If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The Ontario government is mulling changes to environmental laws it believes will block lawsuits from landowners and fast-track highway, energy and transit projects.
According to an internal government document reviewed by The Narwhal, the change is expected to be announced as part of an omnibus bill in February, referred to as the Get It Done Act. It includes new proposed tools that could make it easier for the government to allow for expropriation of land to proceed with major infrastructure projects — a change the document notes could be viewed as “further weakening” of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act.
Your attempt to equate the proposed changes in Ontario's environmental and expropriation laws with the sweeping abolition of private property rights under Marxist ideology is not only misleading but intellectually dishonest. The Ontario government's consideration of legislation to streamline infrastructure projects, while contentious, operates within the framework of a democratic society where such measures are subject to public scrutiny, legal challenges, and electoral accountability.
Contrastingly, the Marxist approach to property rights—or the lack thereof—entails an inherent denial of individual freedoms and a centralization of power that history has repeatedly shown leads to economic ruin and the erosion of civil liberties. To draw a parallel between a government's attempt to expedite infrastructure development and a totalitarian eradication of private property is a gross misrepresentation that ignores the fundamental differences in intent, method, and outcome between these actions.
Moreover, your focus on the "Get It Done Act" as an emblem of capitalist overreach ignores the essential debates around governance, efficiency, and environmental stewardship. While concerns about the potential for environmental oversight and landowner rights to be compromised are valid, addressing these requires nuanced debate and engagement with the democratic process, not alarmist comparisons that serve to obfuscate rather than illuminate.
Your narrative serves less as a critique of policy and more as an ideological broadside against capitalism itself, ignoring the complex realities of governance, infrastructure development, and environmental protection. If your aim is to foster genuine discourse on these issues, I suggest focusing on constructive criticism and viable alternatives rather than resorting to hyperbolic comparisons that fail to advance the conversation.
You CLAIM that expropriation lacks "the natural interplay of market forces" and that is the source of your error. It is a claim without foundation. If a new highway needs to be built to get goods to a growing metropolis, that is a response to market forces.
But I would even add that market forces are not the be-all and end-all of modern society. As has been noted in this thread, governments often have to do the things that entrepreneurs won't do but that must be done for the good of society or of the homeland. So even in these cases, if expropriation is a part of that government action, then as long as it is done with proper compensation to the landowners, it is legitimate. It has been happening for generations under both right- and left-wing administrations.
If you are so much in favor of landowner rights, maybe you are also in favor of foreign entities buying up all our farmland ... and someday deciding that all produce from that land must be exported to their home country, not sold in Canada.
EDIT: I also note your use of the term "free economy" and I remind readers that this term used to be "private economy" but was renamed with the word "free" by the National Association of Manufacturing for POLITICAL REASONS. Let no one doubt that Sid's arguments in these threads are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. He is here to sell a radical right-wing agenda, same for Dilip.
Your conflation of government expropriation with market dynamics is a glaring fallacy. Asserting that coercive land seizure is akin to market responses erodes the very foundation of individual rights and consent. The notion that government imposition is justified for societal good dangerously undermines personal freedoms, with compensation hardly mitigating the violation of autonomy. Suggesting my defense of property rights equates to support for exploitative foreign ownership is a misleading diversion from the issue at hand. Furthermore, labeling my arguments as politically motivated to discredit them is a transparent ad hominem, sidestepping the substantive debate. Your stance not only reveals a profound misunderstanding of economic principles but also a worrisome indifference to the sanctity of individual rights against state overreach.
What can we expect from someone who voluntarily injects himself with government-mandated poison after being given massive evidence of the danger? The entire European continent is at a standstill from protesting farmers thanks to insane globalist government policies that will likely cause a famine. You and Bob sit here and lecture for years about the benevolence of government??
On that's right, you are also the one that has "no problem viewing mankind as a cancer." The real cancer is the unelected globalist governments and their Marxist puppets that state "You will own nothing and be happy" That means "We will own everything and you will own nothing' https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...602#post231602
Dilip is right; you are nothing but a brainless, nasty troll not worthy of discourse.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 3rd February, 2024, 07:37 AM.
