quote:

---

'laissez faire' Capitalism is the only ethical social system imaginable. Who could argue with the basic ethical principle that no human being has the right to force another human being to do anything against his own (perceived) self interest. If we allow a human being to ‘initiate’ force against another, to force him act against his interests, then we have approved of dictatorships of the worst kind.

---

Where I disagree with the above statement is the question of compassion.

For illustration purposes, think about the following ‘thought experiment’:

“What if I were walking on the bank of a river and saw a child drowning, feet away from a healthy young man fishing in a boat? What if I saw that this young man ignored the child's screams for help and kept on fishing? What if, when I asked him to save the kid, he refused? I know that this young man is not blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped, he is a good swimmer and able to rescue the child; he merely chooses to exercise his 'right' not to act on my pity. If for some reason I couldn't save the child (I couldn't swim, or whatever), and if I carried a gun, would I threaten the man in the boat?”

When I first thought of this scenario, I was shocked to find that my 'gut reaction' was: yes, without hesitation! Would I actually have pulled the trigger if he refused? If I were sure I could get away with it? I am sure I would not. I was raised to recoil from killing. But I would wish I could. It would be my most basic instinct to destroy this traitor to humanity.

Before you all recoil in horror and yell : "Murderer!", let me remind you that most of the heroes of our country were honored for the unquestioning murder of fellow human beings who were the 'enemy' at the time - as decreed by our government.

One more question for those who wouldn't: what would you do if the child were your own? You still don't think you would be tempted to use the gun?

Let me emphasize at this point that I most emphatically do not approve of violence of any kind to solve social problems - the example is only an illustration of a moral dilemma.

So, basically, I believe we do owe each other something (for those who disagree about saving the child, I "recommend suicide at their earliest convenience" to quote Konrad Lorenz. It would save us the trouble of putting them out of our misery).

The question is: how much do we owe each other?

Where to draw the line?

I have tried to find a basic principle that would make this line as ‘non-arbitrary’ as possible in the “Proposal for a new social contract’ thread.

I am curious about what your reaction would be, should you find yourself in the scenario of the thought experiment I described above.

In the broader sense: do human beings 'owe' each other anything?

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

In your example, is it clear the girl will drown without his intervention (ie. after, ignoring the gun cos I wouldn't pull it straight away, it is obvious he ain't doing anything, I would jump in and try and help rather than standing there blustering over the guy!!).

If he is the only one that can help and he doesn't, would I use the gun? What good would it do? Won't make any difference to the girl, the guy can't do anything helpful if he is shot. The gun is kind of ridiculous to me (sorry, I am sure I am misunderstanding with my limited imagination).

As for do we owe each other anything?

Yes, a fiver!!

Ummm, well, being 'good' and selfless is beneficial for the human race and beneficial for most people's sense of self-worth, so whether being good is because we owe it to others...

That said, do I owe my forebears (say the soldiers who died in ww1 and 2), of course.

Do I owe people worse off than me anything? I owe them dignity and respect (and what form that takes is open to much debate, could be a basic income, could be a roof etc...).

I owe them what I expect from them (respect, concern etc...), and in any exchange (which underlies the concept of owing), someone has to give first...

(YOU!)

If this hasn't completely missed the point, then I am going against type!!!

This part is completely personal, arbitrary, my own opinion and feeling.

However, if most people agree that there is some common bond that we will not tolerate being betrayed, then people will have to agree what we owe each other, why, and how to draw the line between freedom and compassion.

I am sure there is some law that makes it a crime not to provide assistance to another human being in serious distress. Anyone knows this part of the criminal code?

Society ebbs and flows... There are few rigids... Even 'universal human rights' are constantly being interpreted, reinterpreted, tested, always evolving.

You seem to want absolutes that will always be personal choice to some extent.

As for compelling someone by force to be nice to others, that is how some people could see taxation!! But the problem comes with

who
(deserves)
what
(from)
whom

and that is what political and moral philosophers have been and will forever be debating...

