Charles Anthony

Dear LoneFlea, Congratulations! You are solving the problem. I am sure Hugo would be proud. You prefer to look at things in terms of inevitable control instead of morals. Fine. Let us take it there for now and try to examine it in that perspective.

Dear Flea, Forgive me. I forgot the most obvious of your complainers: the owners of the cemetery and its security service. All of the other complainers are secondary but here it is for the record: Indeed, I misread the script. I imagined Johnny was beating Myrtle -- my mistake. Just switch the names in my answer. Johnny should have seen it coming in the same way as I should expect a fatal collision after running in front of a fast-moving vehicle. No. I am saying the victims should have seen it coming. My caveat of free-will was to ensure that my freeway analogy was interpreted correctly. [i do not have patience for false-coersion counter-arguments.] Johnny does not deserve his fate whereas I deserve mine. We use those terms under state-imposed law. Anarchy (I prefer that term) deals with them as it would any other (criminal or civil) law. Individuals hire the security guards goons of their choice -- much like what rich people do today. The market clears because violence is mutually counter-productive.Even if the market did not clear, I would still advocate its righteousness over coersion.

Dear FleaBag, I miss the commercials. I also try to picture the development of commercials. I try to imagine a marketing employee approaching The Boss (storyboards in hand) saying: "I have this great idea for a commercial! Listen up: a bunch of people will smack their foreheads proclaiming enthusiastically...." while The Boss cocks an eyebrow and says: "Brilliant! That will surely convince the viewers to run to the store and buy our product! Absolutely brilliant!" For most people, The Media is just a choice of entertainment. Unless you can present a solution, I still say: big deal. Here is one for you: my hair-line is receding and I am getting wrinkles. Now what about that?

Dear FleaBag, I was contemplating adding a caveat to avoid such an obvious spin. The gist, as you clearly noticed, of my reply to Aunt Myrtle's naive business transaction was that Aunt Myrtle was naive. She should have seen it coming. I hoped that my personal freeway example would be interpreted with a similar focus. I do not know how much more specific I should have been after indicating my assumed sound mind and free will. Should I have also indicated that I was running into on-coming traffic as my corporeal self as opposite to my ethereal self?

Give one good reason why the government should make use of the free market tools when it can use brute force instead? The government can outlaw risky behavior and unhealthy food. That makes no sense. Can you substantiate that claim? I can give you a common example to the contrary. You are trying to manipulate the market and you run into the problems that market-interventionists face: you focus on a tool as a goal. Have you seen any advertizements for no-name brands recently? They benefit from the advertizements of the major competitors. Are all of the major leading brands dupes? You do not get it. The risk-based premium can potentially promote better health too. To give users incentive to minimize use of the system. If the cost to the user is zero, they have every incentive to overuse the system.Are you sure that "minimize the use of the system" is your goal? That is a bold statement. Tell me what any one of your statist goals might be. I am suggesting that if the public revenues continue to drop, a government can "raise the bar" and "lower the threshold" all it wants but that will not provide universal health-care.

The Canadian television industry gets more than enough funding: free air and free sunlight and (if they open their mouths long enough with their faces pointed to the sky) free water. Why should they get more? Do you object to the agenda or to the excessive amount? and why?

Why should users share some of the cost? I do see it as a factor. I can use "health-care insurance cost" as a method to hide the redistribution of wealth. Kill two birds (maybe even three if we count all of my crony-friends in the healthcare industry) with one stone. My ultimate statist goal could be to redistribute wealth. That can not be handled if the public purse is going empty and demand is rising.

That is not entirely true. Take a close look at the credits at the end of the show. They pay homage to public grants.

Are you using the terms "maximizing profit" and "cost recovery" interchangeably? They do not mean the same.

I want to pick your brains for why you choose to limit supply by adding cost as a factor. You are not defending that choice. It sounds like you want a market incentive. If that is correct, I want to trap your argument by making your government-controlled market indefensible. What is your goal? social engineering lower costing healthcare maximum number of health-care recipients something else? I would suggest that advertizing campaigns explaining the benefits of "lifestyle changes" would be more honorable. If people want something, there will be no need to spend energy coercing them into accepting it and dealing with its bureaucracy. What exactly do you mean by cost recovery? For example, the grave-digger's primary purpose is not to place both hands on the spade-handle. Using a spade is just a strategy. If he secretly brings a back-hoe to work undetected but yields the exact same results, why should his customers care about his cost recovery? All they need to know is his price for the service. Purpose. The primary purpose of a risk based premium is cost recovery. A tax credit for a healthy life style would be about promoting lifestyle changes that would likely lead to lower healthcare costs in the future - not cost recovery.Wrong. The primary purpose is to maximize profit. The risk premium is just a business strategy or a conduit towards making profit. For example, the primary purpose of a cola company is not to produce cola -- if they could sell you water, they would -- but rather to maximize profit. Currently, people want cola beverages much less than before. It is a dying market. Hence, what are the soft drink companies doing? They are jumping on the bottled-water band-wagon. Why? because that is where the demand is going. Why? because people want healthier consumption and the allure of better health.