The equivalence (between the natural dynamics of business failure and the draconian government expropriation of private property) is false because business failures occur within market dynamics, influenced by consumer choice, competition, and innovation—elements of a free economy. Government expropriation of private property, however, is a unilateral action that strips individuals of their rights and assets without their consent or the natural interplay of market forces. It's not merely an economic transaction but a fundamental violation of personal freedoms and property rights protected under the law.
You CLAIM that expropriation lacks "the natural interplay of market forces" and that is the source of your error. It is a claim without foundation. If a new highway needs to be built to get goods to a growing metropolis, that is a response to market forces.
But I would even add that market forces are not the be-all and end-all of modern society. As has been noted in this thread, governments often have to do the things that entrepreneurs won't do but that must be done for the good of society or of the homeland. So even in these cases, if expropriation is a part of that government action, then as long as it is done with proper compensation to the landowners, it is legitimate. It has been happening for generations under both right- and left-wing administrations.
If you are so much in favor of landowner rights, maybe you are also in favor of foreign entities buying up all our farmland ... and someday deciding that all produce from that land must be exported to their home country, not sold in Canada.
EDIT: I also note your use of the term "free economy" and I remind readers that this term used to be "private economy" but was renamed with the word "free" by the National Association of Manufacturing for POLITICAL REASONS. Let no one doubt that Sid's arguments in these threads are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. He is here to sell a radical right-wing agenda, same for Dilip.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Saturday, 3rd February, 2024, 03:53 AM.
Differentiating Democratic Marxist and Capitalist Economies
Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 5
Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.
Fundamental Difference Between the DM Economy & the Capitalist Economy
When profit is the goal, as in capitalism, the point is not to produce for the demand. The point is to create the demand by marketing, so as to be able to maximize production and thus lower costs. This adheres to the principle of volume efficiency – once you have invested the capital to produce one widget, the cost of infinite production of widgets is actually a very small amount more; and the more widgets produced, the cost per widget decreases. The next goal is, at the same time, to try to keep the selling price of a widget high – allegedly to cover the cost of a widget being produced and some profit. Thus the producer ends up making even more money for each additional widget made and sold. This is a deliriously wonderful outcome for capitalism; ever-increasing profit per widget – The Ponzi Scheme realized.
It does not matter that a widget is not needed at all; the issue is solely “marketing”: “Don't fall behind your neighbour in quality of life; you must have a widget too!”
In opposition to this, Democratic Marxism's economy is based on “sustainability” and “meeting actual needs first”. Only produce what is needed in the volume needed. And if planned obsolescence (As in capitalism) is eliminated, then whent the demand is filled, production ratchets back, and goes into a new initial low-volume replacement mode. Workers then shift out of this employment to other jobs, if necessary, with re-training if necessary. The increased cost of replacement widgets must become subsidized by the general economy (We cannot totally do without widgets – so if one breaks down, it will have to be replaced).
The Consequence of the Sustainable Economy
The first major consequence is that employment has to drop; jobs are well below the potential pool of labourers available.
So there are created three classes: the paid employed; the unpaid employed (those on UBI who decide to labour at something beneficial to society for free); the non-contributing in terms of societal contribution (Living private little lives).
The employed will enjoy higher income than the non-employed.....the upper class will not wither away. So the sustainable economy requires a very steep progressive income and wealth tax to generate tax revenues for government for society to provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit (Also, low employment will lead to shrunken tax revenue). The tax grid, however, must not be so steep that non-paid working is seen as more beneficial than working. Of course, there will be some status benefit, likely, in being a paid-worker. Also, for those capable of marrying their passion to their career, there will be a most attractive general quality of life (And likely substantial benefit to society for them being paid workers. There likely will have to be a consumption tax of some kind as well to generate enough government revenue.
The Non-Paid Working Class
The government will provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit to all. The tax system will recoup the benefit, or much of it, from higher income citizens. Or, perhaps, receipt of the benefit may be optional.
The State-Supported Class will subdivide into two: the non-paid working class (will use their time, effort and money to provide free, contributions to society); those who simply wish to live a private, little, enjoyable life, and not work. It will be true that competition will be fierce for any paid-worker positions.......despite the naysayers who believe all will suddenly be satisfied with a life of drinking beer.
