CitizenX

MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains - Jacques Rousseau Might I suggest the Philosophy Bro John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government": A Summary Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Discourse on Inequality": A Summary John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice, Part I: Theory": A Summary Hobbes' "Leviathan, Books I and II": A Summary Pretty funny stuff

Second hand smoke might be a good point. But my example was Taxing cigarettes excessively to promote quitting.If you use the argument that "the use of cigarettes increases the expenses of our public health care system" that becomes a slippery slope. So does risky sports, so does eating poorly, ect. If your going to have universal health care you have to be careful how you use paternalism. Not to mention when you raise taxes like that you promote the underground economy. Ohhh and not to be to unfeeling but I hearing about study done by Philip Morris for the czech republic that showed citizens that smoked in the long run save the government money. They saved money from things like Tax revenues from the cigarettes,Heath Care saving from early death, Pension savings, and saving in housing costs. It showed a savings from premature deatht of $1227.00 per person. Gotta love Big Tobacco True this is a issue of personhood so I'm not sure where I stand as far as paternalism. Is a human being a person at conception or only at a later stage? I don't believe religion doctrine has any role in this issue. It's a legal issue so science and reason should be the only tools used. Canadian Medical Association, 1991 “A human fetus becomes a person ... when the foetal nervous system has developed to the point where it has the basic capacity for sapient cognitive awareness irrespective of level of sophistication.” (CMA, Committee on Ethics, p. 290) Cognitive awareness? Is this different from bare consciousness? Fetal personhood (fetus at 20 weeks = person) Abortion is murder for after 20 weeks ????? Here in BC insurance is public so for me it's very similar to the smoking example. If it is private insurance like in Alberta I would say that it's like any insurance is should be stipulated some where that if it is found that your injuries were for the most part caused by not wearing a seat belt or helmet your coverage or compensation is reduced. Government has no business being involved. To have a truly free society, it is important for all of its members to accept responsibility for their own actions. Accidents happen, you can educate people, but you can't legislate responsibility.

Your ignorance and narrow mindedness astounds me. I'm starting to believe this really is George Bush. If you have a problem with the theory that's fine use your big words and debunk it. Or come up with your own.

bush_cheney2004 you've just got to come to grips with some facts. Your county was not attacked because they hate your freedom. US arrogance and foreign policies has made your county hated all around the world. Your narcissistic, greedy, and gluttonous American empire is crumbling. Your country is both powerful and dumb (bad combination) And finally something that you and your country will have to live with Iraq Body Count 102,046 - 111,539 As far as Canada/US relationship........ To quote the great George Bush “There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says Fool me once.......duh"... shame on... duh" "Shame on you... ?""If fooled, you can't get fooled again." Canada’s lesson learned hopefully.

Some examples Seat belt laws Pension system Motorcyclists helmet laws Laws that forbid people from swimming at a public beach when lifeguards are not present Prohibition (Marijuana) Gun storage laws Suicide or assisted suicide Gay marriage Abortion Taxing cigarettes excessively to promote quitting Basically any law made by government that protect people from themselves, and defy the principles of individual rationality and liberty. Any laws whereby those in government show that they are arrogant enough that they not only know what is best for themselves, but they know what's best for everyone else as well, and are willing to use the power of government to force us to comply. I may be biased

This has gotten off topic I guess my the main point of my question is in a representative democracy do you think The representatives form an independent ruling body charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives nor necessarily always according to their wishes. Representatives are elected to represent the wishes of their constituency I think the gun registry issue is a good example to use for discussion purposes. If you live in a community who’s wishes are get rid of the gun registry, but your representative votes with his/her party and for keeping it, is this your idea of a representative democracy? Yes you can vote him out next election but the damage is already done. The Liberals and Conservatives were both guilty of whipping the vote, the NDP were the only ones that allowed a free vote.

I agree completely, and I strongly believe in this quote from Plato. "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men". What happened at the G20 is a good example of people expressing in a peaceful manor (forget the handful of knuckleheads) their views of changes that need to happen. They were beat down and their rights were taken away illegally by the people who's duty it is to protect rights. But the Police were just following orders. Apathy in Canada is a huge issue ? A great video PLEASE WATCH. This has to be completely disheartening, and I truly sympathize with you and your comrads. I can only express my feeling towards the war. First I believe that the Canadian military is doing the best they can in a bad situation. Saying that I think, and feel Canada got hoodwinked by the Americans. Are allies got attacked and so we as good and close friends we had their back. Canada may not have a lot of military power but as a nation with a good reputation have a great deal of international political power. But as soon as are troops went over there it seemed the whole conflict turned towards Iraq. The longer the Iraq war went on the more evidence that it was not only unjustified, and ilegal but that it was more about getting rid of an American puppet (Hussein) who was acting out against his master. It became more evident that the Iraq war was more about securing oil for the American addiction, and for Corporate profits and domination. Anyway back to Afghanistan, after seeing all of this bullshit going down it starts to make you think. Who is this asshole buddy that we are backing up? Is our participation in Afghanistan all about oil as well? Is this even our war anymore? Here is an interesting fact and link to a video that may piss you off. . This may seem a little cynical but if Canada is in Afghanistan for noble humanitarian reasons where was Canada for Rwanda. They don't have Oil? Historically I agree with you 100%, but Harper (Mini Bush) scares the hell out of me. He is seems to closely aligned with the American Republic Party ideology. I could have used the American Iraq example just as easily. They were easily manipulated, and lied to by their government but still loyal to the Iraq invasion. As long as enough people can be frightened, then all people can be ruled. That is how it works in a democratic system and mass fear becomes the ticket to destroy rights across the board. - James Bovard

