Tuesday, March 28, 2006

A gathering of vultures scheduled for East London Library

. . . . one vital distinction between a genuine and a spurious “right” is that the former requires no positive action by anyone except noninterference. Hence, a right to person and property is not dependent on time, space, or the number or wealth of other people in the society.

[..] On the other hand, an asserted right “to a living wage” is a spurious one, since fulfilling it requires positive action on the part of other people, as well as the existence of enough people with a high enough wealth or income to satisfy such a claim. Hence such a “right” cannot be independent of time, place, or the number or condition of other persons in society.
Murray Rothbard - The Ethics of Liberty

Be sure to join Irene Mathyssen, a NDP MP here in London, along with London city councillor Bill Armstrong and London-Fanshawe Liberal MPP Khalil Ramal on Wednesday, March 29th at the East London Library from 7-9 pm. Just because you breed, it doesn't mean you should be expected to look after your own children. You have a "right" to those entitlements! Get out there and demand your portion!
Londoners deserve a national child-care program and they should mobilize to get one, says Irene Mathyssen, the NDP MP for London-Fanshawe.

Mathyssen is hosting a community town hall session Wednesday night at which representatives of federal, provincial and municipal government will speak about the need for a national day-care program.

The federal Conservatives have announced they will scrap the program created by the former Liberal government later this year.

Instead, the Tories plan to give parents direct $1,200 payments for each child under age six.

"We're hoping to have a lot of people come out to fight for child care," Mathyssen said yesterday.

Her London-Fanshawe riding, especially, needs high-quality, regulated child care because of the large number of working families, she said.

Mathyssen said more than $1 billion has been set aside for child care, but the money has never flowed to Ontario.

"There is a lot of concern about what the Conservatives will do," she said.

20 comments:

Pietr said...

I like the leading Rothbard quote. It's a while since I thought about things in an 'Independence/identity' way.

Honey Pot said...

Since the Canadian female population are opting out of having children, and not just because they are messy and cumbersome, it is best to give them incentives. Someone has to procreate, and with more and more females obtaining the right to an education, they don't want to do that unthankful, demeaning child rearing thing anymore.

Lisa said...

Honey;

You're being funny here, right?

Honey Pot said...

Nope, not at all Lisa. Just the way it is now. Toss up between a baby and a well paid career, you are going to see the female population pick the career. The marriage contract is seen as old fashioned, and redundant by many young females. Marriage was just a means of protection and survival for the female. Giving birth was a contract sealer, and ensured the female food and protection. Not neccessary anymore, as females can now provide financially for themselves. Knowledge is the great equalizer.

Anonymous said...

Those who want to have kids will have them with or without incentives. If you need an incentive like daycare to have children, please don't.
As a mother of three children I spend more than half of my salary on daycare, it will not even be worth it for me to work this summer. These programs are supposed to benefit people like me right?
Yet, I am absolutely against the government having any say in my daycare arrangements. I actively dislike daycare centres for a variety of reasons not the least being that I was able to walk in and pick up my 9 month old son without anyone asking my name or who I was. I didn't recognise anyone in the centre at the time, as many were out sick. Anyone could have walked away with my son. This was in a Fanshawe run daycare with ECE teachers and students!
Now (and for the past 6 years) I use a home based daycare and am very happy with the results. I will continue on this path even if government run daycare happens.
I'm not sure why so many parents want to jump on the "cheap daycare" bandwagon, hasn't anybody heard "you get what you pay for"?
Soon it will be like our school system and it will be more about keeping people employed than taking care of our kids. Could you imagine the first daycare strike? I firmly believe that public school system should have the money follow the child, quality schools would be rewarded with higher enrolment and more cash and the schools who hire bad teachers etc. will have low enrolment and declining cash.
Only one more point - on the CBC the other morning a daycare centre was complaining that if the Tory government gives funds directly to the parent than they still won't be able to purchase daycare for $100 / month, as it costs aprox. $12,000 / year for each child in daycare. All I could think is $12,000 a year???? Oh, what I could do with $36,000. I can find good quality care for less than that, heck I could hire a full time nanny!

Honey Pot said...

Anony, you are one of the old fashioned fortunate ones whose husband makes good money, so you can afford private daycare. That is kind of him to let you go to work so you have some downtime away from the kidlets.

Parents want to jump on the cheap daycare, coz...well coz, no one wants to get stuck home looking after the darlings. Parents who stay home, men or woman are considered...well retarded, by the rest of society. Females woke up to that one a few decades ago, now they are looking at the marriage thing with crossed eyes. I mean really.... why? There really is no purpose to marriage anymore, not much benefit to either sex. I suppose two can live cheaper than one, if they are both cheap. Besides that there really is no logical reason as to bother with it.