Monthly budgets will be lower due to the free products/services provided by the non-paid workers. There will be no charging for unpaid worker labour – all paid employment will have to be registered and government approved. This, of course, will lead to an underground economy, but this exists in any regulated system.
Quality of Life
Quality of life will be in each individual's hands......they will be able to determine their own destiny with many less obstacles than in current day capitalism (Even social democracy). They will determine the level of satisfaction with life they want (Within the bounds of all being taken care of – no more billionaires......those that want that will just fail to reach their self-interested goal). For those who desire a somewhat higher quality of life than the rest, they will have to decide whether to enter the competitive race for employment.
For the non-paid workers, life will be “livable” - a step way up from the quality of life of many, in both the under-developed, and developed, societies.
Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020
Hey Bob,
Even though you are a lawyer, how could you write a post which makes absolutely no sense mathematically nor culturally? You seem to be saying something like: the two and a half slices of bread your DM establishment would be lucky to produce in toto, would be so well distributed that it would provide a decent meal for millions of its citizens...
And the common man is not that stupid, to not understand what marketing is all about; it is their desire to enjoy little 'unnecessary' pleasures of life, that makes them buy widgets... will your DM 'government' expropriate them, 'legally'?
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Friday, 2nd February, 2024, 10:36 PM.
The Ontario government is mulling changes to environmental laws it believes will block lawsuits from landowners and fast-track highway, energy and transit projects.
According to an internal government document reviewed by The Narwhal, the change is expected to be announced as part of an omnibus bill in February, referred to as the Get It Done Act. It includes new proposed tools that could make it easier for the government to allow for expropriation of land to proceed with major infrastructure projects — a change the document notes could be viewed as “further weakening” of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act.
Oh, it's a false equivalence? Why is that? Because you say it is?
So tell us, oh great wise man .... why is it a false equivalence? I can already imagine the Dilipian wordsmithing you are going to engage in, saying nothing in anywhere from 200 words up.
I think CT readers are smart enough to recognize crocodile tears coming from a biased hypocrite.
The equivalence is false because business failures occur within market dynamics, influenced by consumer choice, competition, and innovation—elements of a free economy. Government expropriation of private property, however, is a unilateral action that strips individuals of their rights and assets without their consent or the natural interplay of market forces. It's not merely an economic transaction but a fundamental violation of personal freedoms and property rights protected under the law.
Differentiating Democratic Marxist and Capitalist Economies
Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 5
Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.
Fundamental Difference Between the DM Economy & the Capitalist Economy
When profit is the goal, as in capitalism, the point is not to produce for the demand. The point is to create the demand by marketing, so as to be able to maximize production and thus lower costs. This adheres to the principle of volume efficiency – once you have invested the capital to produce one widget, the cost of infinite production of widgets is actually a very small amount more; and the more widgets produced, the cost per widget decreases. The next goal is, at the same time, to try to keep the selling price of a widget high – allegedly to cover the cost of a widget being produced and some profit. Thus the producer ends up making even more money for each additional widget made and sold. This is a deliriously wonderful outcome for capitalism; ever-increasing profit per widget – The Ponzi Scheme realized.
It does not matter that a widget is not needed at all; the issue is solely “marketing”: “Don't fall behind your neighbour in quality of life; you must have a widget too!”
In opposition to this, Democratic Marxism's economy is based on “sustainability” and “meeting actual needs first”. Only produce what is needed in the volume needed. And if planned obsolescence (As in capitalism) is eliminated, then whent the demand is filled, production ratchets back, and goes into a new initial low-volume replacement mode. Workers then shift out of this employment to other jobs, if necessary, with re-training if necessary. The increased cost of replacement widgets must become subsidized by the general economy (We cannot totally do without widgets – so if one breaks down, it will have to be replaced).
The Consequence of the Sustainable Economy
The first major consequence is that employment has to drop; jobs are well below the potential pool of labourers available.
So there are created three classes: the paid employed; the unpaid employed (those on UBI who decide to labour at something beneficial to society for free); the non-contributing in terms of societal contribution (Living private little lives).
