Charles Anthony

I am just getting tired of the boogey-man angle it takes, myKim. I am not afraid of a person promoting wacky or criminal behavior out in the open. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Should it only go one way? How am I supposed to address it? Should I tell all of the muslims I know that they had better stay in line? Hey! I have a great idea! We should do what the commies do: send spies into churches with mini-cameras or audio recorders hidden on the end of our umbrellas and charge clerics with promoting hate and violence!

Indeed, I am no authority on farming and most of what I know is based on hearsay. My public policy advocacy generally makes me a heretic too. Pardon me J.J. for not replying. In general, yes, that describes my intent.

-- and I hope that the United States tax-payers continue to subsidize their corn farmers. When corn is dumped in Canada, it means the U.S. tax-payer is paying for our cheap imports. Unfortunately, Canadian corn-sellers will no longer be able to charge us as much. Too bad. My sympathies go out to them but my money should not.

Not me. extracted from 911 was an inside job -- A challenge to government apologists everywhere You are welcome. Thank you to everybody pro-myth and anti-myth alike for keeping that thread rolling. Even if they fire off in all directions without any regard to what may stick, I think there can be a benefit to conspiracy theorists. The funny thing is that I truly believe it was an inside job. In this world of globalization and dependence on international trade, the distinction between inside and outside jobs mean nothing. I could easily have started a thread that said 911 was an OUTSIDE job -- A challenge to government apologists everywhere and carried on with much of the same discussion. What difference would it make????? We blame these kamikaze airplane attacks on Osama Bin Laden. Who is he? He is a filthy rich Saudi Arabian who moved to Afghanistan. Most importantly, his wealth depends on free trade with the Western world. Why are we in Afghanistan? Maybe Osama Bin Laden wanted to set up some commercial roots too? and round up Afghanis with pseudo-patriotism the way we do? He plays the same game everybody else plays and he got to Afghanistan before the Western world did. Maybe we are trying to fight a new War To End All Wars? I am convinced we are in Afghanistan for commercial reasons. Anyone who believes otherwise is an utter baffoon. I can not believe a free trade multi-millionaire capitalist wants to destroy the Western world. Only a reflex socialist or a deceptive crony would spew such propaganda. If Osama Bin Laden was a filthy rich American who moved to Afghanistan, would we have a war on terror? No. We would have a covert CIA operation. Would we say that the foot-print falling World Trade Center was an OUTside job?

Ultimately, if we take property rights for granted or we do not enforce them, we are all poorer for it.

I remember the hunger strike and it was childishly stupid. The Conservatives are in power now. There is no reason to blame the Liberals for what happens today with this thing.

As soon as a read about salt in ocean I knew instantaly it was a wacky left wing agenda oriented post so I didn't even bother reading the rest. I'm surpised how many people actually took it for real. The leftist psycie -- and that is where I stop too.

No. We should not care. That is their problem. It does not matter to us. I am putting this here. What confused me about this crime was that the figure was sawed off at the ankles. I can understand somebody stealing a piece art but I do not understand defacing art. Clearly this person was not interested in the statue for its artistic merit. I have been racking my brains trying to figure out why this crime was committed. I just happened to find this thread and it likely provides the answer. Unfortunately, I doubt this statue CAN be recovered. It has probably already been melted down.

What is this?? A new anti-muslim rant? I know a lot of muslims. I work with muslims everyday. I put my life in the hands of muslims and muslims put their lives in my hands everyday. I do not understand your paranoia.