There are no absolutes... sorry to ruin your universe, Zatamon, but then your handbag is almost as much fun as your absolutes!!

I recall reading recently that it has been discovered that humans are generally disposed to altruistic acts, which gives credence to the notion that as social animals, we act in ways that mutually reinforce each other and preserve the social fabric.

However, it is ironic that our law would permit the man to do literally nothing and not be charged for it, as it is not a crime to omit to do something except if it directly leads to the commission of an offence.

Having meandered through the garden path, I would say that in general we don't so much "owe" each other something as we tend to feel an obligation to each others' self-preservation, which enhances the survival of humanity as a whole.

quote:

---

Dr. C: However, it is ironic that our law would permit the man to do literally nothing and not be charged for it, as it is not a crime to omit to do something

---

quote:

---

it explains why the welfare state and other means of transferring resources and money to those who have none are still considered acceptable

---

Another slightly different view on this particular areas was that the welfare state developed as a means of transferring wealth from the rich to poor, but by passing it through the government, it removed the stigma of 'charity' and became a 'right' that citizens could expect.

People hate to receive charity (so this view says! And I agree, pride and all that...), and one wonders how much one could stretch the argument to - the state needs to intervene more because people want to give and receive but hate to do it as a personal transaction (how many people walking past a beggar gives cash yet happily drops money in the church's collection tin for the homeless etc.).

Maybe the desire for transfers of wealth is much bigger, and the state needs to intervene to enable it to happen...

quote:

---

However, it is ironic that our law would permit the man to do literally nothing and not be charged for it, as it is not a crime to omit to do something except if it directly leads to the commission of an offence .

---

Not exactly, but close. In Canada, no one has a duty to help anyone else, EXCEPT those persons under their care. So parents must provide support and the necessities of life to their minor children. Or, people wit a statutory duty must comply with it; police officers cannot sit idly by while someone is mistreated, nurses in a hospital have a legal duty to assist, and so on.

But it's not a legal question; it's a moral one. Most humans feel that they ought to help in emergencies, to the best of their ability. Of course, that's not against their self-interest: most humans are aware that the situation can be reversed at any time. People give blood, because they might someday need blood. People join bucket-brigades, because their own barn may catch fire. Normal social behaviour includes helping, precisely because it is in everyone's interest.

“Is it ever justified to use force, or the threat of force, to compel a human being to act in a certain way, even if he is not harming anyone, just minding his own business?”

The currently existing (in Canada) enforced social behavior may take many forms. Some of them were already mentioned.

- Wealth distribution (via taxation)
- Compulsory military service (in time of war)
- Crime reporting obligation
- Care for dependents
- Protection of fetus beyond certain age
- Medicare, pension, unemployment assistance
- Welfare benefits
- Environment protection
- Anti-monopoly laws
- Minimum wage

All of the above are enforced (supposed to be at least) by law, all of them are aimed at helping and protecting each other. All of them are beyond and above pure 'laissez faire' Capitalism.

All of them are arbitrary in the sense that they exist in some countries and not in some others. At least not the same way, not the same kind. There could be a lot more of them, there could be a lot less. Often each of them were achieved after lengthy legal and political battles. Some of them are sometimes overturned and revoked.

Is there any way a consensus in basic principles could be reached that would help decide how far we are willing to go in helping and protecting each other? So instead of the currently practiced case-by-case fights, we would have some law, one level above, that could be applied to individual cases? Like a ‘charter of rights and obligations’ for mutual assistance?

It could take the form similar to a 'comprehensive' union contract. A law that spells out the minimum standard in basic human needs for every citizen. So, instead of fighting and winning/losing case by case, we would have an agreement on how everyone's basic needs are assured.

If it is conceivable that a 'balanced budget' amendment could be added to a country's constitution, why is it not equally conceivable that a 'balanced humanity' amendment could be added as well?

