HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canadian health insurance -- Is Microsoft the next
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:03:37 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

brb@falcon.is (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>>>bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) writes:
>>>
>>>>Furthermore (and this is a key to the issue of cost-effectiveness),
>>>>the Canadian system does a great job at spending enough money where
>>>>it's most cost-effective: in preventative medicine.  
>>>
>>>Yah, like taxing the hell out of cigarettes.  :)
>>
>>Why not?  Why should I pay for a smoker's added risk?
>
>Why not?  Because it is basically unethical.
>
>These public schemes basically charge premiums correlated to taxable
>income and not based on risk.  For instance, I have yet to see anyone
>advocate taxing ski equipment, fishing vessels, etc., for the added
>(huge) cost of emergency and health services resulting therefrom.

As once explained to me by a chief actuarial mathmetician from Great-
West Life (HQ is in Winnipeg, Manitoba and featured as a top 10 major
'scoping location in Playboy Magazine) with whose son I went to high
school: on a national/provincial level those numbers get lost in the
round-off error when calculating tables with that size of population.
Among a couple hundred or thousand of middle class high tech workers,
the skier would stick out but not with a large population of even a
few thousand as with (e.g.) IBM Canada.  "Long division."  (<-- he
usually shrugs and ends with that remark.  You had to be there) So, 
if they ever find a sure-thing to definitively blame on -- say --
hamburgers, then extra premiums would not be too much to ask since
the burgers' effects would be significant.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		President Bush should
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			pardon Amy Fisher NOW!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: ambagasp@acs.ucalgary.ca (Rohana Shantha Ambagaspitiya)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Canada's immigration policy (was Re: 500 New Jobs Per Day)
Keywords: recession, jobs
Date: 13 Jan 93 02:35:12 GMT
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <schuck.726825195@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Miguel Borges) writes:
>
>>schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>>Really? Don't forget the immigration rate!
>
>>>In 1984 the immigration limit was 50,000 per year -- 137 per day.
>
>>>By 1992, the Tories had raised it to 250,000 per year -- 685 per day.
>
>>>I know that all 685 of those people were not looking for work, but a
>>>little simple math says that if jobs grow by 500/day and we let
>>>685/day into the country, unemployment grows at 185/day.

According to Robert Brown's ``Mathematics of demography'' and
Cowards ``Mercer Handbook of Canadian Pension and Welfare Plans''
Canada needs lots of immigrants during next 20 yrs to pay
benefits of C/QPP, if the current population growth rate
continues.


>The most recent studies have shown a huge rise in the classification
>of "family reunification" immigrants who have a much lower level of
>education than immigrants of the 60's and 70's, and consequently are
>much more of a drain on the public purse.

Would you care to explain this statement a little bit? I thought
``family class relatives'' were not entitle to any social or
welfare benefits for first 10yrs and they are healthy.  The older
people who come with their kids (yes kids who are older than
21yrs) leave during the first winter.  Those unskilled people
usually work very hard.  This is just my personal observation.

>I nthink Canada should return to the days of high quality
>immigration with an emphasis on education and job skills.

I am not trying to defend the Canadian immigration policies, but
I guess they could not get enough immigrant that way.
Besides, doesn't Canada produce enough skilled people?


****
Rohana
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill)
Subject: Re: New DND Min
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:53:38 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 01-10-93 22:41

absmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Alfred Smith) asks:

> Would anyone care to comment on the appointment of the
> new Min for DND?

I wouldn't be surprised if Mulroney accidentally picked up 
Aristophanes' "The Lysistrata" instead of TV Guide. 

In all truth, I have fewer reservations about his choice for National 
Defence than I do about his choice for ambassador to Washington. 

-------------------------------
<peter.churchill@rose.com>  -just far enough out of Toronto!
-------------------------------
---
   RoseReader 2.00 P001013
   RoseMail 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9814 can.politics:11246
From: stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:09:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.172316.3179@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>.... The socialist political ideology says
>absolutely nothing about whether society should care for those unable
>to care for themselves.
>
>Constitution of the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP)
>as amended by the federal convention held in Halifax, 1991.
>
> [...]
>
>    That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be
>    directed towards meeting the social and individual needs of people
>    within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making
>    of profit;

I see a contradiction here.  Directing the production of goods and
services towards meeting the social and individual needs of people means
to me the same thing as taking care of those unable to care for themselves.
If people need food (an individual need), and are unable to obtain it
on their own (due to, say, lack of money because they have been unemployed
for 6 months and their savings is gone), meeting their needs would mean
directing resources towards them, whether it is a job or food.