Correct. I would have to collect such statistics. I do not have such statistics and thus, I can not prove it. All I can do is postulate as I stated originally. I will now re-formulate my belief: It is not reasonable for an employer to believe that the potential days lost by a male employee due to men-only conditions will reach one continuous year and be required to re-hire that same man in his exact same job. When all other labor characteristics are held equal, men and women differ in terms of women-only conditions and men-only conditions. When looking at the incidence and probability of all potential disruptions in the workforce, I am convinced that the women-only (pregnancy being the main one) conditions outweigh work disruption than do men-only conditions throughout the entire population. I am convinced that potential employers consider this before hiring an employee. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of pregnant women tend to step out from work (as they would for a coffee) to give birth and then step back into work? I think not. For my "criteria" to become insignificant, that is what must be assumed. Forgive me but you are missing the point of my far-fetched example. My far-fetched example will not likely ever occur. Even if it does, I am saying that historically (from which we are observing a wage-gap) it did not. The reality will differ from my example by leading to a great "significant criteria" and thus, a wider wage gap. I am now suggesting that historically, employers will look at potential employees and wonder: "What is the chance that this candidate will be out of work for an extended period of time?" and women will always be discriminated against due to women-only conditions (pregnancy being the main one) compared to men-only conditions.

I would like to thank PolyN008E for starting this thread because it produced this post: That reminds me of something that happened to me in September 1982. In July, I was driving south on the Henry Hudson Parkway into New York City for a bar review course. I was pulled over for going 62 mph in a 50 mph zone. I contested the ticket. In September I went to trial. The officer first started to read from the ticket, and I objected. The Judge said he could read from it to refresh his recollection. I said "as soon as he says he doesn't remember anything I won't object to his reading". Touche! I have been trying to follow this thread. The tag-team / Punch-and-Judy comedy element has been the primary fuel for keeping my attention. I am ever so grateful that it did. Thank you Jbg for recounting your experience and your simple and straight-forward courtroom strategy. This is probably the most valuable and useful post in this whole thread -- in my opinion. In the end, freedom of speech and freedom to listen have won. We should all pay close attention, otherwise we may miss that tree falling in the forest. Long live spirited debate! I wonder how the legal business will evolve if more and more people remember to keep the JBG Strategy in their back pocket.

Congratulations. Why would any member of "our society" agree with that? Unanswered. You are avoiding a trap that can expose a contradiction in your argument against anarchy. That is fine. My next trap will again be in bold text and will again be derived from one of your statements. In the meantime: Your application of anarchist theory to a possible real-life example is erroneous and thus, no counter-argument at all. I trust that it is an unintentional mistake. In your example, nobody will stop the evil statists. The trapped anarchists will either leave the property geographic area or sell themselves off into servitude to your evil statists. Darwinism is about the survival - not the the method. If messing with genetics improves survival then that is how we will evolve. If messing with genetics creates problems that reduces survival rates then we evolve into a species that does not mess with genetics.You have just described Darwinism as depending on survival and the method is genetic variation -- they go hand in hand. Biologists work to improve our odds at survival. Thus, my question to your original analogy still stands. That is the argument.If your ascertion that "people can be evil" is the argument against anarchy, I thank you for bringing us even closer. I present you with a second trap challenge: What do you mean by evil? That is incorrect and if you answer the above question, I believe the contradiction in your argument against anarchism will be exposed. Dear FleaBag, You have avoided a trap derived from one of your statements as well by not responding to: I will go along with that for now because I will attempt to demolish your opposition to anarchy from a different angle without having to deny it. Here I go: I challenge you to explain why abolishing everything but "might equals right" is a problem. I wish to extend my congratulations to you also. Neverthless, I see nothing wrong with that, per se. Even if I did agree with you, I would suggest that you will never stop cloning technology nor genetic engineered crops nor modern medicine nor the development of vaccines nor cough syrup nor snake-oil nor band-aids nor any multitude of things that people do to keep themselves here in the first place. You would be expecting an impossible feat comparable to promoting World Peace or Happiness or Liberty. In a discussion on the defense/offense of anarchy, is it just a co-incidence that you single out "big business" while defending the environment?

