-conservatives combine neo-liberal economics with right-wing social policies.

I think MB thinks he's making a point, when really he's just showcasing his complete ignorance of the subject he's trying to discuss.

---

And you still have yet to post anything useful.

quote:

---

We're like a big Ally McBeal episode, we are...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
You are a boor.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Grow up fuck wit

---

And *I"m* the boor?

quote:

---

Never watched Ally McBeal. Was it any good?

---

I liked maybe the first half of the first season. After that, I found the gimmicks got tiresome, plots got too silly, and characters too screwed-up and unbelievable.

[ 04 July 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

By the middle of the second season it was pretty much unwatchable. David E. Kelley allowed his obsession with fat women to run wild. Almost all the regular female cast turned into walking skeletons (as, coincidentally-I'm-sure, did Michelle Pfeiffer, Kelley's wife) and a huge number of the plots seemed to be about women getting fired for being too repulsively fat (read: over a size eight) and there were a lot of increasingly unfunny shenanigans with frogs and such.

[ 04 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Well, from that standpoint, the country I live in is technically Latin-American and not Anglo-American (that is west of the Outaouais) so no problem. We speak a Latin language and use those categories.

---

lagatta, I think you're straining at gnats a bit to say that Canada is actually Latin American, given that our government and predominant civil/criminal code is English-derived, although I know that Quebec uses the Napoleonic Civil Code.

quote:

---

David E. Kelley allowed his obsession with fat women to run wild. Almost all the regular female cast turned into walking skeletons (as, coincidentally-I'm-sure, did Michelle Pfeiffer, Kelley's wife) ...

---

quote:

---

*LOTS* of people work hard and manage to pull themselves up by improving themselves. If they can do it, she can do it.

---

I volunteer a lot to help with poverty groups. You start off considering them to be a different class of people, but soon you realize that you are not there only by the Grace of God (ok I'm and atheist, but nothing says it better). The amount of people that are 8 weeks of paychecks away from living on the streets is astounding. Once there digging oneself out is not easy. Yes personal resolve and ingenuity are important factors, and they may work for a few especially if they are male, white and able-bodied. But far more important is the support systems. When one is paying 80% of ones income for shelter there is no busfare for trips to the library. Probably you have to walk considerable blocks just to carry groceries home and after that and a days work you likely don't have the energy to search through the free paper's meager ads. If you are couch surfing like many youth these days you don't have a phone number to leave potential employers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mycroft:
You're misusing the world "neo-liberal" according to any academic source you care to use. Neo-liberal refers to those who favour liberalising trade. Accusing leftists of being "neo-liberal" makes you sound like you don't have a clue what you're talking about and are using words without understanding their meaning. I'm just trying to spare you that embarassment without much success

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
Not looking for your sympathy Master Blaster, I doubt if your are capable of it. Just saying that the professionals that I work with all agree that the main factors to getting people out of poverty are monetary and relationship oriented. Affordable housing, a strong support network, a community support system that provides access to training and jobs.

---

All of which requires you to pick my pocket of my hard earned wages in order to pay for your schemes.

quote:

---

You are obviously missing the point: I am not using the term "neo-liberal", I am using the term "neo-lib".

---

You're splitting hairs. What is "neo-lib" short for?

[ 04 July 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mycroft:
You're splitting hairs.

---

But they are *my* hairs to split, aren't they?

quote:

---

What is "neo-lib" short for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
The amount of people that are 8 weeks of paychecks away from living on the streets is astounding.

---

I think about that a lot.

A good way to think about it is to drive around, and any time you see a homeless person asking for money, to think to yourself that the difference between that person and you is >< that much, and all that it would take is for you to lose about a month's worth of money.

I know you were not deliberately calling Québec anglo-American, but it is insulting to include us in that category when our language of use is French.

quote:

---

All of which requires you to pick my pocket of my hard earned wages in order to pay for your schemes.

Not if I have anything to say about it.

---

But most of the left wing movements in the world, particularly in the Americas but also Asia and Africa are about land redistribution. In Cuba's constitution everyone has a constitutional right to a home and enough land to grow vegetables.

