Alberta Government 2005 Budget Released

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc@Apr 14 2005, 02:38 AM
So why not offer partial refunds on tuition for sticking around in Alberta for 3-5 yrs after graduating? Maybe partial refunds as well for students who can't find work in their fields (although I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who get graduate degrees in areas that are TOTALLY useless).

Or how about creating more useless government bureaucrat jobs for us poor students with useless degrees? :P

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Apr 13 2005, 07:06 PM


Bend it Like... - what do you mean by AISH being treated by as a Welfare system? I didn't follow where you were going with that.

From what I know, AISH is welfare for those who have 'severe' disabilities. I put that in quotes not to question the recipients, but because the government seems to draw odd lines between what is severe and not.

Right or wrong, the Alberta government treats welfare as something that is not supposed to be comfortable; you are not supposed to want to be on it. The assumption is essentially that everyone on welfare will take advantage of the system if you let them.

IMO, even though it isn't supposed to be the same thing, they've carried that same philosophy over to AISH. It's as though they can't figure out who should qualify and not, and what the benefit levels should be, so they've applied the same model as welfare and called it a day.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois+Apr 13 2005, 09:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bend it like Bourgeois @ Apr 13 2005, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JiriHrdina@Apr 13 2005, 07:06 PM


Bend it Like... - what do you mean by AISH being treated by as a Welfare system? I didn't follow where you were going with that.

From what I know, AISH is welfare for those who have 'severe' disabilities. I put that in quotes not to question the recipients, but because the government seems to draw odd lines between what is severe and not.

Right or wrong, the Alberta government treats welfare as something that is not supposed to be comfortable; you are not supposed to want to be on it. The assumption is essentially that everyone on welfare will take advantage of the system if you let them.

IMO, even though it isn't supposed to be the same thing, they've carried that same philosophy over to AISH. It's as though they can't figure out who should qualify and not, and what the benefit levels should be, so they've applied the same model as welfare and called it a day. [/b][/quote]
Ah. Actually that's a very interesting perspective on it. I've never thought of it in that way before but I think you are bang on in your analysis.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc@Apr 13 2005, 10:52 PM
Overall, it's GREAT to be in Alberta...

...where other people are forced to take care of your sorry a$$ from craddle to grave and you still demand more more and MORE.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Apr 14 2005, 08:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Apr 14 2005, 08:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tron_fdc@Apr 13 2005, 10:52 PM
Overall, it's GREAT to be in Alberta...

...where other people are forced to take care of your sorry a$$ from craddle to grave and you still demand more more and MORE. [/b][/quote]
Huh? Not sure what you are referring to, but it makes me wonder:

Would you be happier in Nunavut?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc+Apr 14 2005, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tron_fdc @ Apr 14 2005, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

...where other people are forced to take care of your sorry a$$ from craddle to grave and you still demand more more and MORE.

Huh? Not sure what you are referring to [/b][/quote]
I am referring to this:

I'm all for spending on education
New officers is good
Hospitals=good
New roads....is a billion enough?


Isnt it great when other people have to take care of your life? Hooray for collectivism!

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Apr 14 2005, 03:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Apr 14 2005, 03:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Huh? Not sure what you are referring to

I am referring to this:

I'm all for spending on education
New officers is good
Hospitals=good
New roads....is a billion enough?


Isnt it great when other people have to take care of your life? Hooray for collectivism! [/b][/quote]
Are you some kind of Anarchist? Seriously. I think I remember you mentioning something along those lines once, which would explain your point of view.

Would you rather we had no hospitals except for private for profit ones, roads were all toll roads (privately owned) and we had laws similar to the wild west, where the guy with the biggest gun (or gang) was the law?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by fotze
Ya Tron you left wing pinko jackass. Move to Sweden.

mmmmm.......... meatballs and 3-ways with blonde chicks. I'm in.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

yeah, I'm thinking Flame of Liberty is a little bit too anti-government. I mean we have way to man roads to travel safely on, police to protect us, Hospitals to keep us healthy, and schools to educate us.

Why can't we all just ditch this and take care of ouselves?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Are you some kind of Anarchist?

Anarchocapitalist. Big difference.

Seriously.

Seriously.