-- 
------- Stephen M. Webb -------

Ack!  I've accidentally broken my leg!  -- Ed the Happy Clown

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
Subject: Re: Question(s) about Upcoming Election 
Originator: dash@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:33:05 GMT

In article <C0r0LF.2u5.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>I certainly think that students should be to mail votes back to the
>home riding, regardless of their present location.  Their permanent
>residence (for undergraduates, anyway) is still their parents' home.
>However, I am not sure that general ex-pats (like the 1 million
>Canadians who live in California with Brad (Hi!)) should be allowed to
>vote.

I would be adamant that Canadians in the U.S. on TC-1 visas should be
able to vote in Canada.  These people are not U.S. citizens or permanent
residents nor are they about to become the same;  they are Canadian
citizens and no policy of the Canadian government should be permitted to
disenfranchise a group of Canadian citizens.
-- 
David W. Ash               | "What profits a man if he keeps his eternal soul
ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu |  when he could have lived life to the full and
HOME: (415) 497-1629       |  been forgiven at the end of it all anyway?"
WORK: (415) 725-3859       |         --David Merritt, a.k.a. THE RED SHARK
From: farid@dso011.sch.ge.com (Farid)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: address for consulate in ny
Keywords: Canada , Consulate.
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:18:32 GMT
Organization: GE Power Generation



	Here is the address of Canadian consulate general in NY city.


	1251 Avenue of the Americas
	New York, New York 10020-1175
	22nd floor ...

	Phone # is : (212)-768-2400.


	It is located right at the corner of 49th street and 
	Avenue of the Americas ( 5th Av I guess ).. Ask for 
	Rockerfeller building .... or McGraw Hill building ...


	There is one more office in Buffalo .. but I don't have the
	address ... Call (315)-555-1212 and ask for Canadian Consulate
	office ...


	Bye ..
	I hope that will help ...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: ederveen@athena.research.ptt.nl (Ederveen D.)
Subject: Cours Gratuit d'Esperanto (regula posxtajxo / postage re'gulier)
Summary: cours d'Esperanto par correspondance sur le re'seau
Keywords: esperanto, cours sur le re'seau
Reply-To: D.N.M.Ederveen@research.ptt.nl
Organization: PTT Research, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:54:43 GMT

Postage re'gulier sur le                                Regula pos^taj^o pri la
                            COURS GRATUIT D'ESPERANTO

Quoi ?                                  Kio ?
Un cours d'Espe'ranto sur le re'seau,   Reta Esperanto-kurso, havebla en ambau~
disponible en anglais et en francais.   la angla kaj la franca lingvoj. G^i
Base' sur le Cours Gratuit par Corres-  bazig^as sur la Cours Gratuit par
pondance de la Socie'te' Que'becoise    Correspondance de la Esperanto-Asocio
d'Espe'ranto. Nous espe'rons le fournir de Kebekio. Ni esperas aldoni kursojn
prochainement dans d'autres langues.    en aliaj lingvoj estonte.

Combien ?                               Kiom ?
Gratuit! 10 lec,ons.                    Senpaga! 10 lecionojn.

Comment ?                               Kiel ?
Les correcteurs du re'seau vous         Instruantoj en retlando helpos vin,
aideront, corrigeront vos exercices et  korektos viajn ekzercojn, kaj sendos al
enverront les suivants.                 vi sekvajn lecionojn.

Pourquoi ?                              Kial ?
Pour apprendre l'Espe'ranto, bien su^r! Por lerni Esperanton, kompreneble!

Qui ?                                   Kiu ?
Pour vous!                              Por vi!

Ou` ?                                   Kie ?
Envoyez-moi votre adresse e'lectronique Sendu e-pos^ton al mi (adreso: vd.
(voir plus bas) et je vous enverrai la  sube) kaj mi sendos al vi la unuan
premie`re lec,on et l'adresse de votre  lecionon, kune kun la retadreso de via
correcteur. Veuillez pre'ciser la       propra instruanto. Bonvolu indiki la
langue (Eng/Fra).                       anglan au~ la francan.

Quand ?                                 Kiam ?
Maintenant, si vous le de'sirez.        Nun, se vi volas.

Et alors ?                              Kia ?
De`s la premie`re lec,on vous pourrez   Ekde la unua leciono, vi povos skribi
e'crire en Espe'ranto et a` la fin du   en Esperanto, kaj fininte la kurson, vi
cours comprendre presque n'importe quel povos kompreni preskau~ c^iun
texte (avec un dictionnnaire) et        Esperanto-tekston, (helpe de vortaro),
e'crire des textes simples.             kaj skribi simplajn tekstojn.