How would such a "right", whereby on reaching the age of maturity the state gave each person a piece of property, work in Canada? Or perhaps the state guaranteed everyone a residence and they were maintained (heat and light etc) by government subsidy. Would this not in practice enshrine property rights?

So people wouldn't need to pay rent or mortgages or utilities or property taxes. They could then use all the money they saved to buy things. Of course taxes would have to be higher perhaps 70% of everyone's income but so what?

Ask any property rights advocate about this type of enshrining of property rights and they start to whine about communism and/or look at you in stunned disbelief. You see it is not really property rights they want enshrined. It is the right of priviledge, status, class, etc. that accrue to the capitalist land owner...

We have been over this subject many times. Education no longer guarantees a good paying job, women and many men are stuck in the low-paying sector through no fault of their own. People end up losing jobs because companies are closing and failing. Many of these people are too old to reeducate and find work as there is a major job shortage in Canada. A lot of these people had very good-paying jobs and paid a lot of taxes. So they end up getting some of what they contributed back, what is that to you?

Everybody is only one instance away from needing assistance in some form. Everybody is one second away from a disabling accident or health crisis. Everybody is one day away from possibly having their career end up in the garbage because the company closes. The lucky ones never have it happen, the others have to find ways to cope and need help to do it.

quote:

---

How would such a "right", whereby on reaching the age of maturity the state gave each person a piece of property, work in Canada? Or perhaps the state guaranteed everyone a residence and they were maintained (heat and light etc) by government subsidy. Would this not in practice enshrine property rights?

---

There are tons of places that anyone with half a mind to could squat and not a single person would give a damn if they did. Plenty of land to grow veggies on and yet there are so few takers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mycroft:
"neo-lib" is short for "neo-liberal" and by applying the word to the left you display your ignorance. Call us socialists if you like but we're no more "neo-libs" than we are capitalists, corporate globalisers or Republicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
He's displaying his Americanness, more likely. Neo-liberal in the US context means people like Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Committee who could be said to be (barely) on the left of American politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mycroft:

Whose pocket is being picked by the bosses who make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the labour of people paid 20 or 30 K a year?

---

Ah, the inequities of "value", "work", and "ownership".

quote:

---

Strange, since I"m not an American...

---

Any ideas on the reasons for that? "

Try accessibility, availability of seeds, shelter, transportation, etc. Need I go on? For one thing, the only land that would qualify is remote, wild and would need a lot of work and money to make it ready to use. Get real!

[ 04 July 2003: Message edited by: Trisha ]

quote:

---

I don't want the courts touching property rights any more than I want them touching issues. As far as I am concerned, the courts are to interpret law, not make them. The alliance says that the only institution that can alter the charter is parliament. .

---

The ONLY POSSIBLE argument for placing "property rights" in the Charter is to allow Courts to strike down laws which impinge upon that property "rights". So, the Alliance's desire to place "property" in the Charter has the clear effect of removing "property" from the ambit of Parliament.

The comment quoted above is legally incoherent. Parliament cannot alter the Charter, as it is part of the Constitution. So, whether our poster wants it or not, the Alliance position would increase the power of the Courts with respect to property, and reduce the power of Parliament in that regard.

quote:

---

Recently, a 19 year old basketball player received a $90,000,000.00 contract from Nike to front their shoes. Does that represent "work"?

---

Yeah. In the same way that people pay lawyers not for the 5 minutes they spend infornt of the bench but for the years and years they spend working hard to get the knowledge to be able to say just the right thing in that five minutes.

The 19 year old basket ball player has a very limited time in which to make his money. All those years he put into becoming great, pay off in just a few years of basket ball and being a promotional figure.

quote:

---

Ah, the inequities of "value", "work", and "ownership".

Sucks, don't it?

---

quote:

---

If $90,000,000 is what the market will bear, then that's the way it is.

---

But something having a market price does not in any way mean that that price reflects the "labour"
involved. That was my point; you apparently agree.

So much for John Locke.