Charles Anthony

Where is this going? I am hearing discrimination in two completely different scenarios: 1) a commercial and private event 2) a public service funded by tax-payers This is a commercial event. They can discriminate one way all they want. This is a public service. They can discriminate the other way all they want -- but they must answer to the tax-payers.

He was supposed to confer with spirits and ghosts, correct?

The problem with these choices is that the death penalty also depends on a justice system and abortion does not. If I have no faith in the justice system, what should I choose? If it is more important to have a fair justice system, what should I choose? You know what gets more tired: pigeon-holing arguments into the left vs. right ridiculotomy. It becomes even more tiring when people over-simplify questions into either-or ultimatums instead of thoroughly examining the problems. If I was forced and I HAD to select one of your unrealistic choices, I would flip a coin. Enforcing either of your choices on everybody against their will would be chaotic. Global observation: only a minority of jurisdictions still have the death penalty; a majority of jurisdictions have abortion. If I was the odd-man-out in a society (imagine that!) and everybody else had the same opinion (i.e., neither of these choices had to be enforced upon them), I would choose NO abortion and NO death penalty.

Do you think it is possible to prevent it?

Are you kidding??? There is a solution to that: Problem solved!

That gives me consolation. I am now convinced.

No -- you mean the passenger service dies. The trains do two things: passengers and cargo. The passenger service is only there for symbolic reasons: to please people like you and to maintain our "Canadian" identity. It makes sense that it is more expensive than other means of transportation. It is a horribly inefficient way to travel unless of course you want to take your time and enjoy the scenery.

How'd we get from "tangiable benefit to a significant portion of the community" to "you're only after the money"??-- by your own admission. You define things to legalize theft of somebody else's property. My example of everybody ganging up on you matches your "tangible benefit" yadda yadda. So.... what do you think of my example??? I do. You are sure??? Congratulations. I blindly trust all of the bureaucrats too. This should be in the Are You A Thief? thread.

I was right. You are only after the money. More money in your pocket means good policy -- screw the loser who pays. Sounds great. How about everybody in your city ganging up on you and robbing you blind and dividing up the spoils. I vote for it so long as I get some of the share. Yes, I do. Yes: the victim of theft has to give.

It has nothing to do with their relationship to eachother. They are both wrong in the same manner: they involve coersion. Correct. However, our form of "copyright protection" involves coersion. Even more, we use taxation to fund our copyright laws and offices and enforcement and bureaucracy and the rest of it. Thus, when you steal (I mean, tax -- NO, I mean STEAL!) to maintain a "copyright" law your are morally on the same side as stealing from Peter to give to Paul -- i.e. the "charity-theft" reference. The beneficiary is the person who submits the "copyright" and his costs are shared among all of the taxpayers. That is a different story. I do not care about buying the patented product. I am exposing the funding of the patents and their enforcement which in turn contributes to why it is wrong. Yes, they do. People who do not buy the patented product still pay through their taxes for its protection, maintenance and bureaucracy -- they pay without choice and under duress. Our "copyright" or "patent" rights depend on coersion. Thus, they are wrong. [i realize this is different from attacking the concept of "intellectual property" but it exposes the fact that breeching copyright law is just a legal issue and not a moral issue.]

I will not dispute that in the least. There again, I agree: there are better ways that can truly make Canada stay intact as a nation but completely revamped as separate republics a la European Union for instance. I agree. I truly believe that the threat of separation is not even enough. Canadians rally in ridiculous pro-Quebec demonstrations to put out fires and then return to their regularly scheduled hypocricy, bigotry and moochism. Unfortunately, I believe that decentralization would ONLY start after a province actually separated. I firmly believe that we are hindered by a general sense of mooching and NOT cooperation.

Wait a minute. What will compell you? Is it just a question of "85 cents" is not enough??? What if it was more? Would you be complicit in confiscating your neighbor's property for your own benefit?

What I find distressing is that the opportunity to do a thorough forensic investigation seemed to be avoided swiftly. The rubble and scrap metal was quickly collected and dispersed.I just have trouble accepting the party line on this one.

Yes. It is an artform: the advancement of a political agenda by not telling the entire picture and concealing it behind cluttered gobbledy-gook; a subdivision of macrockonomics. If you recall correctly??? That seems to be the problem. YOU say THAT is the question for Canada but it is not. I explained why above and you never addressed it. Also, you are using it to justify policy in different circumstances and I call you on that here. Finally!!! The effect on the economy is not clear. Making the statement "tax spending = debt spending" is a fallacy. No, that is only PART of the story and you are glossing over the rest. I insist that you are presenting a political opinion on government financial priorities. [Of course, I do that too...] Carry on with your agenda.