J'attends votre re'ponse!               Mi atendas vian pos^taj^on!

salutations / salutojn,
Derk Ederveen                        internet: D.N.M.Ederveen@research.ptt.nl
                                               earn:  ederveen@hlsdnl5.bitnet
(pas de re'ponse automatique a` ce message)    uucp: ..!hp4nl!dnlunx!ederveen
(ne uzu au~tomatan respondon al c^i-mesag^o)   decnet:        dnlts::ederveen
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:52:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.165300.18954@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.155405.22241@crd.ge.com> farid@dso011.sch.ge.com (Farid) writes:
>>
>>	Hi ! Guys ... Will some kind soul provide me information about the
>>	NAFTA ... What are the benifits we Canadians are getting out of it ?
>>
>>
>
>The main benefit to Canada is that we want to stay on an equal footing
>with other places for investment in North America.  If the U.S. were
>to make a binational agreement with Mexico that did not include Canada,
>and since the US-Canada FTA already exists, the US would be
>hub-and-spoking the hemisphere in terms of trade, and thus would be
>the favored location for investment.  With a multilateral deal,
>we protect our position to the entire North American market, and
>subsequently if the deal is expanded to include Chile or Australia
>and New Zealand to the hemisphere.
>
>Canadian-Mexican trade is relatively small compared to US-Mexican
>trade right now...so there is really no huge immediate impact...
>the big deal for Canada was the US-Canada agreement which now
>becomes sort of incorporated into NAFTA.
>
>The benefits of freer trade are obvious...there are things about
>both the US-Canada FTA and NAFTA that I don't particularly like,
>but on the whole, they are moderately positive, and provide a
>measure of protection for Canada if GATT fails, and the US enters
>into a full-blown trade-war with Europe or Japan.

this is a good explanation. it reminds me of arguments i remember using
back in '88 during the election campaign, against my friends who
opposed the FTA because the US would "take over" Canada. my basic response
was "what would you recommend instead?" and they replied "the way
things are now". but the problem is that with the changing global
economic and trade climate, that was impossible. and Canada needed to make sure
it was a part of the future.

--
charles
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9881 can.politics:11361
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 01:48:02 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Mark Anthony Young wrote:
>Here is my point.  You said earlier that taxation for the purpose of 
>paying welfare was immoral -- you did not think it was necessary, and
>so forcing you to pay was a violation of your property rights and
>thus equivalent to theft.  You had no such qualms about taxation to
>support the justice system.

Charles M Kozierok writes:
>correct. because i feel that maintenance of a justice system is an
>appropriate function for a government. and i feel that maintaining 
>a welfare system is not. one is necessary for maintaining individual
>rights to life and freedom. the other is not.

They both seem necessary to protect life and freedom to me.  The
poor must get food somewhere, to maintain their life.  Relying on
charity is opening the door to abuse of freedom by charitable
groups ("Good Christians may find shelter here").

I guess I have one other point.  I think your distinction is totally
arbitrary.  I think Gerald's "method" for democracy is arbitrary as
well, but at least I agree with the consequences.

>if you believe that all taxation is theft, then you believe that the
>appropriate role of government is none at all. that is not my
>position. in fact, that would make you an anarchist, would it not?
>are you one?

No, I am not an anarchist.  I was just playing one on the net.

Here is my catechism, for those who are interested.

There are people and there are societies.
People have morals.
Societies have rules.

When a person's morality comes into conflict with their society's
rules, one or the other must bend or be broken.

That is the way the world is, was and shall be so long as there
are people.  It is in neither my power nor yours to change it.

Your morality.  Gerald's morality.  My morality.  Three very
different views of what the world should be like.  It is not
the task of government to investigate the three and choose the 
best one.  The role of government is to find a middle way, one 
that preserves the peace.  A government has failed in its 
mission if its citizens take up arms against it.  

You and Gerald both believe that there is exactly one right way
to run a country, one set of rules for what a government should
and should not do.  Unfortunately, you disagree on what that
one true way is.  

I'm more of a pragmatist.  The government should do what its 
citizens want.  I will oppose those actions if I find them 
immoral -- following the society's rules for opposition if
possible, outside the rules if necessary.  When I do step
outside the rules, I do so knowing the consequences and
willing to accept them.  I expect the same of other citizens.

Humans are social -- we live in societies.  To say that
individualism is the be-all and end-all is to deny that basic
fact.  If you want to live with someone, you have to make
some compromises.  If you're married you either know that or
you're on your way to a divorce.

...mark young
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Rights
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:19:32 GMT

In article <93008.151415SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>But I think you err when you call objectivism "extremist". Extremism
>has no meaning; just because people differ strongly from you on the
>political spectrum does not make them wrong. A better objection to
>objectivism rests not on any alleged extremism, but on the circular
>argument at its core.
>
>Objectivism contends that we have only passive rights, not obligations.
>It claims the doctrine of "individualism" as authority for this
>statement. But what lies at the core of individualism? This notion of
>human rights. I boils down to the statement that we have the rights we
>have because we have the rights we have. And around we go.

what do you mean by "passive" rights?

you have not demonstrated sufficiently what this "circular argument" is.
please elaborate. i would like to understand your point.