The employed will enjoy higher income than the non-employed.....the upper class will not wither away. So the sustainable economy requires a very steep progressive income and wealth tax to generate tax revenues for government for society to provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit (Also, low employment will lead to shrunken tax revenue). The tax grid, however, must not be so steep that non-paid working is seen as more beneficial than working. Of course, there will be some status benefit, likely, in being a paid-worker. Also, for those capable of marrying their passion to their career, there will be a most attractive general quality of life (And likely substantial benefit to society for them being paid workers. There likely will have to be a consumption tax of some kind as well to generate enough government revenue.
The Non-Paid Working Class
The government will provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit to all. The tax system will recoup the benefit, or much of it, from higher income citizens. Or, perhaps, receipt of the benefit may be optional.
The State-Supported Class will subdivide into two: the non-paid working class (will use their time, effort and money to provide free, contributions to society); those who simply wish to live a private, little, enjoyable life, and not work. It will be true that competition will be fierce for any paid-worker positions.......despite the naysayers who believe all will suddenly be satisfied with a life of drinking beer.
Monthly budgets will be lower due to the free products/services provided by the non-paid workers. There will be no charging for unpaid worker labour – all paid employment will have to be registered and government approved. This, of course, will lead to an underground economy, but this exists in any regulated system.
Quality of Life
Quality of life will be in each individual's hands......they will be able to determine their own destiny with many less obstacles than in current day capitalism (Even social democracy). They will determine the level of satisfaction with life they want (Within the bounds of all being taken care of – no more billionaires......those that want that will just fail to reach their self-interested goal). For those who desire a somewhat higher quality of life than the rest, they will have to decide whether to enter the competitive race for employment.
For the non-paid workers, life will be “livable” - a step way up from the quality of life of many, in both the under-developed, and developed, societies.
Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020
I see when you can't argue a point, change the subject, and tell us all fairy tales about the benefits of a Marxism that, in practice, would be unconstitutional and, as was proven with your hero, Allende did not work in practice, ie, 600 percent inflation that had ZERO to do with US intervention.
Differentiating Democratic Marxist and Capitalist Economies
Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 5
Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.
Fundamental Difference Between the DM Economy & the Capitalist Economy
When profit is the goal, as in capitalism, the point is not to produce for the demand. The point is to create the demand by marketing, so as to be able to maximize production and thus lower costs. This adheres to the principle of volume efficiency – once you have invested the capital to produce one widget, the cost of infinite production of widgets is actually a very small amount more; and the more widgets produced, the cost per widget decreases. The next goal is, at the same time, to try to keep the selling price of a widget high – allegedly to cover the cost of a widget being produced and some profit. Thus the producer ends up making even more money for each additional widget made and sold. This is a deliriously wonderful outcome for capitalism; ever-increasing profit per widget – The Ponzi Scheme realized.
It does not matter that a widget is not needed at all; the issue is solely “marketing”: “Don't fall behind your neighbour in quality of life; you must have a widget too!”
In opposition to this, Democratic Marxism's economy is based on “sustainability” and “meeting actual needs first”. Only produce what is needed in the volume needed. And if planned obsolescence (As in capitalism) is eliminated, then whent the demand is filled, production ratchets back, and goes into a new initial low-volume replacement mode. Workers then shift out of this employment to other jobs, if necessary, with re-training if necessary. The increased cost of replacement widgets must become subsidized by the general economy (We cannot totally do without widgets – so if one breaks down, it will have to be replaced).
The Consequence of the Sustainable Economy
The first major consequence is that employment has to drop; jobs are well below the potential pool of labourers available.
So there are created three classes: the paid employed; the unpaid employed (those on UBI who decide to labour at something beneficial to society for free); the non-contributing in terms of societal contribution (Living private little lives).
The employed will enjoy higher income than the non-employed.....the upper class will not wither away. So the sustainable economy requires a very steep progressive income and wealth tax to generate tax revenues for government for society to provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit (Also, low employment will lead to shrunken tax revenue). The tax grid, however, must not be so steep that non-paid working is seen as more beneficial than working. Of course, there will be some status benefit, likely, in being a paid-worker. Also, for those capable of marrying their passion to their career, there will be a most attractive general quality of life (And likely substantial benefit to society for them being paid workers. There likely will have to be a consumption tax of some kind as well to generate enough government revenue.