So we wouldn’t have to worry about Hydro sold out from under us and Medicare destroyed, giving us a two-tier health care: one for the rich and one for everyone else? That not only the rich and well-off can have a higher education, that mental patients are not thrown out onto the street, that no one is homeless? Is there any way society could have a consensus about our minimum humanity below which we don’t allow ourselves to sink?

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Are you sure of this Doc? I seem to remember a case when someone was charged with "refusal to provide assistance" when he failed to call for help when he found someone lying on the pavement, dying. I will look into this.

---

Bone marrow. Now, I may be wrong, but I get the impression that this is something that only a few people have problems with, and when they do they need a transplant. A famous one in the UK resulted in the setting up of the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust to promote the cause.

The crux of the matter is this. He needed a donor, but because so few people are on record with their type and thus their compatibility, he died. What is people's opinions of:

1. Having a legal obligation to have people's type of marrow (perhaps other medical data) on file

2. Forcing people to donate (supposedly not a particularly risky thing for a healthy adult to do.

Now, it seems to me, involving as this does, individuals and their body, that it seems a gross infringement of their freedom to demand they submit themselves to an operation. BUT, finding out their type is not invasive or difficult AND many people if they realised they could save a young kid's life might lose their reticence if they found they were compatible, which, at least, implies to me there should be perhaps compulsory testing if not compulsory donation (which does sound and 'feel' dodgy to me!)

I think this is an interesting one (bit like compulsory organ donation unless people have opted out rather than at present where you have to carry a card.

However, the main point I am trying to make is not specific but general (being a theoretical physicist by training, it is to be expected from me).

I am trying to find out if anyone would support a ‘constitution-level’ agreement about the minimum basic human living conditions (food, shelter, medical and educational) that our country would want to guarantee to all its citizens. Something that could be maintained unconditionally for everyone, so nobody would fall between the cracks. Something that would be a lot harder to take back (being part of the constitution). A ‘comprehensive’ package deal, so it would put an end to the item by item bickering. Something that could be renegotiated from time to time as one ‘minimum living standards’ package.

What do you think Apemantus?

My view has been for some time that society, to be an effective society and to prevent it tearing apart at the seams must be relative.

So my worry is that though the aim is laudable, I worry that by enshrining something in the constitution, it becomes both a right/government obligation (good) and a limiter (bad), because as long as the government discharges its constitutional duty, then it is doing its job.

It might be Amartya Sen who dealt with this, or David Piachaud, cannot remember which, but they were discussing how poverty is not about basics so much as access. So Labour had Social Exclusion as one of the big themes for its first term. And it was not just housing, food etc., but availability of transport (so some rural areas could feel excluded as much as inner city ones), access to health services, education, with the choice they might want, and also things like television. People in the UK moan that 'poor' people have Sky TV when claiming income support, but in such a media-based society, you could feel very excluded if you don't have a TV (unless that is your choice).

Thus, the best one could do to avoid tying the government's hands would be big brush strokes (all citizens are entitled to food, housing etc...), but that would be so broad that it would make no difference.

What society thinks individuals are owed does change over time and anything that was 'set in stone' might not allow for this, indeed might hinder it. So my objection is more on that basis than any other.

I think there is a moral obligation from all members of society to others, but I think it is so plain and obvious and people are so aware when it is not being met that to have it defined, legally and written down, is to deny humanity its humanity, and actually makes people think that it is something subjective to the whim of philosophers and lawyers and politicians.

Again, you raised very good points and I will address them one by one, later today (a bit short of time right now – have to move glass panes from the old shed I just tore down to the new mini-barn I had built, before the storm hits and I have glass panes flying all over the place).

quote:

---

I thought that as an adult, if you have knowledge of any child being abused, you have to report it. For instance, if you see your neighbour beat their kid, you have a legal duty to report it.