There is more research done in America, no "big goddamn secret!".

It's much easier to find stats on this subject in the US, but I believe this is a North American (Canadian/American) Problem and most likely globally applicable.

I thought that Ontario's Feed-in Tariff Program was the right move, and I'm glad to see BC is following in their foot steps to a lesser extent. Last I heard they were phasing out Coal, and not building any more nuclear?

You can’t solve a problem until find the root of the problem. "Stop looking for solutions to problems and start looking for the right path."- Andy Stanley "Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them." -Henry Ford Child maltreatment, which includes both child abuse and child neglect, is a major social problem. Crime is one of the most socially costly potential outcomes of child maltreatment. Information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT4tzwH_K8M Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)Study http://acestudy.org/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the ACE Study is perhaps the largest scientific research study of its kind, analyzing the relationship between multiple categories of childhood trauma (ACEs), and health and behavioral outcomes later in life. another study and links to video's Does Child Abuse Cause Crime? Public Policies and Child Well-Being Conference In 1983, the US Department of Health and Human Services found that 60% of child abuse is inflicted by mothers with sole custody of their children. Almost all of the rest comes from other members of her entourage, especially boyfriends and second husbands. One factor which overwhelms all of the others is fatherlessness. The link between fatherlessness and crime is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime », as Barbara Defoe Whitehead notes in her famous article from Atlantic Monthly Consider these facts: • 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (U.S. Center for Disease Control); • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (U.S. Bureau of the Census); • 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978); • 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988); • 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992). In fact, you can pick a social ill at random and you will find that the correlation with fatherlessness is clear and direct. Depression. Suicide. Dropping out of school. Teenage pregnancy. Drug use. In sum, fatherless children are: • 5 times more likely to commit suicide; • 32 times more likely to run away; • 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders; • 14 times more likely to commit rape; • 9 times more likely to drop out of high school; • 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances; • 9 times more likely to end up in a mental institution; • 20 times more likely to end up in prison(1). I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent......Mahatma Gandhi You must be the change you want to see in the world.....Mahatma Gandhi

David Bratzer, an active Victoria B.C. contstable and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Here is some more lectures if you are interested Marijuana Economics Panel Commonwealth Club (FLORAtv) Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Why Legalize Drugs? We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes marijuana worth more than gold, and heroin worth more than uranium – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control. History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade. We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families. We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. And we believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths.

I just love this video, What a JOKE. In a YouTube-sponsored poll and interview where marijuana was the #1 issue. As expected, the PM rehashed the same old tired arguments in defense of his destructive cannabis policies. The question: The majority of Canadians when polled say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults and taxed like alcohol.Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals. 1)He hasn’t seen this particular poll? a)So here it is a few http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/1689/canadians_support_marijuana_legalization/ Polling Data (06/28/07) - Canadians Support Marijuana Legalization Do you support or oppose the legalization of each of the following drugs? Marijuana Support = 55% Oppose = 41% http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43593/half-of-canadians-support-the-legalization-of-marijuana/ Polling Data (11/29/10) - Half of Canadians Support the Legalization of Marijuana Do you support or oppose the legalization of each of the following drugs? Marijuana Support = 50% Oppose = 44% http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/38770/canadian_majority_would_legalize_marijuana1/ Polling Data (04/18/10) - Canadian Majority Would Legalize Marijuana Do you support or oppose the legalization of each of the following drugs? – "Strongly support" and "Moderately support" listed Marijuana Apr. 2010 = 53% 1-May-08 = 53% http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43034/majority-of-canadians-would-legalize-marijuana-but-not-other-drugs/ :angry: 2)The second thing in this video is that for some reason he starts talking about his children and how they getting to the age where they will come into contact with drug use. a) What does this have to do with legalizing it for adults and taxed like alcohol? Off topic asshole!!! :angry: 3)He starts rambling on about his drug free life and this is what he what’s to encourage in his children and everyone’s children. a) Still off topic, and a clear example of his conservative moral engineering agenda. :angry: 4)He wants people to understand what he is talking about in reference to the drug trade. He starts going on about how when you buy marijuana your not buying from your neighbors, you are buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social catastrophe all over the world. He wants people to really understand the kind of criminal net works that they are supporting, and the damage they do a) We are talking about marijuana, where does he think this stuff is grown ( they don’t call it BC Bud for nothing) If you legalized marijuana you would shut down any black market, gang side of this product. Therefore making things safer for all. All you have to do is look at the Prohibition laws that created Al Capone who led a Prohibition-era crime syndicate. Legalize alcohol and these guys move on to other things. :angry: 5) He then goes on to say yaa I know if you legalized it the government would get the money through taxes. But the reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad, and even if these thing were legalized he can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people.Because of the very nature of the dependancy they create the damage they create the social upheaval and catastrophe they create. a) What is he going on about? The Government allows businesses the selling of alcohol and tobacco,and allow casino’s to operate. Other than the government these are somewhat respectable businesses run by respectable people. The truth of the matter is Canada is not really a sovereign country. When it comes to drug laws, and to many other thing to list here Canada is America’s bitch.