Dear Flea, There would also be no need for such terms. There would also be no need for terms such as "official bilingualism" nor "cronyizm" nor "deputy prime minister" nor "campaign donations" nor "British North American Act" nor "equalization payments" nor "fiscal imbalance" ... It is more than their job. It is their Devil-bestowed right. ...by becoming mobsters too and operating a protection racket. ["Complain" certainly is the operative word -- you must live in a monopoly-enforced legal jurisdiction that provides very little choice!]As you have constructed this limited and implausible scenario, the first people to complain would be Auntie Myrtle's private security company who now have one less customer. I dare say that they would do more than complain. Your example is beyond ridiculous. Why would Auntie Myrtle go to a cemetery to do a shady deal without back-up protection? Here is a scenario for you: Charles Anthony, of sound mind (just for the sake of argument) and of his own free-will, runs in the middle of the freeway and gets run over by a passing vehicle. With both government and laws, why would anyone complain?

Why should it? Am I misunderstanding something? This sounds like a complete contradiction. How is your proposed tax credit any different from a risk-based premium?

No. Markets are the manifestation of co-operation. Technically, the price mechanism never works. The finest definition of "market" is impossibly restrictive. There is no perfect competition and there is no perfect price mechanism. Not exactly. The finest definition of "competition" is also exceedingly restrictive. Two gas stations in the same city may be labelled as competitors. However, each one holds a monopoly on their own side of the street or part of town. Two cola producers may be labelled as competitors. However, one of them does all of the advertizing. The other benefits from the continued business of the first. If you are willing to split hairs fine enough, we can also add the dimension of changes over time. I agree. I agree. How can the government NOT interfere and still exist? What underlying principle leads to the choice of a security/law/defense/punishment/justice system as being the only legitimate role of government? I could look to the free market to provide those services. All government activities de facto redistribute wealth. Therefore, should we not say that the ONLY legitimate sympathetic role of government is to redistribute wealth?

Dear LoneFlea, I see. My fist has just taken a life of its own and knocked some overwhleming sense into my head -- albeit a sense of void that can only be quenched by a fresh cocktail of e8ight delicious Vegetables. True but history is also written by the literate. You are also literate and thus, you are not so helpless and the media does not have as much influence.

For better or for worse, our electoral system does not filter our leaders based on their gubernatorial experience anyway. Are you open to the possibility that it does not matter? What do you think happens to the country when all of your politicians go on vacation?

Dear TheOne&Us, I am still going by memory now and it would be more proper to search for a link. Nevertheless, Descartes had to assume that he, in fact, existed as a starting point for his philosophization. However, he could not prove that he existed. The best he could do was make the reasonable assumption that since he is able to think, he must exist as an individual. Maybe he could have assumed that since he is able to create or commit horrifying acts of evil or simply to dream, he must exist too. Nevertheless, his statement is technically an assumption and it is in perfect harmony with my point about appreciating The Truth and The Media. We are constantly making assumptions because all we have is perception. Unfortunately, that is all you guys can get from me -- for now. -- and finally we are coming close to some semblance of proof! For better or for worse, perception is more practical than whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. I fail to see any practical application of the Dooby-Dooby Doo Theory. Interesting. Please tell me: in which dimension does the empty-half of the half-filled glass lie?

Did you read this thread before commenting? 'Cause the other poster is complaining that there's not enogh Newfies in Alberta.Do you know how to read? Do you understand what "not enough Newfies in Alberta" means? That means that Newfies are in Alberta. That means Newfies left Newfoundland. That means Newfies chose wages (and the work that goes with earning those wages) in Alberta OVER your subsidized non-work in Newfoundland. That disproves your point. Your point was: Thus, your point makes no sense (unless the intention is deception or politics) after reading this thread. You mean the idiot-sons of millionaires?Now you are diverting and twisting your own words. These roundabouts are fun. People in Alberta (original Albertans and Newfie emigres) who have to work (for the same amount of money or less than "Newfie welfare benefits" -- your words) are poor compared to people (recipients of your higher than competitive "Newfie welfare benefits") who do NOT have to work.

I have driven through the 407 only once and that was about 10 years ago. I have driven the 401 from top to bottom several times and quite recently. Ever since the 407 opened, driving through Toronto along the 401 has been smoother at all hours and holidays. Why the driver of a passenger-vehicle would want to pay extra to drive through the 407, I do not know. I will leave that to the Torontonians. My guess is that the 407-fairy has a magic spell to cure bad driving. That is no argument at all but rather, that is an excuse -- an excuse to convince people to follow the path of more government. It could still be cheaper and more efficient to have the private company provide the "essential" services and the government collect the bills. It is a simple cost benefit calculation for private company: if the revenue generated by travellers is expected to be less than the cost of clearing the highway then shut the highway down. Yet another reason why the economics of major highways require state ownership.It is only a simple calculation because the private company has the crutch of coercive government for everything else. For example, the government will deal with cleaning up casualties on the road and the grid-lock around a closed road and all of the law/security/justice/punishment demands that follow. Take all of the responsibility-shirking allowed by government and then try to say that it is a simple cost-benefit analysis for the private company to shirk one's responsibility. How would YOU manage the 407 if you owned it all -- land included?