I think I remember you mentioning something along those lines once, which would explain your point of view.

Yes I guess.

Would you rather we had no hospitals except for private for profit ones,

Private owners can decide whether they want to run it for profit or not. I dont see what is wrong with that.

roads were all toll roads (privately owned)

Again, who is to say all roads will be toll roads? Oil companies may build roads, where they will have only their gas stations along the road. Or whatever. Even if they are toll roads, what is wrong with that. You eat a banana, you pay for it. You use roads, you pay for them.

and we had laws similar to the wild west, where the guy with the biggest gun (or gang) was the law?

You dont know much about Wild West, do you? Here is one article to get your started:

The West during this time often is perceived as a place of great chaos, with
little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the
case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private
agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which prop-
erty was protected and conflicts were resolved. These agencies often did not
qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on
"keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of
resolving disputes and lower cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts,
etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the
American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect.

An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 14 2005, 10:15 AM
Are you some kind of Anarchist?

Anarchocapitalist. Big difference.

Seriously.

Seriously.

I think I remember you mentioning something along those lines once, which would explain your point of view.

Yes I guess.

Would you rather we had no hospitals except for private for profit ones,

Private owners can decide whether they want to run it for profit or not. I dont see what is wrong with that.

roads were all toll roads (privately owned)

Again, who is to say all roads will be toll roads? Oil companies may build roads, where they will have only their gas stations along the road. Or whatever. Even if they are toll roads, what is wrong with that. You eat a banana, you pay for it. You use roads, you pay for them.

and we had laws similar to the wild west, where the guy with the biggest gun (or gang) was the law?

You dont know much about Wild West, do you? Here is one article to get your started:

An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West

Yes, I'm sure there will be people lining up to build hospitals and roads for the good of society, and not because they can make some dough. The whole reason the government is around to do these sorts of things is because no one else will do them.

[Tron_fdc]

You dont know much about Wild West, do you? Here is one article to get your started:

QUOTE
The West during this time often is perceived as a place of great chaos, with
little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the
case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private
agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which prop-
erty was protected and conflicts were resolved. These agencies often did not
qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on
"keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of
resolving disputes and lower cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts,
etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the
American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect.


An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West

The only time I would agree with frontier justice is when I drive on the roads during rush hour. Other than that I'm willing to accept our police state so I don't need to sleep beside a shotgun to feel safe at night.

Ever been to South Africa? I have. It sounds like it's pretty close to your wild west style of policing, and it is by far and away the scariest place I have ever been (Johannesburg). The police have no power to do much at all, people more or less govern themselves, and the rich folk sleep with motion detectors in their lawns so they have time to load the gun if someone decides to break in. I had a driver while I was there that had a dispute with another worker, and was told for $20 this guy could get "taken care of" (pushed out of a moving train).

No thanks.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Apr 14 2005, 05:26 PM
Yes, I'm sure there will be people lining up to build hospitals and roads for the good of society, and not because they can make some dough. The whole reason the government is around to do these sorts of things is because no one else will do them.

Congrats to you for completely missing the point.

What on earth is wrong with people making "some dough" when they provide goods/services other people WILLINGLY pay for?

Do you honestly think people who enter politics do it for the good of society, and not because they can make more than "some" dough providing "services" many people do NOT want to pay for?

Do you honestly think that if the gov was not providing some useful service, no one else would do it instead? Have you ever heard of DEMAND? Where is demand, there is supply. Unless the market is screwed (by the government).

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Yes, and with demand comes exploitation. Gee, we've got the only road to (insert place name here) and you need to go there, Pay Up Sucker.
Gee, hooligans keep breaking into your house, and we're the only ones who can protect you? Pay Up Sucker. Gee, you need (insert service here), and we're the only ones who provide it? Pay Up Sucker.

Sounds good to me.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc@Apr 14 2005, 05:30 PM
The only time I would agree with frontier justice is when I drive on the roads during rush hour. Other than that I'm willing to accept our police state so I don't need to sleep beside a shotgun to feel safe at night.