Every government is operating for political objectives. How are political objectives different from a government agent's profit? I believe you are trying to avoid admitting that the motives and morals of your business partners are an important factor in your business decisions. They are in mine -- to a degree. The Opening Post asks about foreign investment. The identify and nationality of foreign investors matters not because currently our livelihood depends on doing business with the Chinese and the Americans. We can not survive otherwise and neither can they. The Chinese would not upset that -- I am sure they understand capitalism more than we want to admit. We may as well ask: Should we stop doing trade with people outside of Canada? To which all Canadians of all political stripes will answer a resounding "Hell, No!" in harmony. Some voices will be higher pitched while others will be lower pitched, but they will all be singing the same song. Given that American monetary policy is now being set by the Chinese government and the American monetary policy indirectly affects Canadians and we adhere to a fiat currency, why would someone in Peking or New York or Toronto care about Canadian physical assets?

I was not clear. Corporations are legal constructs (they are not physical) and require the recognition of several people to exist. They are a form of co-operation between people. Life does not inherently require a different person's recognition to exist.

Just like you know there is huge difference between a police force operating on behalf of a state and criminal gang. However, you choose treat the two as synonymous in your arguments against the state.No. You are spinning. Is the accusation against anarchy that all people who defend themselves are de facto criminal???? Are you attacking people who hire security guards by labelling them automatically as forming a criminal gang??? The "state" police is the biggest gang. It monopolizes violence by pretending to have consent with a circular argument based on a non-existent "social contract" to which we must infer. I doubt that criminal gangs are out to fool people into thinking they have a God-given right. A set of values? I can work with that. Why would any member of "our society" agree with that? Big deal. Rapists and slave-drivers may not agree with it either. I could also say that eventually humans develop the intelligence to genetically engineer biology to counter the wild world of Darwin. Furthermore, I could say that humans develop a conscience to decide when it is right or wrong to play with biology. Would you suggest that biologists be told to stop messing with evolution? Hugo was right and you are wrong. The predatory neighbors do not prove that the society was inherent unstable. If a meteor comes crashing down to wipe people out, would you say that anarchy is wrong because it can not counter the meteor? If a herd of elephants tramples or a plague of locusts wipes everybody out, would you say that anarchy is wrong? Your counter argument says nothing more than people can be evil. Dear ThelBag, I understand that it sets myself up for prejudice and misunderstanding. [Hell, I may even be targetted by "state" police and wisked away in the night! Maybe I should join the PN008E fan club to learn how to defend myself.] Seriously, I would like to make an analogy: if I was Jewish, would you ask me to change how I dress so that I was not targeted by Nazis? Maybe and maybe not. It all depends on where we are and who else is around us. I have come across several so-called "anarchists" and many of them are nothing more than communists or socialists or just plain selfish lazy people. Their appeal to anarchy seems to be a neurotic hodge-podge confusion of the following features: - lazy - honestly observing that communism is tyrannical - having a bizarre reflex of owning your neighbor - not wanting to be responsible for one's own property These are the people who truly give anarchy a very bad bad name in my mind. I despise them immensely and they despise me. Nevertheless, I enjoy participating in their "anarchist" discussion groups despite myself being generally unwelcome.

No. Corporations need a "legal" status while real life does not.

I do not care how they got there. He is not a victim of the jackass who would not tarp his truck. He is a victim of ridiculous "intellectual property" enforcers. In that regard, I wonder whether that application will succeed in the long-run as a business venture. If we consider horse-racing, prize-winning studs must mount. The genetic line must be verifiable and witnessed. Nobody is willing to buy a sample of sperm to artificially inseminate for fear of being ripped off. You never know. As RWind pointed out up above, the development of the technology up until a successful clone is created can lead to mistakes -- more likely than the random mutations that normally occur.

