Charles Anthony

Like it does with patented benzodiazepines?

That is not a market incentive. You do not get it. Continue the blame game.

Saying "China produced 6 times less per capita" is the height of absurdity unless of course you are playing politics. China has zillions more people than in the U.S.A. A per-capita figure is meaningless. There is NO argument to make the Chinese start cutting their production. You have to either force them (which is impossible) or provide a market incentive. Until the self-proclaimed a-political environtalists can provide a market incentive for regular people to stop buying pollution-producing products, they are providing no solution.

ReWind, I say: give it 24 hours and I bet you will be back for more! Prove me wrong.

I believe this is unfortunately inevitable due to the very nature of mental illness. A person is easily dismissed by his pears as being pleasantly or unpleasantly <--insert expletive here--> bizarre in early stages of a developing mental illness. Until there is violent activity, there is really no impetus for anybody to act. In our State of affairs, I have a pessimistic out-look on the plight of the mentally ill. I believe their protection is a catch-22 situation. Until an adult commits a "crime" as listed in our books, we do not take it upon ourselves to force that adult into mental treatment. This makes me think of drug addicts. I am speculating here: Although I do not believe that drug addicts are worthy of the same treatment as the mentally ill, on the surface, the logistics of helping them unfortunately MIGHT be the same. Both must seek treatment on their own volition. [How they can do that when their faculties are disturbed, I do not know.] If a mentally ill person (like a drug addict) does NOT have super-human caring friends and family, hitting rock bottom may be a necessary shock. Unfortunately, that may mean sink or swim. Like people who are struck with cancer or AIDS or Lou Gehrig's disease or a cluster bomb dropped from an airplane, I do not think a happy ending or a soft landing is always in the cards.

So..... RivErWIND, do you have the energy to rewind the tape... and keep the ball rolling?

That does not surprise me in the least. It may not matter to an insurance company how a person dies.... or should it? Maybe we are going to see higher rates for people hailing from Woodbridge? This: The Globe and Mailis looking less and less random. I wonder if Canadians are a perfect target for criminals or if there is something fishing going on in Woodbridge. Should Canadians planning to travel to Mexico: 1) forget about travelling to Mexico 2) stop wearing Canadians flags 2) start wearing American flags 3) all of the above 4) none of the above ? This is what I think: if all of these murder victims had life insurance AND if these deaths were NOT random, the insurance companies would solve these crimes. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of the glorious and effective justice/punishment/penal/crime/law/order systems of both Canada and Mexico. I originally wanted to put this post in the Maple Leaf Patches and Pins thread but unfortunately, it degenerated into a pathetic rant.

I say legalize ALL of them. I disagree. No. I am told that in the real world, reaching rock-bottom is the only way that a drug addict will decide for himself to change his ways. Therefore, keeping that money in the hands of the drug addict will lead him to reach rock-bottom faster. I have not bothered to look at evidence but I have heard compelling arguments. Here are some fruitful debates from the past over this issue: Drugs: Decriminalization vs. Legalization; Or, the continuance of the status quo A note on the legalizing drugs issue Safe injection sites... Support or oppose Vancouver Safe Injection Site, UN Comments - Bad Idea

K.I.S.s., the article you posted is good but again, it seems like you are infringing upon copyright. Next time you quote a text, Keep It Short. Most of the advances in international environmentalism has been pan-political and pan-commercial. Kyoto is the ultimate example of shirking environmental responsibilities. Poor countries being permitted to pollute and the rich countries pay for it. I do not think that is the problem at all. I believe there are people who take advantage of environmental issues as a vehicle for wealth redistribution. Kyoto is a perfect example.

Some of us do not mind. Pull up a chair and make yourself at home. Personally, the cost is secondary. I want to understand the morality of how to properly deal with mentally ill people. I have sympathy for you being treated against your will. If you could go back in time, how would you have liked to have been treated differently?

Everybody deserves a tax break. Do not ask me to interpret or justify the application of a particularly convoluted or arbitrary law. Can I quote you on that? I believe each person has dominion over his body and has a right to own physical property -- including dominion over a patch of land. Without those simple principles, we are nothing but slaves. The outcome of those simple principles in any particular market of your choosing is yours to judge and to speculate.

There is only no comparison by virtue of the white man's decree. I am asking you to provide a compelling argument (other than an argument through the barrel of a white man's gun) for why natives should be expected to accept such a decree.

I agree. I would also say that the Bloc is the first party to bring common sense to the House of Commons. I do not believe Parliament can be fixed but rather, it should be scrapped instead. I promote a dissolution of the federation. To me, I see no other way for Canadians to get representative government. I do not understand the question. Most people dream of things they can not have. Do YOU have any dreams? Might you be asking "Why do you pursue such a dream if you feel it is unlikely?" instead? If so, I have a few answers: 1) I am proud and conveying my pride comes at little relative expense 2) my efforts in such pursuits are limited 3) I am convinced that I can make the world a better place by promoting freedom and condemning coercion 4) I am not afraid of my dreams A feudal system is not what I would promote. It is primarily the increase in privatization of public services that I welcome. However, I doubt we will see it in our lifetimes as PNoob's paranoid post describes. The problem is big government or in other words, a government that is distant from its citizens. More profoundly, the problem is also the common human trait of trying to get away with stealing from one's neighbor.

