WOW, Sweden has two private sectors? Is that place good or what? Maybe that's the place you should be living in.
Private property: where to draw the line, and our social responsibilities.
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
WOW, Sweden has two private sectors? Is that place good or what? Maybe that's the place you should be living in.
That was a typo. But yes, they do allow for priave health care. That doesn't mean the government doesn't spend much of the GDP on health care, perhaps more than Canada, and taxes are higher too. However, it does not rely exclusively on taxation, but allows the private sector too to alleviate some of the burden on the public system. And why not? If a person pays high taxes to the public ssytem and then chooses to not use it, why would we prevent that?
so then, we should have vouchers for school, vouchers for property, vouchers for medical......... what else should we have vouchers for? How about sex? Should we have vouchers for sex too? I mean if vouchers work so well every where else, sex would be good too...right? I'm sure you can come up with an example of how great sex is in Sweden too(note the double "o"), right?
I could agree with vouchers for school because it's a proven system that already works in some countries.
I do find it strange though that not long ago, you seemed to oppose vouchers. But honestly though, i can't wrap my head around how vouchers would work in allocating property. As for medical vouchers, I'm undecided, but again I'm not aware of any place that it's used. Could you explain in more detail how property vouchers would work, and how exactly medical vouchers could work?
Sweden is one of the most Socialists States going. They can do that when they get 16% royalties on nat gas rather than 1% like we do.
How can they do that without all the companies packing up and moving elsewhere?
How can they do that without all the companies packing up and moving elsewhere?
It just blows me away, but actually it shouldn't. I figured that everyone would pick up on the absolute stupidity and insanity of "vouchers" for property and then medical, and then even sex. I see though that I was wrong, the one person that doesn't see the stupidity of vouchers for education also can't seem to see the stupidity of "vouchers" in other things.
I would describe Sweden as more social corporatist than labour-socialist.
Yes they have high taxes, but school vouchers hardly sounds hard core socialist to me. Sweden has no minimum wage. It also turned down Saab's bailout request last recession. And it allows private involvement in its health care system. Add to that that it's a pro-free-trade country that joined the EU and benefits from common educational standards across the EU for trades and professions, along with inter-EU free trade.
If the NDP adopted policies more in line with Sweden's, it could easily win a landslide victory in Canada. I don't see it hapepning any time soon though without major internal reform of the NDP.
Your title poses the question of private property and the possible boundaries of social responsibility. I wonder where you would stand on the question of societal responsibility towards the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution?
You're the one who'd proposed vouchers for property and medical. I was just kind enough to let you explain how you think it would work, figuring you wouldn't be so stupid as to propose an idea without being able to explain at least to a reasonable degree how it would work. I guess I was wrong.
Buying property only gives you the right to pay taxes on it. If any level of government decides they need your property for any reason (road allowance or Oil or mineral extraction) they may make an offer (usually below value) or they expropriate. Either way, you only own the surface rights and even then, only at their discretion.
Fee simple title is as much a scam as fiat currency. In BC it is even more ridiculous because there are no treaties and there were no wars, so who gave the Queen the right to issue fee simple title to any land here. Property owners are being taxed on land that still belongs to the indigenous people.
Fee simple title is as much a scam as fiat currency. In BC it is even more ridiculous because there are no treaties and there were no wars, so who gave the Queen the right to issue fee simple title to any land here. Property owners are being taxed on land that still belongs to the indigenous people.
Last edited:
Honestly, Machjo................. nothing, not even vouchers would provide the NDP with a landslide victory.
I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is reasonable here:
Article 17.
- (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
- (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Apparently the voucher paper airplane flew right over somebody's head in its haste to get to Sweden
You really only own the right to pay taxes on "your" land "to the depth of a plow".How many farmers had their land (surface rights) expropriated for the rail right of ways or oil and mineral rights?
Honestly, Machjo................. nothing, not even vouchers would provide the NDP with a landslide victory.
If the my local federal NDP candidate promised to promote free trade, free movement of labour, territorial bilingualism (something Scott Reid and many other Conservatives have been proposing for a long time), and allosing for private health care, in the absence of other candidate presenting something better, he'd stand a good chance of winning my vote.
Likewise a provincial NDP candidate in Ontario who promissed to eliminate the minimum wage (possibly counterbalancing it with codetermination), propose a Swedish-style school voucher (or at the very least ensure all are treated equally regardless of religious affiliation, even if it means the province having to push for a reopening of the Constitution), granting more second-language choice in school (maybe along the Hungarian or at least British model), again, in the absence of true competition from another candidate, he just might stand a chance to win my vote.
But of course this would involve such a radical shift for the NDP I doubt this will ever happen in my lifetime, so it is a hypothetical case for the most part.
And oh yes, I almost forgot: the NDP would also have to abandon bailing out industries, funding arts except arts education in public schools, cut the DBC, etc.
But realistically, thiw would ake the NDP more conservative than the Conservatives. Neger gonna happen.
Question is, who's head. If a person accuses me of supporting something I don't, it's not even worth acknowledging his sarcasm and so I'll take him at his word and assume he supports it as he said.
Will I have to forgo the cutting of firewood so my trees can support your new voucher industry? Seems to me your solutions may unnecessarily complicate things with a lot of paper pushers and permission slips.