Dear TheLoneFlea, The USA is a glaring exmaple of how this idea is not true.No, it is not. Most jurisdictions outlaw the concealment of weapons and place restrictions on others. When you are ready to permit patrolling private security guards on turrets to hoist the same weapons as used routinely by your state, I will consider it. Please. You follow world affairs better than I do. What foreign-state armed forces have crossed the Somalia-Ethiopian border and are now in Somalia?? Associated PressMaybe the agents of these states were just delivering Christmas presents. What do you think? I think you could do better. Weapons are the world's biggest business of states and states are the biggest users of weapons. You are not being serious. Might the weapons of which you speak be the same type of weapons permitted by Americans to carry walking down the street? You are mixing apples and oranges in a vegetable soup. I suggest you look in some dictionary printed by some hoity-toity toppy-nosed state university publishing company. You might find it there. I am not certain of what you mean. What are YOU saying would be the most common mob response to a raging lone gunman? I will go along with that for now because I will attempt to demolish your opposition to anarchy from a different angle without having to deny it. Here I go: I challenge you to explain why abolishing everything but "might equals right" is a problem. Having a stong, healthy Messiah Complex like I do helps, too.I should try that. Do you think I fit the profile? How is that different from what we live now? At least the sky is not going to fall under anarchy -- or will it? If that is your objection to anarchy, there are a few online discussion groups that might help with some bright ideas on how to cope. The proverbial red herring.I am now starting to think that Hugo had a lot of patience. The salient feature of anarchy is non-aggression which is related but slightly different. You know that. I am tired of the circular "non-existent social contract" defense to hide state crime. Thus, I will destroy it with this challenge: Since you brought them up as objectionable results of anarchy, I want you to explain why "rape, kill or enslave anyone" are wrong?

This quote from post #56 gets my vote for the worst so far: The Twelve days are up! Get back to work! Please refer to the following thread: Trim Your Posts and Quotes -- Don't just hit "Reply" I could not resist. Heh heh.

I worked in a public library during the 1980's and we routinely threw out old one-of-a-kind books because there was not enough space for the new trash fiction that the library continued to acquire. The filtering process for deciding which books to throw out was horrifying and shameful enough to make any literate person cry: librarians were checking the little paper Due Date stamps at the back to see the last time it was borrowed. Archiving text is not easy nor cheap but there are tons of more options now than before. Why would they put books on tape? That sounds like a lame excuse for a librarian. Microfiche archives have been around for a long long time and they still work well. If a library wants to properly call itself a "library" I think it behooves them to consider microfiching. With the advent of optical text recognition and computers/scanners becoming cheaper and cheaper, all of the previously printed books can eventually become part of the Gutenburg project. The internet and free markets will make knowledge more affordable and accessible world wide. The comics, the crosswords, the classifieds, page 3 and the nasty stuff at the back. More seriously though, the introduction of all these new free daily newspapers is peculiar. I think the newspaper industry is flailing around frantically trying to stay afloat. Over the past few years, I have dealt with advertizing sales reps for local papers. The latest rep was trying to convince me of the multitudes of people who constantly read their paper and I said: "-- but they also read other things too. My potential advertizement in your paper would be drowned out." She disagreed and insisted that I was missing out on a great way to increase business. Good luck to the papers. I doubt they will survive. I have seen tons and tons of free newspapers come and go in my city. The only ones that survive are the old ones and the ones that have exclusive content or cater to exclusive audiences. Neither can I. I would curl up and turn on speech synthesis instead.

I have a profound respect for people who volunteer to keep foodbanks going. I helped out once when I was a kid. It struck me to see people waiting to be served for smaller meals than I had eaten myself. For the individual donor, you are right. It makes more sense to give them money. Many times the donations of food are from retailers who are getting rid of stock that is old (not as old as the SunkisTuna deal) but just shy of expiry. Since the food is consumed rapidly at the foodbanks, it seems to work out. The retailers are able to time it strategically to also take advantage of tax deductions for the donations.

Bah! Humbug! The Twelve days are up! Get back to work!

