Tuesday, December 6, 2005

Your children: parasites

Yes, you personally. Excuse me now, no time for a post about this. Even though I wasn't the one who impregnated you, your wife, or your alternative lifestyle partner, I have to go to work to help feed your stupid kids.

14 comments:

The Atavist said...

Don't forget your responsibility, as a good citizen, to provide healthcare and an education as well. Doesn't that just make you feel all nice and warm and fuzzy inside?

Mark said...

Won't someone please think about the children? Good grief. Here, just take my paycheque. I won't be needing it because your kids need that new XBox 360.

Anonymous said...

As a mother of 3, I have campaigned against national day-care with many letters and phone calls, and will continue to do so. I have used home based day-care for all 3 of my children at a cost of more than half of my weekly paycheque, for the last 7 years, without complaint. I haven't applied at a day-care centre or received any government subsidies to fund my children. You too were a child and to be referred to as a parasite is offensive to all parents and children. My husband and I work hard to support my kids without government help and handouts. All of the families we know are in the same boat. Alas no one seems to have got the point, all government policies and procedures regardless of who are protected or profiting only create more jobs in administration. When the government realises that they cannot follow procedure alone and must occasionally look at what the end result is, they will finally be able to cut some of their dead weight. This would help all Canadians by reducing income taxes across the board or increasing tax credits anything that will reduce the burden of families in Canada.

Mike said...

Anonymous, it's not I who proposes a parasitic lifestyle for parents and children. That's the Conservative Party. (And, of course, the Liberals -- but one expects this kind of thing from that direction.)

I am offended that my own prospects should be limited by law, so that irresponsible parenting can be encouraged by socialists masquerading as "conservatives". That's way more offensive, in principle and in consequence, than the use of an ugly but accurate term.

Anyways, you sound like a responsible parent who doesn't want to steal twigs from another's nest. Parasite is as parasite does.

deaner said...

"Anonymous, it's not I who proposes a parasitic lifestyle for parents and children. That's the Conservative Party."

Bullshit.

I have two kids - and they have been raised without any (direct) government support. They have attended public schools, and along the way I have paid well in excess of my share of taxes - both through income tax and property tax. I have been fortunate - I have an above-average income (for which I make no apology - I work damned hard, and I am good at what I do), and I have decided to live in a high-value home. My kids are not parasites - and the idea that the Tories might take a little less of my paycheque does not make them so (or would not, if they were not both past the age eligibility cutoff). If it bothers you that you have to "go to work to pay for my kids" - consider how happy I am to go to work to pay for your health care, or the subsidy to the industires that underpin the tax base that allows London Ontario to continue. When you can tell me you don't drive on public roads, you have paid the full cost of your education (I guarantee; you haven't - no matter what you think), or that you are not engaged in an occupation that benefits from some form of subsidy or cost transfer (I eqully guarantee that you are), then I will give ear to your puerile rantings - until then, why not think things through a bit, eh?

There are any number of implicit and explicit subsidies in our economy - I think it is a real cheap shot (and stupid, to boot) to pick on the one proposal I have seen in the last two decades that tries to address a social concern by reducing the tax burden - and along with it, regulatory and government overhead costs - instead of raising it.

Mike said...

deaner:

You don't know what you're talking about. Quoting from here, cynically entitled "Choice in child care."

Choice in child care. We will give all parents $100 per month per child under age 6 to spend on child care needs as they choose – whether that means formal day care, a babysitter, neighbourhood child care, or helping one parent stay at home.

That doesn't sound like a tax cut to me. It's yet another entitlement, one more way of making Canadians dependent on the Party. (Or, yes, as you put it, one more "implicit and explicit subsid(y) in our economy".)

If I am ever to reproduce responsibly, first I'll need every dollar I can get together to be sure I can afford a proper education for the kid. Increased taxes push that day further and further into the future. So you'll just have to pardon me if I'm a little bit hostile to the idea of being forced to subsidize the "reproductive choices" of less responsible people -- particularly of those who deem themselves and the fruits of their loins entitled to the fruits of my labour.

deaner said...

Mike - who paid for the road you drove on today? If you didn't drive, who paid for the transportation infrastructure that brought you your bike, your pants, your shoes, and the computer you use to write and post this sanctimonious self-regarding drivel? Who paid for your education? Who pays for the court system you take for granted, or for the parks that your future kids are going to enjoy? Are you going to home-school them, or send them to private school - and if the latter, who paid for the education of those who will teach your kids? Have you ever been on an airplane? - who paid for the airport and the air-traffic control systems? Were you born in a hospital? - I guess that makes you a parasite, too - unless you have made arrangements for full reimbursement, including the time-value of money.