The Non-Paid Working Class
The government will provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit to all. The tax system will recoup the benefit, or much of it, from higher income citizens. Or, perhaps, receipt of the benefit may be optional.
The State-Supported Class will subdivide into two: the non-paid working class (will use their time, effort and money to provide free, contributions to society); those who simply wish to live a private, little, enjoyable life, and not work. It will be true that competition will be fierce for any paid-worker positions.......despite the naysayers who believe all will suddenly be satisfied with a life of drinking beer.
Monthly budgets will be lower due to the free products/services provided by the non-paid workers. There will be no charging for unpaid worker labour – all paid employment will have to be registered and government approved. This, of course, will lead to an underground economy, but this exists in any regulated system.
Quality of Life
Quality of life will be in each individual's hands......they will be able to determine their own destiny with many less obstacles than in current day capitalism (Even social democracy). They will determine the level of satisfaction with life they want (Within the bounds of all being taken care of – no more billionaires......those that want that will just fail to reach their self-interested goal). For those who desire a somewhat higher quality of life than the rest, they will have to decide whether to enter the competitive race for employment.
For the non-paid workers, life will be “livable” - a step way up from the quality of life of many, in both the under-developed, and developed, societies.
...... To draw a false equivalence between the natural dynamics of business failure and the draconian government expropriation of private property as "sanctimonious crap" Such comparisons are not just intellectually lazy; they're a glaring misrepresentation of fundamental economic principles and a blatant disregard for individual rights.
Oh, it's a false equivalence? Why is that? Because you say it is?
So tell us, oh great wise man .... why is it a false equivalence? I can already imagine the Dilipian wordsmithing you are going to engage in, saying nothing in anywhere from 200 words up.
I think CT readers are smart enough to recognize crocodile tears coming from a biased hypocrite.
The principle: Those who benefit most from the system, should most support the system.
Nothing wrong with this as a general principle.
In taxation, the principle generates "Progressive Taxation".
Your position that this is "stealing" is not supported in law!
If it were stealing, then it would be a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Government.
Show me the Canadian case that has been brought against progressive taxation on Charter grounds, and has been won. There are none. Why? Because all, except you and Sid, accept that there is NO illegality involved here in progressive taxation.
Bob A
Bob, it's critical not to conflate my critique of progressive taxation with an endorsement of the extreme measures you advocate, such as the complete abolition of private property for the "bourgeois" and the proposal that all private property should be administered by the state. There's a profound difference between the concept of progressive taxation, which is legally and widely accepted within our societal framework, and the draconian expropriation of private property by the government, which indeed would violate the charter rights as I've previously outlined.
Let's not obscure the debate with misrepresentations. My argument is not that progressive taxation itself constitutes "stealing" in the legal sense; rather, the issue at hand concerns the extent and purpose of such taxation, especially when it verges into territory that fundamentally undermines the right to private property.
Moreover, your assertion that my concerns about the legality and constitutionality of abolishing private property are unfounded because there have been no successful Charter challenges against progressive taxation misses the point entirely. The legal acceptance of progressive taxation does not provide a carte blanche for the government to overreach into outright expropriation without fair compensation, nor does it validate policies that effectively nullify the concept of private ownership.
Your reference to "fair compensation" in the context of abolishing private property is paradoxical. How can there be fair compensation when, under your proposed system, the very notion of private ownership is eradicated? The historical examples you so casually dismiss—Allende's Chile and Chavez's Venezuela—are instructive, not because they are outliers, but because they demonstrate the inevitable outcome of policies that undermine economic stability and individual rights. The "compensation" offered in these regimes, rendered through rapidly devalued currency, only led to hyperinflation and economic collapse, underscoring the impracticality and ethical bankruptcy of such approaches.
Invoking extreme Marxist ideologies as a defense of your position does a disservice to the nuanced and complex debate over economic policy and social justice. It's one thing to advocate for fairness and equity within the tax system; it's quite another to champion policies that have consistently led to economic ruin and the erosion of fundamental liberties. Your idealized version of state administration of all private property ignores the lessons of history and the intrinsic value of individual rights enshrined in our constitution.