---

At that time, the relationship between a father and his children was legally the same as between a master and a servant. No obligation to assist the child existed.

Later (and this is obviously a somewhat "potted" history, but I think essentially correct, Parliament passed statutes, specifically criminal statutes, making it an obligation to provide necessaries for your children.

A legislature may make any law it wishes which does not violate the Charter of Rights. And so, there has been some movement towards creating, in statute law, certain obligations to asssist people who are not one's own children. Usually, it involves situations in which one has agreed to a relationship which involves a "duty of care". So, a doctor who agrees to see a patient has a duty to report abuse. But that is because he or she accepted idea of being in a helping relationship with the other person.

The "default" position is no duty to anyone beyond your own minor children.

The obligation of community or society or nation to provide subsistence for all of it members. This idea is as old as civilization (well, a lot older, really, but bfore civilization, it was a family matter, not involving strangers), and most societies have made some attempt (from bare-bones charity to outright socialism) to achieve it. Food-banks are part of this idea, as are federal pensions, legal enforcement of child-support, welfare, unemployment insurance, farmers' co-ops - all kinds of iniatives.

The obligation of individual citizens to aid one another, where such aid does not put the helper at risk. Reporting a crime, fire or accident would come under this heading - where a responsible agency exists. So does dam-building in time of flood, housing evacuees and refugees, contributing to emergency food and blanket drives - again, where a competent agency organizes the effort. Such agencies (police, fire-brigade, Red Cross) have existed, either under the aegis of government or church, or as voluntary organizations, throughout recorded history.

So, on both counts, we've had consensus all along: it's the ways and means - the execution, if you will - that's been faulty. Peoples keep experimenting: if civilization survives long enough, we may yet get it right.

quote:

---

1. The state can't put itself in a position of choosing one person's welfare over another's;

---

It already does - all laws benefit some at the expense of others. Even in healthcare, finite resources dictate that decisions have to be made about who, what and how to treat. And even though some decisions are made on medical need, choosing where to site a hospital may benefit some at the expense of others

quote:

---

Both the risk and result are often impossible to predict; the ability of the potential helper and the rescuability of the victim are impossible to measure objectively; no-one can calculate whether the possible/probable loss of two people is preferable to the certain loss of one.

---

But, that is untrue. If you imagine the same situation but where instead of the state compelling, the helper has volunteered, doctors can, indeed must, give an assessment of all of those criteria and do so from a medical point of view. The only difference is between voluntary and compulsory, the rest is the same (ie, it is about freedom rather than what you say in that bit)

quote:

---

Medical science keeps changing the parameters; a rule made today would be obsolete by next year.

---

Fair point, but it could be updated each year, like the budget act?

quote:

---

Government cannot afford to force its members to endanger themselves for any cause less than protection of the whole, because it will lose support for all of its endeavours.

---

Hmmm... is that really true... When you say whole, where does one draw the line. Surely conscription is based on sacrificing some members knowing that not everyone is at risk. Your blanket statement "lose support for all of its endeavours" sounds rather vague and untrue, perhaps.

I can see some of what you say, and they are good points, but not sure whether they hold under close and better scrutiny than my brief attempt above.

Edited to add:

The bone marrow one and indeed organ donation is an example worth debating, perhaps, as bone marrow donation is not dangerous to the donater at all (as far as I am aware) so the question is to do with the freedom and power over our own bodies rather than the state endangering me.

And compulsory organ donation, by definition practically, is after death. May seem very tasteless (and does our control over our bodies end at death etc.?), but it is not dangerous to the donater at all. What are your thoughts on that?

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Apemantus ]

Yes, i might have distinguished better among risk (all surgical procedures carry some risk), pain (want me to describe how bone-marrow is taken?), discomfort and loss. Still, i don't want any of those legislated as mandatory for myself; therefore i assume that others feel the same way, and wouldn't try to force it on them. We've just recently broken the power of the church to tell us what we must and must not do with our own bodies; i'm not ready to give that power to the state.