>In fact, I think we both agree out individuality makes our rights
>important; social insects such as termites need no rights. But I would
>argue that the idea that we have responsibilities to one another also
>stems from our individuality.

that responsibility stems from others' rights to the same rights
you claim for yourself.

if you want to base your argument on individualism, that is.

>Our individuality makes us valuable.
>And that, I think, represents the best argument for social
>responsibility; I ought to be willing to surrender part of my property
>to bolster the lives of others, because I can replace my property; I
>can never replace another person.

if you choose to do so voluntarily, i wholeheartedly agree.
but if you force me to do the same, you abandon your claim
to individualism. if you wish to do so, fine. just recognize
what you are doing.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: canadian subway
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:02:01 GMT

In <1993Jan10.235430.10290@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:

>As several people have already responded, yes, it's Montreal that has the
>rubber tyred metro system.

It was patterned after the Paris Metro (the local not the express).

>The technically slanted may be interested to know that in fact each of the
>rubber tyred wheels is actually backed by a regular steel railway wheel and
>the track has normal steel rails in addition to the pads on which the tyres
>run.  There is normally no steel-on-steel contact of course, it is required
>only as a safety measure in case of a flat tyre.

>It is unfortunate that the major extension to the system that is being
>considered (a northern east-west line) will probably be steel-on-steel
>technology because the government is reluctant to continue funding a system
>(by Bombardier) which has so little potential for sales elsewhere, both
>because it is more expensive, and because existing systems are nearly all
>steel-on-steel.

>Although the system to my mind is superb (even though it has a pretty small
>coverage of the city), one of the disadvantages of the rubber tyres is
>that they are totally unsuited to surface use in Montreal's climate, and
>thus extension into the suburbs on the surface is exteremely unlikely.

But if it has the back-up steel wheels, wouldn't it work like a regular
car if they eliminated the pads where the rubber tires run? The rubber
tires would be out of contact with the ground, and you would only need
ramps at the entrance and exit from tunnels (assuming, of course, that
the train is aligned with the tracks :-)  ).

>It only costs $1.08 to travel from anywhere, to anywhere on the island of
>Montreal, with as many transfers as required (but only one part of the
>journey can be by metro unfortunately, all others by bus).  On boarding a
>bus, a transfer is obtained which can be used for access within 90 minutes
>to any other connecting bus or the metro.  When entering the metro station
>another transfer is obtained which is good for another 90 minutes, to be
>used for busses after leaving the metro.

You can't even get on the Washington Metro for that kind of money.

>I know of no other city that you can board a bus, do your business at the
>other end, and _return_ home on the same fare (other than by buying a
>return or two-way ticket of course), and who can imagine a 50 kilometer
>journey in, say, London, for 60 pence?
>-- 
>Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
>ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  ray@cam.org           |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray

Bob
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:20:49 GMT

i am ceasing my involvement in the discussion i have been conducting
on this newsgroup related to rights. it has totally degenerated
into silly, circular arguments. i see no purpose in continuing to
attempt this argument given the tactics of my current opponent.
and this discussion is not appropriate to this group anyway.
i'm sure most of the recipients of this group will be happy to see it go.

if anyone wants to discuss this further, introduce it into
talk.politics.theory, or something like that.
especially you Gerald -- i would love to see the people
over there rip your "rights" to shreds. i just don't have time
to do it anymore all by myself. and just *try* your anti-objectivist
rhetoric in alt.talk.objectivism or alt.politics.libertarian.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: montas@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Hubert J Montas)
Subject: Re: Stamp
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:43:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.074903.7015@cenaath.cena.dgac.fr> granger@stna.dgac.fr (Frederic Granger STNA 7CP p8126 AG23) writes:
>Hello all, and Happy new year 1993.
>
>This message is for a special request :
>
>On radio in France, a few week ago, my mother hear that a stamp with
>-- ELVIS PRESLEY -- will be printed on beginning of this January month,
> but i don't ember if it is in Canada, or in USA...
>
    Well, I didn't hear of that stamp whilst I was up in Mtl, but what I saw
was this nice hologram-of-a-space-shuttle-stamp. You should really get some
Canadian to send you one of these!

    Hubert.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9905 can.politics:11386
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 04:07:30 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
>Okay, this is where the free-market society begins to break down.  Who will
>build the roads the fire rotection company uses to reach your location?
>[...]
>
>I would be willing to be that the amount of money the rich elite (that's you)
>[...]

I guess you haven't heard that I've been demoted from lord to peon recently.
That means that I'm going to have to agree with everything you've said,
especially _this_:

>I would posit that there are at least a few things worth paying taxes for.

...mark young