I do not care about the word "supposed" in the least. What is The Truth?? Did YOU see these medics at work? Do YOU have proof of what they did? Up above, Aug91 suggests that it is common practice for syringes to be re-used in some of these parts of the world. If some of the infected people got AIDS as a result of the re-use of syringes without knowing that they were getting used needles, these convicted medics are certainly guilty of spreading disease.

Of what do you assume "the people whose children that were supposedly infected" ignorant?

Dear Thel, I should have said "nothing that can be proven" instead. Descartes' famous statement was an assumption. Do you have any proof for that? or must we make asses out of ourselves? That is an excellent and related point. However, the difference you identify is practically wrong. The Truth requires proof without which it is an assumption. Hence, making a claim that "The media (or anybody else for that matter) lies." goes nowhere with respect to moral judgment without proof. At the extreme, we can not prove anything. Thus, we each take things for granted to various degrees. No. I (like any marginally intelligent person) will do the opposite. I will NOT accept ANYTHING that is thrown at me. You completely misunderstand. No. I will not trust anything to be true. I start by believing everybody is lying or out to make a buck. Correct. What else can I do? That is the best that I can do. What do you suggest? Do you suggest that I make things up myself?? -- and how do you deal with it? Probably the same way as I do. Trust me, I understand what you are saying. Your point is that a deceptive media can create a lot more damage than a little white lie about somebody's age or true hair color. I agree but also I do not care. To help YOU understand my position I want you to imagine yourself floating in the middle of the ocean during a tsunami storm wearing nothing but a life-jacket. What are you going to do to stop it??? With a lying media, you have the power to not believe it. You also have the intelligence to realize that what you identify as "The Media" is operated by real people and not some supernatural force. I would also suggest that honesty in "The Media" is miniscule compared to honesty in "The History Books" or do you believe everything you just learned in History class?

Dear Flea, Not necessarily. Bin Laden has stated that his strategy is to bankrupt America. Maintaining the terror-alert boogey-man persona may be part of his strategy. What could be more amusing to watch than sending your enemy off to fight something that does not exist?

Forgive me but you are not providing a convincing argument for why 1.1% can not satify current needs for the military. Let me illustrate. Years ago, men threw hand grenades. Now, men use rocket launched grenades. This technological advancement represents a cost savings of some sort. I would not expect our costs for THE SAME LEVEL of warfare to stay the same. I ask you specifically to provide an argument for why we should be paying the same for rocket launched grenade tactics as we did for hand grenade tactics. Years ago, men went to war at the drop of a hat. It was more difficult to negotiate and conscription was easy to command. Now, men tend to settle their differences commercially. The continued globalization of trade makes warfare less and less attractive compared to commerce. I am not convinced that we should need the same level of warfare as we did in the past. You expect us to have blind trust in the super-powers as Canadians did during The Great War To End All Wars.

Dear Flea, Correct. However, I wish to refine some of your other conclusions. I care less about the poor sales. I would not generalize and say that it is unprofitable to tell lies. I believe telling lies is part of the packaged product marketed by the media. Even if a deceptive media was rewarded with HIGHER sales, I would still say they have the right to lie. The primary reason is simple: I can not claim ownership over The Truth. I do not even know what it is. We can fight over what we say but we can not claim ownership over The Truth any more than we can claim ownership over Peace or World Poverty or Pop Music. No. I am hard-headed. Wrong. It does affect me. However, I have no power over it. I do not think I am a racist but I am certainly ignorant about one thing: The Truth. What you fail to realize is that you and I and everybody in this world knows NOTHING. We can not prove any bit of our knowledge is true. We can not even prove that we are observing the physical phenomena around us. Ultimately, we take things for granted. A normal person learns to cope and function by making rational choices of what to believe and what not to believe. We also make rational choices of what we say. Telling the truth is not always helpful. A sane and sensible person realizes that at a very early age. No. I embrace them. I have one question for you: Do you believe everybody tells you the truth? The rest of your questions are irrelevent. I am very serious. There are billions of people on this planet. Do you think the media can lie to ALL of them? We have the ability to see through the lies (maybe not immediately but eventually if we try hard enough) and find the truth. How do you know that? Answer: You did "research" and found out yourself. That is what I am talking about. If you handed a media outlet to me tomorrow and said "Here! It is yours!!" I would probably not know how to run the business. However, I will tell you this: if it was more profitable or convenient to tell lies, I would do so. I am fine with that because nobody cares and it is to nobody's advantage to believe you. If I were in a position where your slander could affect my reputation adversely, I would not be on this forum. Your "slander" is moot.

The right to vote? That is all they get: an illusion. Throw them a bone with very little meat on it. Do the poor also have the right to influence the price of oil with their right to purchase oil? The system is unfair. The poor do not enjoy one ounce of the infinite betterment provided by our coercratic justice system.