Lisa said...

Honey;

If women don't want children anymore, then why are a whole bunch of them clamouring for "free" daycare? And why do they keep breeding, willingly and happily. Canada may be fucked up, but you make it sound like Sharia law has only recently been exorcised from the family home.

My mother, who is nearing 60, didn't have children so she could get a free meal ticket. She was employed before she married my dad, had two kids with him because they both valued the idea of a family, stopped working to look after us, until we were of school age and then went back to work, eventually starting up and running a successful business for many years. My mother wanted children as much as my dad did. She didn't and doesn't regret not working outside the home while she raised us. Her job was full time childcare druing the years she wasn't earning an income and her reward was her children and husband. Some women might choose daycare outside the home, and so part of the family income will be spend on childcare unless there is family nearby willing to help out. That is the choice people must make before they have children. My parents didn't spend money on daycare, but they also didn't have an extra income to enjoy either. I was well provided for, but that was because my parents were fiscally responsible, NOT because they were rich nor wealthy and NOT because they were the recipients of government handouts.

Far from being a cheap alternative, national commune care costs would skyrocket out of control, just as public health care and education costs have in this country. Mothers who work shifts and weekends would expect daycare options around the clock - why should a daytime worker get "free" childcare well the shift worker has to fend for themselves?

Plenty of mothers - or dads - would be more than happy to stay home with their children, except they are too busy working to make ends meet. As taxes spiral out of control, it is no longer financially possible for most families to have a stay at home parent. And the reason our taxes keep getting higher for less return, is precisely because of the existence of schemes like daycare for all.

This kind of shit costs money. A lot of it. Shitloads. Billions of dollars. And its coming out of the pockets of people who have kids AND those who do not. Even if it were possible for governments to offer cheaper daycare alternatives, which is laughable considering the previous track record and nature of government provided goods and services, the essential point is that the money required to provide daycare is wrongfully taken from those who do not consent to pay for it.

I don't have children Honey Pot. I don't want children, but not because I view motherhood as a consequence of male oppression. I simply value other things more highly than raising a family. And if I did want a kid, I'd have to ship it off to a government run indoctrination centre as I worked my ass off paying for all the entitlements that others claim to have on my income.

Honey Pot said...

Awww Lisa, you don't want children, that puts you out of the game of life, end of the line, so to speak. Your views are only good until your expiration date.

Are you sure your mother wanted children? In those days it could of been because of lack of easy access to birth control or abortion. It could of been because she was pressured by family, and society to have children. There was a time it was considered odd, and a woman was of no value if she didn't want to breed children. Perhaps she was scrared of being kicked to the curb if she didn't have children, and replaced with a breeder. Not like she is going to tell you she doesn't have any regrets. Some mothers do and their darling spend many years on the couch, trying to suck it up and get over it.

There are not an over abundance of mom's or dad's that want to stay home with the darlings. Females often espouse that line because of the guilt factor. It is just so much easier, and less mind taxing, to go to work, than to stay home. A child nurturer is considered of less worth than a bag of dirt in society.

Lisa, no doubt in my mind, with your kind and caring views toward mankind, that you would be the first in line at the daycare center every morning ready to hand over "pookey" to nurse Rachet.

Anonymous said...

Honey pot
I hope you don't have kids because your view is very selfish.

I didn't need any incentives to have kids (3); I had them because I love kids. I've always wanted kids. I got married because I love my husband and we wanted the same things from life - family, friends and a loving and stable home.

"Anony, you are one of the old fashioned fortunate ones whose husband makes good money, so you can afford private daycare. That is kind of him to let you go to work so you have some downtime away from the kidlets."
I need to make clear something here for your sake - I make more money and work fewer hours than my husband does. I need to work so we can afford our home, car and the many sports the kids are involved in. I want to work because it's challenging interesting work, not to get away from the kids. If we could have afforded it I would have stayed home until the kids were in school full time, but we need somewhere to live.

I will continue to sacrifice my paycheque every week in order for my kids to stay out of institutional daycare because I care about my kids and I don't think they need to start "school" until they are 4. Until then I'll pay my $300 / week - even if it means less money for other things, because I put the kids and there welfare first and will continue to do so until they are 18.

I will repeat myself here to say honey pot - "Those who want to have kids will have them with or without incentives. If you need an incentive like daycare to have children, please don't."

Honey Pot said...

You are having someone else raise your three children for $300.00 bucks a week? Three children, and only paying a $100.00 a head? You're a cheapskate. They must be pretty wicked kids that you would work for nothing to send them away.

Lisa said...

HP;

There is no doubt in my mind that you have taken too much medication today, or perhaps not enough. Just what the fuck do you actually believe?