Army Guy I appreciate your intelligent response.I think we can agree to disagree on this off topic point and lay it to rest. I would like to say that my use of the term Brainwashing was not intended to be an insult.I believe that these technique (to some degree) have been used way before the term brainwash was even coined.Turning a civilian into a soldier is as much a psychological as a physical process. The whole procedure is in a sense brainwashing, except the soldier undergoes it voluntarily.It was never my intent to use the word in a malevolent or tin foil hat wearing context. Also I would like you to understand my other comment about whether supporting the troops is always right. My comments were of a philosophical nature, and again not meant to be derogatory. Personally I support our troops 99% of the time, but that doesn't mean I will support them unconditionally.If at any time I believe they are involved in something unjust or immoral I would no longer be able to support them. Also I don't believe you can separate state actions and soldiers action. The soldiers give the state the power to commit unjust or immoral acts. Hitler with out his army and ultimately individual soldiers could not have orchestrated the atrocities he did. Note: Any comment I made in regards to Bush stands, he is evil incarnate.

This whole thing has gotten off topic and there too many intellectually challenged people, I'm out

My point..Brainwashed people don't have opinions of their own.

Yaa is this stat off people pre-entrance or after years of training while in the forces. This means nothing.

Nice argument...I assume you are one of the brainwashed cult members.The truth will set you free

1)What does the academic requirements to get into RMC have to do with who joins the forces and their social economic background .Is everyone in the forces required to enter this college or is it more likely something they enter later? Isn't this one of the incentives of joining up? Only facts I can find My link Education of CF Members. CF members are better educated now than they were in the past. In 1996, 13.4% of service members possessed a university degree, and 10.7% had completed post-secondary education. This is up from 1987 when 10.5% of CF personnel had graduated from a university and 7.2% from a post-secondary institution. 2)"meeting set standards, both physically and mentally" but the main reason for the break you down build you up is to perform a classic brainwashing technique. How Brainwashing Works 3) Be honest now...when you were in the forces whether living on the base or not are the vast majority of people that you associate also members.Limiting interactions with people outside the culture is just another technique of brainwashing. You always separate the subject to be brainwashed from outside forces.Isolation: the meeting or training takes place in a place where participants are cut off from the outside world. This often involves making a public commitment to stay during the training. When training takes place in isolation like this, there is usually a quick follow-up session to ensure that the technique has really taken hold.

1) Do you require evidence or is it just common sense. How many well educated people that come from well-off families do you think join the forces? I'm sure I could find evidence of this somewhere. 2) I'm sure that you can ask anyone that is recruited into the forces and they will tell you the first thing done is that you are broken down then built up again in a way that you follow orders without question.I was a commercial fisherman at one point in my life and that's not something I've experienced. 3) Bullshit???? What are you talking about, I'm pretty sure the majority of soldiers either live on base or where ever they are based. 4) How?

I can admit when I make an incorrect statement....I apologize M.Dancer .

Sir I ask this with all due respect..are you on crack? What does a picture of a Canadian anarchist (Anti-state) burning a Canadian flag (symbol of the state) have anything to do with anything.

Libya is aberrant move by Canada made by our version of George Bush (Stephen Harper). Far from the norm historically. If Harper had been in office with a majority when the Iraq war started, Canada would have been involved.

Other than the massive blemish that Harper gave Canada at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen it is still a fact Canada is loved and respected around the world. This is the reason why many American's traveling outside the US will display a Canadian flag on their backpack. How long would the poor bastards last with an America flag displayed...lol.

Please enlighten me on the similarities.