No. Comparing your Canadian statistics with your "places with a poor standard of living" statistics is apples and oranges. However, it is superb trick played by statisticians to push an agenda. I challenge you to tell me exactly what you mean by "places with a poor standard of living" now. That is not what I said. Our Canadian population dynamic would not be the same. That is logical. We would not be able to support both our lifestyle and our population without cheap imports. That stands to reason. Statistics from any other country are irrelevant. That is more than obvious. It is physically impossible to produce statistics for Canada without cheap imports. That is toooo bad for people who demand statistics as proof. No, I will stick my "blue sky" argument back in your face because of your demand for statistics. I challenge you to justify your demand for statistics as proof. Here is some more news for you: this is not a statistical issue. This is an economic issue. Have you ever studied economics? because if you did, you would have (or should have) learned a hell of a lot of principles of international trade without ever having to resort to one ounce of statistics politcian's proof. No, it is just going over your head or you are not reading what you so wantonly quote. Should I re-quote your quote of my quote or should I just re-repeat everything I said before?

I see no compelling argument to expect natives to accept such a preposterous imposition. Can you provide one?

We should not care. There is nothing in these Whoville laws that can not be handled by already existing criminal and civil code. In my estimation, the only reason for spelling them out as the Whos chose to do is for the purposes of gleefully manifesting their racism.

-- as part of the Eleventh Fallacy: Free Trade means a race to the bottom and inspired by the following exchange: The alternative is a Western world that would not be able to support its lifestyle and population. Both you and I would probably not be here today pecking at a computer otherwise. We may not even have been born. Is that because we would not have had Chinese mothers to give us birth? in the $3.4 billion for Four Big Airplanes -- Each of us kicks in $100 on average thread This is what you said: You are sidestepping the issue. Does a decrease in lifestyle equal a reduction in children?Your question does not follow the point nor what I said and it is ridiculously vague. I will entertain it nevertheless but you will have to explain what you mean by "equal" first because your statement is so wishy-washy that it is fit only for a politician. Probably because we can all just look up and see for ourselves what color it is. However, I am sure... ...if there is a government grant for a statistical study to convince us of the sky's color, there will certainly be a statitician waiting to receive it and a socialist ready to dispense it. Rather than demanding a fabricated set of numbers to serve as a proof of a proof, might I suggest principles of economics and international trade which have been thoroughly established a few centuries ago? A lot of different sciences have been established through the use of logic and praxeology. Your fixation on statistics is unjustified. My point about asking "What color is the sky?" is that the answer is demonstrably obvious -- we do not need statistics. My point about the relationship between imports and our standard of living is that our dependence upon trade is demonstrably obvious. Practically everything around me is either a cheap foreign import or a derivative of one. My computer is a cheap Asian import. My car is a cheap Asian import. Please tell me "Made In China" is something you have seen before -- otherwise this discussion is absurd -- I can not explain "demonstrably visible" to you. Half of the food I eat is imported. The clothes I wear are imported. As far as lifestyle is concerned, there really is not a whole lot left. Here is some more news: the vast majority of people in Canada are imports. Immigrants come to Canada for a better life and they usually find it. Free and open trade translates into a higher standard of living. Do you need statistics for that? or does logic suffice? You are asking for statistics where statistics do not exist. Not everybody in Canada has excess money. If a Canadian can not pay for his child's food, clothing and shelter, what kind of lifestyle do you think child will live to enjoy? Are you ready to logically argue that ALL of our imports could be replaced with domestic alternatives AND we would be able to afford to live our lives exactly as they are now? Very few Canadians could survive in Canada without imports. Think about it.

You are sidestepping the issue. Does a decrease in lifestyle equal a reduction in children?I will entertain this side-issue but it properly belongs in a different thread. I suggest here in the Common Fallacies of Intelligent People one.

Exactly,--what part of "property" do you guys not understand? It sounds like the natives do not get that right. My ill-informed understanding of native claims are that they are derived from their (as it is yours) right of familial (not DNA and not race) inheritance -- the predominant property being land. In my book, if YOU (a non-native) married into a native family, your off-spring would inherit those claims exactly as YOU (a non-native) should expect to inherit whatever property your father left after he died -- without a will. I firmly believe in family inheritance being universal.

You are completely sidestepping the issue (i.e., our standard of living and our wealth depends on imports) and arguing a different one. No you will not because you CAN not. Do you need statistics to confirm the color of the sky? You mean throw pearls of economic insight before swine.

Great idea! If your father dies without leaving a documented will, how should we divy up his property?

We are going to have to look up statistics because clearly there is no use appealing to a basic understanding of international trade and economics with you. By the way, what statistics are you going to fabricate for comparison??? I will continue to suggest it because it is logical. Our standard of living depends on cheap imports. Without cheap imports, the same number of people in Canada will not be able to survive at the same standard of living. Given that some people in Canada are already poor today, being poorer than poor does not leave many options for survival.

No. We would have to give up a VAST amount of wealth to substitute cheap imports. As a result, our cost of living would be enormous without cheap imports. Canadians would probably still be at a subsistence level economy and at the whim of the beaver-skin hat fashions in Europe. I do not know about you, but my parents came to this country a few decades ago because they could not afford to live in their home country. Why stats?? It is called basic principles of international trade. Hiring a statistician to provide empirical evidence when logic can suffice is called a boondoggle. Should we look up stats to figure out whether the sky is blue or not? Congratulations. You missed the point. [shall I say it went over your head?] The issue of accepting Chinese airplanes was raised by Aug91 as a principle of efficiency and demanding better bang for our tax-dollar -- a concept which clearly seems irrelevent to some people.

Next time around, do not count your chickens before they are hatched.

Is that because we would not have had Chinese mothers to give us birth?What is the meaning of your question? 1) being in denial of the fact that the standard of living of Western nations has depended on cheap imports for more than at least one generation, you resort to being flippantly silly 2) genuinely being completely clueless of the fact that the standard of living of Western nations has depended on cheap imports for more than at least one generation Which one is it?