My mother didn't have kids because she was "scared" of being replaced by a breeder. She shows me to this day, through her love and support, that she never once regretted her decision, and nor does my dad.

You seem to think that children are a burden on parents, especially on the woman, but at the same time, you believe "incentives" should be in place to encourage women to produce snotty nosed children. The kids do come home from daycare, and will once again be a burden the their parents. I suppose the state should take charge of the offspring until they reach the age of 18.

In comments on this subject, you have shamefully and wickedly criticized two mothers who have had children because they wanted to and who have worked hard to provide for their needs instead of mooching from the trough. Should anon and Ayn stay home and raise their children? Otherwise, why do you criticize their choice to work so that they can afford to pay someone of their own choosing to look after their childcare needs while they are earning a wage?

Again, do you have children? If not, do you intend to breed? Perhaps you are a lesbian because males are just way too evil and oppressive to associate with.

Honey Pot said...

Lisa you are the one going on that children are a burden on society. You are the one that would rather see them left iocked in the basement than be put into quality daycare.Someone has to look after the little rotters. Childcare workers are paid diddly squat, and are on the lowest rung of the food chain in society.

You don't know what your mother wanted? She had no choices. She grew up in a time where it was seen as deplorable and immoral for a woman to think for themselves. You are just some snot-nosed kid who doesn't know if their ass is bored or punched.

No one in the civilized world wants to stay home and look after their children. No one wants the burden of pulling out their chequebook and paying half their wages to someone to raise their children for them.

Best to give the breeders incentives to have children was my point.

If the girls want to be all girlie, and get upset over a point of view...well that is just too bad. They must see themselves in there somewhere, if it bothers them so badly. Nothing like pointing out to breeders, that they are breeders, to get them all upset.

Anonymous said...

Honey Pot
Where do you find quality daycare for three children for under $300 a week? I didn't know I needed to make myself clear here.
My kids are aged 8, 4, and 2. Only the 2 year old is being watched by a caregiver. The 8 year old is in school and the 4 year old is in both public school (JK) and private pre-school. I am home both before and after school.
So in closing my sitter gets paid $300 / week per child. I think you can get the picture about what the summer might cost. Yet I don't care that every penny I earn will be going to my sitter this summer because it the proper and right choice for MY FAMILY.
AGAIN I REPEAT, "If you need an incentive like daycare to have children, please don't." I don't those people breeding anyway.

Anonymous said...

Honey
How do you know what Lisa's mothers’ choices were? It sounds to me that your mother had no choices and you feel like you have no choices as well.
"No one in the civilised world wants to stay home and look after their children. No one wants the burden of pulling out their chequebook and paying half their wages to someone to raise their children for them." read above - MORE than half my paycheque.
I think it might be possible that you Honey Pot, are one of those lowly daycare providers, the way you go on about how society views them. Have you been on the receiving end of some annoying, irate parents? As you seem to think kids are snot-nosed etc. It wouldn't surprise me, that is just the attitude I encountered in daycare centres.
Just so you know the facts - home based daycare providers are providing a service for a cost. If we have government run daycare it will put all those folks with their own businesses into jeopardy, and I will finally have to hire a nanny.

Lisa said...

HP;

You truly are a lost cause. I never once said children are a burden on society. It's people with views like yours that are a burden on every individual trying to look after themselves and their families.

As for my mother, she wasn't forced to have children. My mother never particularly cared what "society" expected of her. My parents made the decision to have two children just a little over 30 years ago and at that time, she had plenty of choices. She was employed and made a decent wage. She got married and had kids because she wanted to.

Unlike you, I do not believe women are nothing but wombs unable to think for themselves. Perhaps that best describes the women you know. What about your mother? Were you an essentially unwanted child?

Honey Pot said...

It wouldn't be putting home daycare providers out of work. They would be absorbed into the system. Do you pay your caregivers health benefits? Do you supply her with a drug and dental plan Anon? Mind you the home daycares would be monitored, but I don't see a problem with that. That is a good idea. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. You couldn't afford an au pair Anon. Unless of course you took advantage of an illegal immigrant, but that is ok as long as it benefits you eh Anon? *wink* *wink*, *nudge* *nudge*

Anonymous said...

Your right honey pot I can't afford a nanny. So I guess I'm stuck paying the sitter. Of course I don't want my sitter absorbed into the system - who am I going to pay to love my kids than??

Anonymous said...

I'm dying to know Honey...
You work in a daycare centre don't you????

Honey Pot said...

She loves your children? Do the litmus test there Anony. Tell her you can only afford to pay her $50.oo a week. You will see then how much she loves your children. hahahahahahahahahaha

Pietr said...

"Absorbed into the system."

Resistance is futile.
We are the Borg.
And not because we play tennis.