Engaging in serious discourse about the role of government and the rights of individuals requires a commitment to realism and respect for historical evidence. Let's not reduce this critical debate to simplistic slogans or theoretical extremes that have repeatedly failed in practice. The challenges we face demand more thoughtful consideration and respect for the principles of freedom and property rights that form the bedrock of our society.
The principle: Those who benefit most from the system, should most support the system.
Nothing wrong with this as a general principle.
In taxation, the principle generates "Progressive Taxation".
Your position that this is "stealing" is not supported in law!
If it were stealing, then it would be a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Government.
Show me the Canadian case that has been brought against progressive taxation on Charter grounds, and has been won. There are none. Why? Because all, except you and Sid, accept that there is NO illegality involved here in progressive taxation.
Bob A
You either did not watch the video in #75, or have no responses to what it so succinctly states. And there is inherent contradiction in what you are saying: those who pay the least taxes to the system are the ones currently benefiting the most out of it in terms of government benefits, and so they should pay the most taxes... that is what your 'principle' states!! Those who earn a decent amount (despite your 'system', not because of it) are the ones who worked hard at school, chose an appropriate career, worked smart at making whatever they do a success, prioritized sweating over playing, and yet need to be punished the most by progressive taxation... is that what you applaud?
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Thursday, 1st February, 2024, 08:44 AM.
Ok, smartass, what about people LOSING JOBS because of corporate downsizing?
Is that violating the Constitution?
Such sanctimonious crap about "mental distress" ... would be ok if it covered ALL such cases, but you cherry pick against DM's policy on private property while at the same tine you would expound corporate violations of the EXACT SAME TYPE AND EFFECT ... simply because corporations in your opinion know better what they are doing! LOL
We cannot be protected against everything. Life throws us curveballs, we have to learn to hit them for home runs.
In this latest exchange, we witness yet another example of intellectually bankrupt discourse emanating from someone who seems to believe that breathing in 25,000 PPM of CO2 is perfectly acceptable and that masks, contrary to a substantial body of scientific evidence, do not become Petri dishes for bacteria. These positions are dismissively categorized as "outlier studies," a convenient label for ignoring inconvenient truths.
And now, we are presented with a new "gem" of wisdom from an individual who cavalierly views mankind as a cancer, further showcasing a profound disconnect between humanity and reality. To draw a false equivalence between the natural dynamics of business failure and the draconian government expropriation of private property as "sanctimonious crap" Such comparisons are not just intellectually lazy; they're a glaring misrepresentation of fundamental economic principles and a blatant disregard for individual rights.
The principle: Those who benefit most from the system, should most support the system.
Nothing wrong with this as a general principle.
In taxation, the principle generates "Progressive Taxation".
Your position that this is "stealing" is not supported in law!
If it were stealing, then it would be a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Government.
Show me the Canadian case that has been brought against progressive taxation on Charter grounds, and has been won. There are none. Why? Because all, except you and Sid, accept that there is NO illegality involved here in progressive taxation.
How can the majority of taxpayers, who support the government and the laws passed by their government, such as taxation, levies, fees, expropriation, "steal" from THEMSELVES?
The majority is asserting that the laws they have, and the government they have, is the best for society, and for them. Rather they are asserting that payments made to government are good, and help pay for the services the people want from their government. You cannot say "Tax Me Please", and then turn on a dime and call it "robbery" when the government does what they have asked.
Your position, Dilip, is like swiss cheese........full of holes.
Bob A (Dem. Marxist)
Bob,
Seems you did not look at the video in my post #75 here. As Sid has stated, there have been the usual brain dead idiotic comments by Pargat posted, (like about some billionaires wanting their taxes to be increased)....and the video in post #75 explains the real truth behind that... and behind the progressive taxation supported by the 'majority' (which is, tax others more than me, which is no different than saying: steal from minority. It is very much the tyranny of the majority over the minority...watch the video in #75 to get some understanding, Bob!)
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Thursday, 1st February, 2024, 05:54 AM.
Democratic Marxism fully agrees that not only the people, but also the government (Capitalist or Democratic Marxist), cannot breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter is also the Canadian protector of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority"!
I am glad to see, Sid, that you accept the DM position on the Charter.......we are in agreement on one thing.......maybe there will be more of which we can convince you.
Leave a comment: