Renegade

A huge generalization, wouldn't you agree? There have been good tenants, there have been bad tenants and it wouldn't be fair to tar them all with the same brush. Why do so for landlords? Except I can't remember a time when the law was not hugely in favour of the tenant. I suppose there are more tenants than landlords, so who cares if the legislators screw landlords, right? I suppose the same thing is true for landlords. If tenants did their due dilligence, they mostly would avoid troublesome situations. If this kind of mutual due diligence was all that was required, why bother protecting anyone with a Rental law? Again sweeping generalizations about landlords, don't you think? Some tenants will damage a property and disguise it so the landlord don't find out till much later. Works both ways. I agree with you. It is up to the landlord to make it a condition of the lease.

And how retarded is that? Each industry fights for its own subsidization to the point that they are all subsidized (some more than others). Consumers and tax-payers by everyones admissiion is cross-subsidizing each other. The only sane thing to do is to get rid of all subsidization completely.

Apparently you are not spending any time actually reading what you are posting. None of the links show that cutting off the external supply of food to a country can is actually a credible threat. Much of the articles talks about how conquering armies destroyed the ability of the conquered to grow their own food. None of this is prevented by having a domestic supply. Maybe you can be more specifc on which example you think is relevant, and APPLIES to Canada being cut off.

You didn't. That is why I ask but yet you have not yet answered. Do you think each individual should produce their own food. Why or why not? Yes I agree it is being used as a weapon when the threat of withholding food is used to force compliance. What I'm saying is such a threat is not a credible threat in Canada. (Nor the US, nor some others as well which also subsidize their farmers). Surely your lecturer in military strategy pointed out the difference in being able to cut off the food supply of an army or encampment and that of a country. Do you think that in the specific circumstances we are talking about (ie cutting off the food supply to Canada) that any military strategist would think that is a credible strategy? Show come credible examples where countries have had their food supplies cut off and have been forced to cave as a result, whereas they otherwise would not have caved if they grew their own food. Yes, you did say "butchered", but unless my comphrension of English is faulty, "butchered" is not the same as "raised". I can buy a cow and butcher it but have had nothing to do with raising it. I don't claim to have knowledge on how to raise livestock, raise wheat, raise corn, raise chickens. I don't see how that is relevant. Maybe you can try and answer the straightforward question of if everyone must be self-sufficient in growing ALL their own food.

I'm not sure how you can read what I think, but I'd be happy to be enlightened. Be specific, what do you think is subsidized, and what is not, and to what extent? The only amount you quantify is high speed. You may be glad to know you do not pay "more". The cost of Rogers High-Speed in GTA is $47.95 ($44.95+$3 modem rental). Rogers High-Speed I was not the one who called anyone a "hick". I have no problem with rural dwellers. Any I have met have been genuine and decent. I take issue with a system of subsidization which makes no sense, not with the people at all.

You and a friend?? Why did you not raise the cow? Is it your expectation that each person should grow their own food to be self-sufficient? Why or why not? Huh? Virtually anything we use can be used as a weapon. Google "oil as a weapon" and you will see what I mean. In any case, having some food grown in country does not prevent its use as weapon. If beef farmers decide to sell their beef to Japan because they get a better price there, are you suggesting that they should be stopped? Actually, no one said that they were irrelevant or not a priority. The point, which seem to have been missed is that you don't need to personally create these essentials in order to be resonablly assured of a supply. Sieges worked simply because they were able to cut off the area under seige from the outside world. Areas under seige typically were not large enough to create their own food supply while under seige. There is no threat of Canada being cut off and being unable to import food from other sources. The physical ability to create a food embargo would not be reasonably possible. So let's have real examples because everything you have pointed to is not a credible threat. Humor me then and provide some links, because despite your claims I see no parallels with history and the situation of a local food supply. To be a relevant example the threat must be credible and the solution you propose should be similar to what you point in the example.

So are you claiming that rural consumers are not being subsidized?

Angus, are you concerned about your personal food supply? So do you then grow your own food to alleviate your concern? Please cite some examples of this major concern in history.

WD, we have discussed US subsidises here: US Dumping Corn in Canada? Who cares if Canada grows its own food. The more relevant question is how do we secure access to a resource we are dependant on?. If we have relatively secure access to food grown by other countries it is irrelvant where it is grown. There are many countries who operate quite successfully without much in the form of its own agriculture. If US and European taxpayers want to subsidize the Canadian and other consumers, let them. Why should Canadian taxpayers repeat the same folly?

I can be so sure because the services I pointed to are subsidized and I've already showed you evidence of it. Of course I'm cherry picking because I'm pointing to the specfic ones which are subsidized. You correctly point out that there may be other areas where rural communities subsidize urban ones. I have agreed that that too is equally wrong. We each have no way of accounting at which community overall, subisidizes the other more. My point then is that ALL subsidies should be removed. Why should one community bother to subsidize the other only to have that subsidy returned in another area. The subsidized community never benefits as much as the community doing the subsidization due to administrative overhead. If my whining bothers you, you are free to ignore it. And you responded to this thread, and I'm telling you that I don't care if you don't want to live in my world. Again there is that vague term "public interest" without any definition. It kind of reminds me of when the US government uses the phrase "in the interest of national security". It seem to me it is cop-out and an excuse to use such an ill-defined term and what "public interest" is seems very subjective.

At least the Court had the good sense to overide the Copyright Board: Appeal Court rejects iPod levy

I do, and I am. I'm not saying everywhere, but at least in the kinds of services I described. If you are describing the consequences of me choosing to live in a remote location then I agree with you. The phone and power company will indeed change me more as the should, and some services I will do without completely. This should discourage me from living in this remote location as it should. Police exist to provide law enforcement. Law are enacted to protect civil, individual, and property rights. I don't know that you can make a generalization on what the police's primary purpose is. Unless you can point to some policy of prioritization, I assume cases are prioritized individually. It should be undesputable that the existance of security services benefit the wealthy. Personally I'd be fine with an exemption from payment for those who are unable to pay, however those are exceptions. The general rule shoudl be that benefiiaries and users should pay for a service To refresh your memory, you brought up private security forces, and I pointed out that Mafia and Hells Angles are simply private security forces. Let's drop it because it isn't really relevant to the thread. Sorry, but I don't like yours for the reason that it is coercive.----------------------------------------------- BTW, You never addressed whether you believe in your world, I should be entitled to the same power, phone, health, etc services, and at the same cost should I decide to put my house up in an isolated location on the tundra. If not, why not?

I disagree. While there is a lot which is beneficial about the charter, I don't agree with embedded discrimmination toward any groups. IMV "collective rights" do not exist and are simply a political invention. The discrimmination embedded in the charter has got nothing to do with a true and democratic society, but that is a whole different thread of discussion.

I use the phrase in this context "Tyranny of the majority". Any coercive action which overrides individual rights is tyranny. It is simply a matter of degree. If there was no potential for tyranny in Canada we would not need a Charter of rights. While the Charter is a good start, I dont' think it goes far enough to protect individual rights.

I'm not following your logic. If you believe that some services are essential and should be available to everyone, why would you think you should pay more for some that you do get? Why do you think if I placed my home in the tundra I should be entitled to any less in services? Based upon your answer I can't tell if you are ageeing with me or not. The richer you are they more you will benefit from police and security services becaue they protect your wealth. If police services did not exist and you had only $10 in your pocket it is unlikely you will spend anything to replace those police services, however if you had millions and those services did not exist, I bet private security services would be high on your spending list. Actually you brought it up, not me. Sure they would likely opt out. Ironially they do contribute to police services when it is in their interest to do so. We call those contributions bribes.

OK. So are you saying you agree that you should have to pay "through the nose" or are you saying you should have to pay the same cost as in town?

Unless you are being held against your will, you choose to live where you do. If you live there because it is the only place you can make a living, then that too is a choice, both in your choice in how you make a living and and that the renumeration you earn is worth the loss of flexibility in where you live. Why won't I have those same services you seem to feel are essential? Please explain why I have to wait for Air Amulances and Search and Rescue, when you have roads built and immediate Amublance service. Afterall, isn't that what you are advocating that everyone is entitled to the same service despite the fact that it cost more in certain areas? Yes you should pay for governmental services to the extent you use them, at least to the extent they are separable and allocatable. We discussed this in this thread and I stated my position. Who should be allowed to vote? Absolutely user pay should be extended to the police and armed forces. The obstacle to implementation is to the measurement of benefit. Specificly for police services, the rich are the major beneficiaries and thus users of police services because they have more for the police to protect thus they should contribute more toward those services. The fact that there may be others (ie warlords) who create private armies, point to a need for our own security services that we all contribute to. These private militaries already exist in our system. They are called the Mafia, Hells Angles among others. It doesn't give more people more services. It gives *some* people more services. "leveling the playing" is simply a euphemism for a coercive transfer of wealth. Of course, because anything else restricts them to what someone else has to pay for. IMV, it is completely fair to restrict people to what they can afford. Unfortunately we have a system whereby the majority can override individual rights and freedoms. As you can see by my tagline, tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.

As I said, I take it at face value, which to me means a claim without evidence. Actually you are only talking about the last-mile to the consumer residence. The backbones did not use existing infrastructure. Then perhaps thats where the difference between you and me lies. It is where that point of balance is. I don't believe anything i've suggested causes me or anyone else to live like a cave man. It simply encourages responsible economic choices. Do I seem upset to you? If I do, you are misreading me. I think we have a different concept of "use". I "use" a fire hydrant just by its existance across the street from me even if my house never catches fire. That is because its mere existance provides me security. In that case I fully agree I should pay my share for my "use" of the system. My point is that if I lived in the wilderness and I wanted that same security of a fire-hydrant infront of my house, I should pay the increased cost of that "use" because there is increased cost to set up that infrastructure and because there is less "users" to spread the cost. This is true even if my house never catches fire. Again how about you define what 'societal good' is, instead of telling me how great it is for me. Sure, but we need to be specific on what those are before I agree which rights incur which responsibilites. Sure, but my principles are not based upon what the government decides. Governments have also made other decisions which have proved regrettable. The fact that you do is also irrelevant.

Yes you are absolutely correct. If no one is willing to pay for the upfront cost of a service, that service will not be provided. That is no different than today. If I decide to put a house in the tundra in the middle of nowhere, no one will build the infrastructure or pay the upfront cost for setting up fire, police, or ambulatory services. That is exactly why we choose to live in consolodated areas so that there is enough demand to create these services. Despite who decides to invest upfront (government or private) they must make a decision on the economic viability of that investment and how the cost will be recovered. You are suggesting that "people" act in their own best interest, but "I" do not? I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions about my best interests. I'm sure any good dictatorship will agree with you. yeah, whatever. It is my right to decide the priciples I live by.

There is no way to know if the tradeoff is the same because there is no accounting for subsidies. Even if we accept your premis that the tradeoff on subsidies are the same, then why bother to subsidize at all, afterall you would be giving up as much in subsidies as you get, whithout the overhead to institute subsidies. Actually I never said that "cities subsidized everything". Show me where and I'll correct myself. As I've said before, my comments were specfic to the kinds of services I mentioned. Again either you have misquoted or misunderstood what I have said. I have no complaint about "country people getting services". I have simply stated that they should pay the full cost of those services, btw, as should urban dwellers.

Impossible to say because there is no detail on the circumstance. What if I assulted her while trying to disarm her because she came at me with a knife. What if the beating was part of our S&M ritual.

No, everything is not "ok". Behaviour which is not OK is that which infringes someone elses individual rights. That is different that "good" or "bad" which is a subjective determination. Absolutely we can, but are you sure you want to divert this thread into the "correctness" of each of those issues?

For the same reason, someone grows food, pumps oil, and generates electricity without expecting me to pay for the upfront cost. They do so because it is in their best interest to do so. You are convinced that I'd be dead if I followed my principles. I am convinced I would not. I am so convinced that I'd be willing to take my chances.

I was not aware that you had been appointed forum moderator.

I have seen no evidence of of your "libertarian persuasion", so I'll take the statement at face falue. Maybe you'd like to define what "societal good" or "common good" is. Personally, I think it is just an excuse used by people who somehow want to override individual rights. How did the internet get built? (And no I don't mean the original ARPANET, I mean the actual infrastructure that now connects most of the world). Answer that and you have your answer. If by "Anarchy" you mean lack of a central authority coercing others, sure I agree. If you are "of a libertarian persuasion" as you claim, you would agree that we should avoid a central coercive authority when possible.