I might have distinguished more clearly between the medical situation and the emergency one. The assassment of risk in the former is done by doctors (and they've been known to err on the side of self-confidence). Where hospitals are placed and how much health-care is available varies with the economy and can be responsive to population change, need, demand, etc. It's quite different, in theory and practice, from a law requiring citizens to offer up their bodies to one another. To update a body-parts donation law annually would require a standing committee of physicians - who would then be effectively making law for a special interest (their own), and without having been elected. Forcing anyone to donate any part of their deceased loved ones is morally and emotionally repugnant, as well as a flagrant breach of religious freedom.

In the case of emergency, some hapless civil servant would have to guess, after the fact, the likelihood of the rescuer drowning along with the potential rescuee, and then guess whether a non-rescuer made the correct calculation under stress... hard to prosecute, if you catch my drift. Impossible to draft a comprehensive, enforcable law.

Conscription in time of declared war is exactly what i meant. Some populations won't even stand for that. I just can't see being able to get enough popular support for a more intrusive requirement of personal sacrifice. (What, call up people at random for dangerous rescue and tissue-harvesting, as you do for jury-duty?) Take a poll; i may be wrong.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I did distinguish between morally and emotionally repugnant (personal level) and legally unfeasible (collective level). Where every citizen's physical integrity is at stake, i believe the personal fear and repugnance of the majority will defeat the minority's desire for a chance (not a certainty!) of relief (not cure!).
(And let's not even wade into the long-term consequences for society of writing into the constitution a mandate for physicians to prolong every life to the limit of their current - never mind forseeable - ability.)

Where every citizen's financial welfare is at stake, i believe the majority's desire for a basic standard of living will defeat the minority's right to overabundance.

Repeat: assume a working democracy in both cases.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Then I presume there is an obligation to report an accident if you are the first there but not necessarily stop?

---

No, I do not think there is. However, under many Highway Traffic Acts, if you yourself become involved in an accident, you are required to render assistance. That is also the position under the Criminal Code.

But someone who merely witnesses an accident has no such obligation.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

Apemantus: Hmm, I suppose my main first point with that is the age old one of how you define basics. Because, my fear … is that when one has absolutes … over time they become such a low ceiling as to be worthless. This is one of the problems with poverty for example.

---

Second: would you agree that Tuberculosis is not a relative term. Either you got it or you don’t. Yet it exists and is on the rise among the poor. So would you agree that aiming at the very least to eliminate TB from the country is an absolute basic minimum? Yet, it is far from accomplished. See statistics below.

Third: Homelessness. Again, it is not a relative term. Either you have a roof over your head, or you don’t. Yet, the number of homeless people have been steadily increasing in Canada, especially during the last decade. So would you agree that aiming at the very least to eliminate homelessness from the country is an absolute basic minimum? Yet, it is far from accomplished. See statistics below.

I think this will do for a start. I could throw a lot more statistics at you to illustrate how absolute minimum and well defined basics are not met in Canada and the situation is worsening. However, there is no point carrying on until you agree that I have a point here. Your turn.

Statistics below are mostly from ‘Statistics Canada’ government office.

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

TB outbreak among Toronto homeless
WebPosted Fri Dec 21 17:29:12 2001
Five more homeless people in Toronto have been diagnosed with the disease. It has resulted in a special alert to the city's hospitals.
Toronto's Associate Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Barb Yaffe, says hospital staff are being warned about the new cases of TB among shelter and drop-in users.

The latest cases are in addition to nine that were reported previously.
Two people have died.

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

According to Statistics Canada, "Low Income Persons" Report, Cat# 13-569-XIB from 1989 to 1997 the number of poor children in Canada increased by over 37% while the total number of children in Canada increased by only 6%.