Yes. However, I am not recommending an intervention. Both.

Yeah, we are going to have an other Liberal majority and eveybody will return to la-la-land and live happily ever after. THE END

For good measure.... Precisely. I do not care if the state attempts to "correct" inequality so long as it does not involve coersion. Now, back to our regularly scheduled statism.... That is the problem -- but somehow I find it hard to believe that you do not know. Nevertheless, I will try to jog your memory (and for the sake of those who might be getting confused by the burgernomics): - currency values are affected by monetary policy - monetary policy is controlled by the same government that borrows, taxes and spends - monetary policy affects interest rates - interest rates affect currency values - interest rates affect projected currency values - currency values affect future payoffs to lenders - future projected payoffs to lender affect willingness to lend - willingness to lend affects government borrowing - and on and on and on it goes until we are broke Each of these relationships vary in importance. However, one can not change without affecting the others. Government borrowing affects the economy. Government taxation affects the economy. Each of those affect the economy differently. You can not say government spending does not matter whether it is through borrowing or taxation. Up to a margin, borrowing will reach a limit and it will have a nefarious effect on the economy when taxation might not. Therefore, the decision to tax or borrow for the sake of spending is not a neutral one on the economy. If you ask me now, I would simply say that I am a bloody-anarchist. However, sometimes I can smell mumbo-jumbo phoney economics-speak. By the way, I am also a record collector. Can you answer in a language that record collectors speak too -- i.e. plain language? You keep saying that. However, it does not mean government's ability to BORROW is unlimited. Also, it does not change the fact that government borrowing has an affect on the domestic economy. Furthermore, there is nothing exclusive to anarchism in your statement. [Yes, I believe taxation is wrong and it appears that I am defending taxation. I am not. I am saying that increasing debt can stagnate an economy more than taxation at the margin under certain circumstances.] Wrong. Bondholders DO have a choice in the matter: they can stop servicing more debt in the future. The rest of your post avoids this issue. You keep say this like a mantra but your never answer to the government's continued future ability to borrow. More of the same mantra. However, still no address to the issue of the government's future ability to borrow continuously. Oh, really? No limit to borrowing??

What did you end up doing? I wonder whether the law would be enforced too. My recommendation is to throw it out. That is what I did. Eventually, they called me. Before answering, I asked them to prove who they were and they gave me a number and extension to call back. I called them back and they asked me all of the questions on the telephone. The other issue of whether to answer honestly or strategically is different. I do not think it matters due to the sheer numbers of Canadians. Any skewing of the statistics is a drop in the bucket. Just like voting -- one person's vote makes no measurable difference.

The extremely likely? Like..... going to work one day and having two airplanes crash into your office towers? and demolition them in their footprints due to the fire? because buildings on fire are expected to come crashing down due to fire alone... and demolition a third tower that was not even hit later that afternoon?

While I am here.... I agree. All of the above! Charles, I'm surprised that you would ask this question. I could turn your question around and ask: Are we to believe that governments can tax without limits?I am surprised too: I do not think you answered my question. Sure, turn it around. The answer is NO, we can not believe that governments can tax without limits. There are limits to taxation. So what? What am I missing? That is only part of the story. The willingness of lenders to lend depends on more: the perceived value of the currency in the future for one. All of those things: debt, taxation, spending, growth, currency value each affect the others. Is that how you defend taxation spending = debt spending? Here is an other insight rhetorical question: what are the chances that your newly-created-taxpayer-who-started-as-a-bond-holder will borrow again? at the same rate? at the same amount? again and again and again? What am I missing??? Only in a matter of degree but not in direction. Is that the best you can do? Your original statement "Bad Governments borrow, Good Governments don't" is exceedingly broad too.Here is the deal that you are missing: Canadian public spending is NOT facing a decision of should we borrow or should we tax. Canadian spending is facing a decision at the margin: should we borrow more??? and what is the effect on the economy of borrowing more???

Why not?

What the hell is the difference???

Here is some more insight: just like a family, a government's spending and debt affect the value of its currency and its ability to borrow in the future. No. There is an other question: Are we to believe that governments can borrow without limits?

The argument is lacking in regards to the effect of government borrowing on: - the ability to continuously borrow again in the future - the value of the domestic currency The argument makes does not address limits to borrowing. Are we to believe that all fiat-currency issuing governments can borrow without limits???? I agree.

Me neither. Like who?