At least I can stand on a pedestal and proudly say that in its most objective instance (ownership over one's body), anarchy is more concrete. Your "social contract" accepts slavery. On a personal note, I do not agree with the latter "keep humans living in relative peace with each other" part as a goal. Everybody has a different perspective of what they want from their fellow man -- some people are violent psychopaths. Without being as accusatory as some might prefer to be, I challenge you to describe our "social contract" if we grew up under Hitlerian Germany. What would it be? I have dug and dug and dug but I have yet to find a satisfactory reply addressing such a challenge from anybody. My advocacy of anarchy is not because of its outcome but moreso because of its means. For instance, I would oppose stealing a penny from a millionaire even if that penny went to feed all of the starving people in the world. I am at peace with a "the ends do not justify the means" attitude and I wish more people were too. If you want to look at the application and ramifications of such an extreme perspective on specific situations, I will enjoy doing so. I confess, there are various things that anarchy can not adequately explain for myself. For example, family issues and dealing with the mentally ill to name a few. My disdain for hiding behind "social contract" theory goes further. I firmly believe it fosters criminal behavior since it obscures obligations and barriers between individual responsibilty. In fact, it makes them morally disappear. The "social contract" goes hand in hand with "might equals right" theory. When I hear about crime, I am deeply saddened but I am never surprised. No. It is a difference in principle too. Your "social contract" defends anything perpetrated by a state and misrepresents the identity of the agents. Anarchy does not.

The cartons are clearly labelled and thus, your fear of GMO's is misapplied to soy milk. I agree with that position. Whether there is a real or perceived danger is not as important as giving people the choice and information. Let the customers fear GMO-related problems by getting canola-margarine mixed up with dairy-butter if they really want, I say. They certainly have that right. However, the people who want to know whether they are getting natural-canola or GMO-canola or free-range dairy or factory-farm dairy or whatever, they have that right too. Some of those latter consumers likely have valid fears. You touch on an unfortunate injustice created by GMO industries. Something that not many people examine. If your neighbor's GMO-canola seeds are patented, as most are, fly through the air and land on your field, they will grow. Whether you know it or not, the GMO company, with the honorable power of the state, will legally come down on you very very hard. You will pay through no fault of your own. I would like to hear the statist justification for "intellectual property" on that one. Actually, yes it does. Your computer (if you run Windows)Thankfully, no! I do not! However, I understand your analogy -- I once was young and foolish. [i could not resist.] Yes. It would be more proper to look at cloning as more likely to yield biological problems in the future compared to other farming practices. I should not be so ornery and extreme. I have a LOT of difficulty with that claim. We hear it all of the time. I do not know much about the meat industry but if they are not making enough profit to survive, we are they persisting? Are they like fur coat sellers who are hanging on to a dying industry?

I know. I was trying to stretch out the comedy but sometimes humor does not come across predictably in writing. It is not. The reason I supplied that extreme and implausible scenario is to demonstrate how unlikely the disparity in wages will ever get closed. The closest the wage gap will ever get is with my ridiculous example. Yet, even with my ridiculous example there is technically going to be a small gap. Ergo, my far-fetched example proves my point. I believe stereotyping and discrimination in hiring practices is actually a LOT easier and more pervasive than we want to believe. Have you ever seen joe-jobs that require resumes handed in person to the manager? The manager wants to get a glimpse of the applicant before "wasting" time on an interview. No. I believe your ascertion is correct. Correct. It is discrimination but it is a real risk: women might possibly get pregnant. On the other hand, men most likely will NOT get pregnant. There is no other trait between men and women that is so extremely black and white. I am not saying it is right. You should also check their references. What if their previous employers all said: "Gee, you know, we really liked Frank but he seems to get the flu all year round. We did everything to accomodate his schedule but he started to get embarassed about missing so much work. Poor guy. Eventually, he resigned so that he could look for a part-time job. We love him dearly and we wish him all of the best." Fair or not, over the course of Frank's entire working life, he will never reach wage parity with other people who are generally healthy for the simple reason that he tends to miss work. If you ever had to deal with an employee going on maternity leave you would know that people-who-might-go-on-maternity-leave cost more to employ than others. I would not discourage that at all. In my mind, I believe it is an extension of chivalry and opening doors for women and serving women first at restaurants. However, it comes at a cost to the employer but it is an honorable cost. The bitter truth is that most individual women have very little bargaining power in the work-force. As a result, the aggregate statistics will reflect a cold-hearted disadvantage.