Is a cash transfer to parents (clawed back through the tax system) the "best" alternative for defraying part of the costs of raising children? No - but it is a damn sight better than building federally-regulated, unionized daycares across the country, which will serve roughly a quarter of the kids whose parents might want to take advantage of that. I will be paying to fund this program, just as you will - and unlike you I will get no (direct) benefit, since my children are age-ineligible, and we aren't having any more. None-the-less, compared to most other government programs, I think this is a good investment; it allows parents to direct their child's activities as they see fit, it is available to all parents (subject to implicit means-testing by way of taxation of amounts received), and in general investment in children yields a high return. I agree that we shouldn't be subsidizing other people's choices, but we do - yours included.

Mike said...

Spare me the East German civics lesson.

Has the culture of entitlement and victimhood come so far in this country that the maintenance of roads and the justice system can be equivocated with a direct cash transfer from Peter to Paul?

Your response basically amounts to, "We already do all this wasteful and harmful social engineering, so why not do more?"

general investment in children yields a high return

So you say. But that's what *parents* are for, not the government.

deaner said...

Mike - if you wanted to make the point that we shouldn't be handing cash to people just because they have kids, I'm willing to listen. If you want to use deliberately inflamatory and insulting language to the effect that children are parasites, then you had better not be a fucking "parasite" yourself. To that charge, your defense is: "well, I'm not as much a parasite as the kids are." Boy, I'm impressed. You still haven't told me who paid for your education - and I'm willing to bet that more than $1,200/year came out of the collective taxpayers' pocket. But don't worry - you're no parasite. Did Mummy and Daddy pay the full shot - after all, that's what *parents* are for aren't they?

"Your response basically amounts to, 'We already do all this wasteful and harmful social engineering, so why not do more?'"

No - in the first instance, most of the examples I cited are not "social engineering" and are generally not harmful, although some might be wasteful. My point was that we are faced with a choice - even further government intrusion into the private sphere by way of federally regulated daycares, or a program to help defray the cost of parenting by direct transfer. Granted, neither one is a perfect solution - but which one do you think is better? So you piss all over it with hyperbolic crap about parasites (while quietly ignoring your own parasitism - are you sure you're not a Liberal?). Nice work.

Mike said...

Your use of the tu quoque fallacy for your first paragraph has some basis in reality since -- yes -- "Government is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at everybody else's expense." Who can avoid using necessary services that are monopolized by the Party? David Dingwall could use your response to justify his own entitlements.

Returning to the issue at hand: the Conservatives propose taking money from me to give to other people, so as to create another privileged class that will come to see this free money as their entitlement, and who will clamour for its perpetuation and expansion as the decades pass. (Meanwhile, impoverishing Canadians and decreasing the opportunities these children will have as they grow older.) That money is mine, not yours, and not your kid's.

Obviously the Liberal plan is flat out sinister -- whereas, the Conservative proposal is just appealing to people's selfish greed outright in hope of buying some votes. This kind of Fabian crap is what got us where we are today.

Both proposals are bad for me and bad for this country. I endorse neither and will vote for neither, though I was hoping for a slightly less Communist Conservative Party for which I could have voted. If I just wanted better managers for socialism I would move to the US.

If I agree not to use the word "parasite", will you agree to withdraw your support for taking my money away to give to a privileged client group? I'd say that's more than generous on my part.

Lisa said...

Deaner;

Are you sure you're not a Liberal?

My point was that we are faced with a choice - even further government intrusion into the private sphere by way of federally regulated daycares, or a program to help defray the cost of parenting by direct transfer. Granted, neither one is a perfect solution - but which one do you think is better?

Comrade Martin's nanny care does give even more power to the state than Harper's gift giving, but the point being made here is that the question is not one of 'lesser evils' but instead that both "direct transfers" and publically funded Party day cares are paid for with stolen money. Money that is earned by individuals is directed, through force, toward others who have no right to this money, but because some political party wants to hold the reigns of power, they promise a share of the loot to those they feel are most likely to prop up their regime. Aren't those parents that take it surely as deserving of the name parasite as Mike or myself who demand no special entitlements?

If you didn't drive, who paid for the transportation infrastructure that brought you your bike, your pants, your shoes, and the computer you use to write and post...