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

comparing eight nations regarding "low-income rates for families with children, based on standardized poverty definitions for eight countries, from OECD information and the Luxembourg Income Study for the 1990s"

Finland - 2.2%
Sweden - 2.5%
Denmark - 3.5%
Norway - 3.7%
Belgium 4.0%
Netherlands 7.0%
Canada 14.4%
USA 25.5%

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

Some more data on greed:

Globe and Mail, May 7, 1998:
“CEO compensation grew by weighted average of 56% during the year [1997]… Statistics Canada reports that the average worker earned ...during 1997 ... 2.1% higher than in 1996.”

In 1997, some of the CEO incomes:

Robert Gratton, Power Financial Corporation - $27.4 million
Frank Stronach, Magna - $26.5 million
Gerald Schwartz – Onex, $18.8 million
Lean Monty, BCE Inc. - $17.2 million

The average Canadian worker - $0.0311 million

I listed only a few but there are thousands of CEOs with above $1million income. A little less for them would have fed a lot of hungry children. What I can’t understand is why they did not choke on their 15-course gourmet dinners?

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

“In 1997, the Daily Bread Food Bank reported that more and more children were relying on them and the degree of hardship evident was greater than seen before. While the average annual household income in the GTA was almost $66,000, for food bank users it was $11,000 [for the entire family]. For 67 % of recipients, the cost of their rent was more than their social-assistance shelter limit, so a portion of their food budget went for rent. About one in three food-bank users could not afford a telephone. Many could not afford public transit. A large number missed meals regularly.

In the fall of 1997, the Canadian Association of Food Banks’ (CAFB) Hunger Count reported that some 670,000 men, women and children received emergency food assistance in March of that year, and children accounted for around 42% of those assisted. Since the association’s Hunger Count began in 1989, the number of recipients more than doubled” –- Mel Hurtig: “Pay the Rent or Feed the Kids”.

And if anyone is wondering about trends, let me repeat from above:

The increase of income in 1997:

CEOs: 56%
Average Canadians: 2.1%

According to the Centre for International Statistics,
the employment income change from 1984 to 1994 in Canada for Families with Children was
negative 29% for the poorest fifth of Canadians, and
positive 8% for the richest fifth of Canadians.

in 1984 the richest fifth's average income was 12 times higher than the poorest fifth's

in 1994 the richest fifth's average income was 24 times higher than the poorest fifth's

Looks like greed and brutality have indeed no limits.

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

As my statistical figures (see above) show, the trend during the conservative mandate was the exact opposite of what was needed to eradicate child poverty. If the income of the richest 20% of Canadians was shrinking (they could afford it a lot easier) and the income of the poorest 20% (who needed it desperately) was rising, I could say: the conservatives made some effort to correct the NDP's and liberals' errors (to use Fleming's assumptions).

But to have the gap grow so dramatically in the opposite direction (38% increase of the gap in one year) and still claim that the conservatives are not at fault, is an obscene suggestion that only people with skins miles thick can make.
--------------------------------

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

The reason we don't have quite the same scale of poverty etc. now is that we had a change of government and a change of mentality in the country. Sure, there are far too many hangovers from the Thatcher days, but the harshness has been tempered and the direction is now leftwards (ie. back towards the centre from where Thatcher had taken us out to the right).

It then occurred to me that to get something in the constitution about absolutes and governmental obligations etc. would require even more effort and persuasion than to change the government, perhaps.

So, yes, I do see your point and it is a valid one. But (and this is where you may get annoyed), to achieve it would require, I think, too much and would require more than to change a government which could perhaps be done with more support and easier.

So, nice aim, I agree with it, but how to put it in practice (ie. to tackle poverty, health, housing etc.) makes me think 'aim for what you can achieve rather than aiming for something that may get less popular support and thus not get anywhere.

This does depend on my analysis of what is more achievable and it may be that others feel persuading people of basics in the constitution may be easier than persuading them to change the government (whom you would also have to persuade?).