Ever been to South Africa? I have. It sounds like it's pretty close to your wild west style of policing, and it is by far and away the scariest place I have ever been (Johannesburg). The police have no power to do much at all, people more or less govern themselves, and the rich folk sleep with motion detectors in their lawns so they have time to load the gun if someone decides to break in. I had a driver while I was there that had a dispute with another worker, and was told for $20 this guy could get "taken care of" (pushed out of a moving train).

No thanks.

Well, I have no idea where did you get this from: It sounds like it's pretty close to your wild west style of policing. Because nowhere have I seen a suggestion that SA is anywhere close to anarchocapitalism. Sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

BTW, the word anarchy (from greek) means absence of ruler, not absence of law. Anarchocapitalist society is NOT lawless society.

Another thing, what did you just prove? That countries with government are safer? Ever been to Russia, North Korea, China or Belarus? Plenty of government there, and let me assure you – you are not going to feel safe there.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Yes, and with demand comes exploitation.

Oh my god, where did you get this from? Karl Marx?

Gee, we've got the only road to (insert place name here) and you need to go there, Pay Up Sucker.Gee, hooligans keep breaking into your house, and we're the only ones who can protect you? Pay Up Sucker. Gee, you need (insert service here), and we're the only ones who provide it? Pay Up Sucker.

Gee, you want to use a service, you gotta pay for it. What is WRONG with that? Are you serious?

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 14 2005, 04:57 PM
Yes, and with demand comes exploitation.

Oh my god, where did you get this from? Karl Marx?

Gee, we've got the only road to (insert place name here) and you need to go there, Pay Up Sucker.Gee, hooligans keep breaking into your house, and we're the only ones who can protect you? Pay Up Sucker. Gee, you need (insert service here), and we're the only ones who provide it? Pay Up Sucker.

Gee, you want to use a service, you gotta pay for it. What is WRONG with that? Are you serious?

Nothing is wrong with paying for services you need within reason, what happens is when there becomes Monoplies on large infrastructure.

Take Hospitals for example, in a city this size, everyone needs healthcare and in your lawless society what happens?

Quite simple: There becomes Cartels in order to maximise profit. Or Monoplies depending on the size of the city.

You can't have essential services unregulated by government in a position of power over the state.

You think people would seriously "regulate themselves" with regards to those services? Give me a break.

[Tron_fdc]

Well, I have no idea where did you get this from: It sounds like it's pretty close to your wild west style of policing. Because nowhere have I seen a suggestion that SA is anywhere close to anarchocapitalism. Sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

BTW, the word anarchy (from greek) means absence of ruler, not absence of law. Anarchocapitalist society is NOT lawless society.

Another thing, what did you just prove? That countries with government are safer? Ever been to Russia, North Korea, China or Belarus? Plenty of government there, and let me assure you – you are not going to feel safe there.

I took it from your article. It mentioned something along the lines of dismantling governemnt as we know it, and letting the people more or less police themselves. South Africa (and in particular J-burg) is a pretty good example of a dismantled government since apartheid. It went from a highly regulated police state to a state where there is a government (and a ruler) but utter chaos when it came to law enfocement.

I have been to Korea and China (albeit not North Korea, it's kinda hard to get in). China many times though (I'm going to Korea, China and Malaysia next month for the 5th or 6th time). Not once in any country I have ever visited did I feel even remotely close to how I felt in S.A.

What I proved is that, in my experience, the country that has little to no police presence is a country that is (again, my opinion) less safe than one like Canada that has strict law enforcement. I'll gladly pay taxes for this, while it seems that you would prefer not to.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Apr 14 2005, 10:06 AM

You can't have essential services unregulated by government in a position of power over the state.

You think people would seriously "regulate themselves" with regards to those services? Give me a break.

I don't disagree with the idea of state involvement, but your comment made me think about just how far the other way we actually are.

I'd suggest you can't have services unregulated by free markets either, at least not if you want them remotely efficient and effective. which is exactly what we do in canada. Such a huge gulf between the two extremes, yet in Canada we're really uncomfortable with any of the greay area.

[Agamemnon]

Who guarentees respect of Private Property? Under this system; the police and judiciary.

Under Flame's system... no one. You take care of yourself, and god help you if you're outnumbered (of course, people in a state of nature are never evil, just politicians in our corrupt 'order').

Utopia.