Charles Anthony

Who would enforce this law and what force would they use to do it? You would have to go to war in order to enforce it. Something like the system we have already. The "warring" side would just claim self-defense. All of their nation-friends would agree and let them continue their war! Hell, they may even join in the war and help them out.

Why?Because Canada is generally NOT a tourist attraction / vacation resort.

I do not buy it. They may claim to "not have land ownership" but what is it in their behavior or relationship with the land that can not be defined as ownership? I do not understand. From everything I see, they seem to be claiming ownership. Also, collective control is a form of ownership. That is a lame standard upon which to base your legal system. Actually, it is worse than lame. The communists had wealth creation and innovation strategies that led to people starving and people playing soccer with loaves of bread. What does "society" need? That is not how I see it. The development of digital rights management is the proper way in which suppliers protect their product: i.e., they do not need force and they do not need government and they do not need legislation. They are figuring it out. Funny how they only way in which they are able to protect their "copyright" is the anarchist way, is it not? What would the government do that a consumer backlash can not do better?

Your interpretation of the economic analysis is misguided. The analysis does not say that it would be a "waste" but rather that the people (whose lives are at risk) do not value their OWN lives more than $5 million. The economist is only relating the decisions of those specific people in terms of the money that they spend themselves to protect their own lives. Ridiculous. Here is an excercise for you: how much should a bankrupt government leading an impoverished nation spend to save a human life? Yeah, the people they govern would not likely want them to do so anyway. If their taxes -- or public debt -- were so high, you would certainly get a violent revolution to overthrow the government. One place to start would be to open our eyes and at the very least, spend the money on determining how to reduce that uncertainty -- instead of wasting it on the gun registry. In the event that somebody DOES NOT stop to save the drowning person, this hypothetical example demonstrates that the cost of life depends on who is paying for it.

Saying "take advantage" is too broad. Your example is more accurately described as people getting away with being dishonest. The success of most economic systems depends on participants taking advantage of the honesty of other participants. Would you continuously patronize a convenience store that repeatedly short-changed you?

The legalities behind how WE apply those rights are arbitrary. However, the objects to which they are applied are not equally arbitrary. Explain. I find it hard to believe. So what? So are self-interest and self-defense. So are common courtesy and peace-and-harmony. Are the fundamentals of our economic system and a lot of wealth creation and innovation the standard from which we are to base our legal system? Why?

No. I do not believe it was the government.

Not a bad idea. By the way, am I left or right, according to you?

I have to agree with Riverwind here...there must be maintained a difference between 'coersion' and 'action and consequence'.I believe Riverwind is questioning a different issue. Both of your attacks are different. I do not see it as a contradiction because they are completely different things: the land rights refer to something physical and the intellectual rights refer to something non-physical. You are talking about self-defense. I see no moral problem with people defending themselves against aggression. In a world where non-aggression reigns supreme, making the one exception for self-defense sounds reasonable. Any way that you define an intellectual property right, it requires discretion with respect to what we call public domain. What if the long-lost descendents of Mozart suddenly pop-up and demand royalties? What would you say?

If they are coersive, they are wrong. In anarchy, whatever those institutions happen to be, they are not coersive. We are really getting into the hypothetical, as you know. I am not pretending that everybody will hold hands in anarchy and share or respect eachothers property. I am just identifying what is wrong and the criteria is coersion. Thus, if "copyright" institutions require coersion, they are wrong. Much like the cotton-slave can feel wronged in slavery, I am saying coersion is wrong. The slave may only dream of freedom. Likewise, I can only dream on non-coersion but I will always say that coersion is as wrong as slavery.

If you are talking about "our" legal system, the answer is: none.

Fine. Let us limit the debate. Does this "civilized society" accept any responsibility for failure on the part of the "civilized representatives" to protect the civilians? Making sure "they cannot exercise their power without limit" is best done how? with incentives or the strong arm of the law? Before we get carried away, what is wrong with the way things are now? Is it inadequate in anyway?

No problem. All we have to do is cancel all financial aid to new immigrants and let anybody in to the country. The only people who will come to Canada will be the people who can be productive.

I agree with you but this back and forth is getting tired. I think the arguments are getting futile and are just as useful as asking "Who killed Marilyn Monroe or JFK or Paul McCartney?" Some people believe this and some people believe that. By the time you can convince enough people, it will not make a difference. In general, I think the proliferation of conspiracy theories is a sign of a free society. I want to ask you a slightly different question, if I may: what do you want to accomplish?

Citation?

I do not understand the question.

If it is a moral point of view that you want, the answer is the same. Morally, I think you are wrong. In this case, since it is a public service, the public should be the boss -- not the courts. While, I am at it, the courts should be serving the public.

Their food tastes better than our food and we are tooooo lazy to cook.

Why? If I ask YOU to choose between: 1) standing on one foot and balancing a pink elephant while having an abortion 2) doing backwards somersaults and serving fruit punch while at the gallows What would YOU pick? Why?

From the quoted article: That is correct. There could be a backlash. Here is a solution: stage the opera and omit the head of Mohammad. Problem solved. Mozart's music is great but he is not sacred. More from the article: Reality check: we already live in "a society where one is constantly fearful about" yadda yadda yadda. Deal with it.

You are kidding. You do NOT have to explain why it would be targeted at all. The reason is irrelevent. All you have to do is observe that WT7 was: 1) not hit by a plane 2) demolished in less than 10 seconds 3) not on fire 4) demolished later that afternoon Are you going to say that it was an accident? flying debris?

Advocating on the part of the Devil.... Are we now going to define "life" by democratic vote?If tolerating death is a question of degree, democratic vote can be one such method of determining it. What other method would be practical? There is not much choice. The question of determining the degree of acceptance of death does not matter upon the reasons for that level of degree. If I am the lone anti-abortionist in a population of abortionists, my reasoning and their individual reasonings are irrelevent. I must accept a tolerance of death that includes abortion. You do not know ALL of the pro-life people. I am anti-abortion even in the case of rape and incest and all other violations. I am also completely against the death penalty in all cases. Why? because, unlike all of the pro-life-exceptionists that you know, I truly do believe life is sacred. Period. Does that make me left or right? (I know, I know, I can hear it already.... that just means I am looney....)

Yes. Now work on feeding the pigeons.

How about everybody just takes a break and stops the nitter-nattering. Go out and feed the pigeons --- instead of feeding eachother. Also, It hurts!

Worthwhile for who? You are missing the point. The premise of the post is pointing out that it can be advantageous to YOU as an individual to falsify your submission.