But, in relation to here in the UK, we have a government who is committed to those aims, and as slow as the bastards are being, they are reducing poverty, increasing health, reducing homeless etc., and they were told to do so by the electorate not by legal duty.

Maybe you're just heartless bastards in Canada!!

(JOKE, don't all shout at once!!)

quote:

---

I do think that legally one is bound to give some kind of assistance.

---

There was a case in Montreal a few months where a girl was lying in a parking lot in the rain. She was spotted by the employees of a call centre in a nearby building, who wanted to render assistance. Their employers told them to mind their own business and get back to work. The supervisors were charged when the girl was subsequently discovered (dead, I believe) and the story came out.

The next step is a little historical background in Canadian social programs and their broader historical trends. All of the quotes are from the book written by Sally Learner (of the University of Waterloo) and associates: “Basic Income – Economic Security for all Canadians”.

This historical recap will clarify two things:

1./ There is a history of wanting to guarantee minimum basic standards in Canada
2./ The process was halted and then reversed by corporate interests.

Once we see the issue in context, then we may see why and where the attempt at social justice failed, and that may give us an insight into how we could get it right next time.

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

“Prior to the Great Depression of the 1930-s, Canadians who had no employment or other means of support had to depend on …. In urban centers, ‘indoor relief’ in the form of workhouses and prisons. During the 1930-s, widespread hardship led to protest movements such as the aborted 1935 “On to Ottawa” trek, in which thousands of western Canadians demanded employment other than that provided by the coercive work camps of the period”.

“Building from the initiatives in the Depression years…Canadians developed a relatively broad social consensus from the end of the 1930-s to the beginning of the 1970-s…The expansion of individual rights was couched in two powerful concepts: one of uniform protection across the country….and the growing notion of universality of certain minimums…”obtainable as of right and in the company of other citizens”.

“One assumption that underlay the construction of the Canadian welfare state was that there would be full employment – jobs for all who wanted to work, and thus a firm financial basis for the foundation programs:

1927 – Old Age Security
1940 – Unemployment Insurance
1945 – Family Allowance
1957 – equalization payments
1964 – Canada Pension Plan
1966 – Canada Assistance Plan
1966 – Medicare

In 1968 the Senate Committee on Poverty was created “to investigate all aspects of poverty and recommend effective policy measures”.

“In 1971 the committee’s findings were presented in the “Croll Report”. The report recommended that “all existing programs be scrapped and replaced by a Guaranteed Annual Income scheme..”

“In 1982 the Macdonald Commission (mandated by Trudeau) …considered a guaranteed income proposal (UISP or Universal Income Security Program) ."

This was the last attempt to meaningfully deal with poverty in Canada.

From the early 1980-s to date there has been a massive corporatization of the Canadian social and economic policy,…characterized by widespread cuts in social expenditures and increasingly constrained access for those in need of social programs.

Parallel with the cuts in social programs, rapid and steady increase of corporate profits and widening gap between the rich and poor in Canada took place.

The trend of developing social conscience, started after the horrors of the Great Depression, was reversed. We are on our steady way back to the ‘unthinkable’ suffering and misery of the Depression Era.

quote:

---

Apemantus: The advantage we had...

---

Do we owe nothing to the water that quenches our thirst and continues to quench our thirst?

Do we owe nothing to the soil that nurishes us and continues to nurish us?

We owe the air, the water, the soil, etc the ability to continue - taking without giving back takes away that ability.

As for the rest, Vaudree is right, of course.
How often do you hear a successful person say: "I did it all by myself."? Bullshit. It's easy to forget that somebody fed you before you could hold a spoon, and somebody keeps producing the food when you know what every knife, fork and spoon is for. Somebody made the road, the Stop signs, the Lexus, the cell-phone and the platinum watch. It's easy to forget the person who taught you to read and all the people who built the schools and paid for them. Nobody is self-made: everybody is part of a society. We're all in debt to other people, big-time. We all feel it, too, whether we admit it or not.