I thank what remains of the free market system for my clothes and my computer. They sure service me better than the roads or the healthcare system. Mike, myself and our parents have contributed plenty of money into the public pot, so we have paid plenty for the services you cite, although the price is high - unlike buying a computer, we don't have a say in how the money is spent nor generally any choice in supplier. I didn't ask for that park or the JLC centre, but I'm paying for it anyway, even though I didn't vote for the clowns making the decisions and shuffle the cash around. This is money that might have been spent on valued goals such as those now enshrined as 'rights', for example health care, transportation, education and childcare. Many of us wish to seek alternate sources of such services, but have been prevented from doing so because of excessive legislation and taxation.

I agree that we shouldn't be subsidizing other people's choices, but we do - yours included.

And so it should stop! There should be no compromise.

As Mike says above "Has the culture of entitlement and victimhood come so far in this country that the maintenance of roads and the justice system can be equivocated with a direct cash transfer from Peter to Paul?"

I don't have children and I don't plan on having any. I fail to see why I should contribute to the choices of others. The well-being of my neighbour and their kids is more important than my own? We all use the roads and need health care, but we don't all have kids. Cut the funding out altogether, including the multitude of 'social improvement' programs and we'd all be better off, including the parents of young children. Until that time, Harper, Martin and Layton make parasites and victims of us all.

deaner said...

"Aren't those parents that take it surely as deserving of the name parasite as Mike or myself who demand no special entitlements?"

(apologies for returning to an old thread - I thought this one had gone cold)

It isn't really the issue whether you demand them, Lisa - it is whether you get them. I will ask you the same question as I asked Mike (but which he has declined to answer): who paid for your education?

When you renounce all of the "entitlements" that have contributed to your material well being, and you pay the money back (including time-value), then I will start taking your plaintive cry of "And so it should stop! There should be no compromise." seriously. We are social creatures - if for no other reason than population density we are destined to live in close proximity to one another (if you would like to make a real contribution, you could set yourself adrift on an ice floe - the rest of us could use the additional elbow room). Given that proximity, compromise is not a necessary evil, it is the most economically efficient solution to many of our problems.

"Until that time, Harper, Martin and Layton make parasites and victims of us all."

Yeah - sounds great in Philosophy 100. Let me know when you join the real world. On second thought, I don't really care.

Lisa said...

Deaner;

Thanks for coming out again although your questions were addressed in the previous responses.

The essential point is that people should pay for the goods and services they require. What they earn is what they shall receive according to the values they hold individually in relation to what they can afford. It's not about special interests groups, but individuals. Sometimes people need assistance, but such assistance only properly comes from the voluntary acts and offerings of others. The tax money that pays for the programs that particular groups favour are paid for with money taken from people against their will - taxation amounts to theft when the money is not willingly given.

Who paid for my education? My parents and also their childless friends paid for my State Education - which I don't see as much of an entitlement actually - through taxation. I propose that the State give back the money they steal from me and than we will look at the supposed entitlements that have contributed to my well being. Let the thugs in power refund the money they have extracted from me through force (including "time-value") before we start discussing the benefits of public boot camp and 'free' childcare. I think we will find that the contributions and benefits of individuals are often grossly disproportionate to the services and goods gained. But most importantly, the balance sheet cannot be drawn up, as value has been grossly manipulated by unjust government monopolies and gigantic bureaucracies.

What divine standard do we appeal to in order to decide who gets a bigger portion of the redistributive trough? Are we to trust the representatives of the electorate, who are apparently too stupid to arrange their own affairs, although deemed competent to choose wise and just governors?

And if I am 'the recipient' of some public services, that is because there is very little choice available to me. I am not allowed to buy health care, yet I am forced to pay for public health care. Thus, I go to the public clinic, because I'm sick and need care and there is nowhere else to go. I pay taxes, so I'm only taking back what I paid for, right? I've paid my assigned percentage, so I am now free to take advantage of the spoils, just as my neighbour is, although he receives welfare.

Yes, we are social creatures who in general understand that each of us is better off if we respect the basic and fundamental rights of other people. Sometimes compromise is "the most economically efficient solution to many of our problems" but only when force is absent. Need I also point out that "the most economically efficient solution" is also not necessarily moral or right?

I'd be happy to abandon the sinking ship we call Canada, as all those grabbing hands do indeed make for a crowded existence, but for now, I think I will stay and fight for my right to retain the fruits of my labours and mind my own business.

I highly recommend "The Nature of Man and His Government" by Robert Lefevre

I wish you more clarity in the new year.

Anonymous said...

jesus, I've been away from Canada for five years and my, how bitter and whiney the locals have become. Here's a thought, quit bitching, because I guarantee all of you live a far better life than most. with child or not. Trust me. I've lived in London England since 2001 and living THERE merits being bitter. Count your blessings, you don't know how good you have it.