Charles Anthony

Good point. [bad font.] He could have been anywhere. He may not have left North America. Before crooks drive you to their "meeting place", they usually put a hood over your head. You may be driven around the block endlessly to create the illusion that you are going far away. I wonder about that premise. Can anybody think of other countries that have more than a bureaucratic qualification of citizenship? It could be that Canadians inherently are more in tuned with the triviality of citizenship in the modern world. I agree wholeheartedly.

Granted. I suspect the clarity may have been muffled by the paramount distinction and over-ruling importance of "older" in determining the legitimacy of what is bought or how it is bought.

What YOU call "screwups" I call freedom. Respecting individual freedom at all costs is a virtue.

That is exactly what it is. You can not separate the concepts between morality and legality can you? Furthermore, anybody who USES a Microsoft (Dos95, 98, XP, SP, Nthdegree, Longhorn, whatever) product of any sort today is asking to be robbed. It is analogous to leaving a front-door open but complaining that a robber came in and stole when you are away. You would be charged whatever they thought was profitable. Correct. It does not matter because you are asking for a dry legal discussion and not a moral discussion. Go read a law book. Your question is analogous to "What is the telephone number of the local pizza place?" Go check the directory. Because you, as a consumer, get suckered into it. When you buy software (ex. Microsoft!) you also have a reasonable expectation that it works and does not destroy your property. However, when the software DOES NOT work, why do we as consumers accept endless patches and fixes and upgrades and updates and fixes and workarounds and fixes and patches AND continue to pay more for them??!!?? If it was any other product, we would demand a refund for the defective product.

No. It is worse than semantics. It is delusion. Governments just "exist" in the same way as a bunch of kids thrown into a gymnasium with a ball will eventually play dodgeball. There are rules to the game that are somewhat consensual but attributing a "function" to dodgeball (apart from its existence or something to do) makes no sense. The only sense it makes is in the context of fooling people. Actually, I believe you are wrong there. We are always forced to "contribute" to common illusions. The bullies in the gymnasium. No, you do not get a refund but rather, you get coerced as the game evolves.

Primary functions of a country? You are kidding... Countries do not have functions -- much like icebergs. Your premise is silly. Nevertheless, You should not give a rat's ass at all because you have the power to take Bob-the-non-parent's money against his will and he has no power to get it back. You have the power to spend his money as you want (and pocket the change) without accountability. Enough.

Good, now we are going in the right direction. Bad, now we are going in the wrong direction. Your argument stops here because you are using "common law" to define theft in a "Moral & Religious Issues" thread. Thus, you are just talking about what is written in a particular law book. If that is all you want to know, go read the law book or the dictionary or the encyclopedia. Your argument is as enlightening as asking "Are you a pirate? Do you or have you ever robbed at sea or plundered the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation?" Only according to how your law books define theft. That is not a moral argument. Your law books could easily be changed to permit your thievery. Then what??? Are you going to try Sharia law or Murphy's law to define property?? There is the kicker! Your saving grace! Lucky for you that they are older movies because otherwise I would have found you guilty of robbery!

That was a bad mistake.Why? Would you rather more warfare instead? Everybody has a price. What was the American motive, do you suppose? and what went wrong?

Personally, I think the Liberals are doing better with Bill Graham than they could with either of the three stooges. I am serious.

What would their motive be ?Who cares?? The event has already taken place. I am questioning the possibility of origin not motive. I am being serious. The true motive has no bearing on the origin. The people who flew the plane were not super-human. Nevertheless, there are many possible answers to the question of a domestic motive. Here are some: 1) anything 2) the same motive as that of the people who did it, whatever that was (ergo, my first answer: "Who cares?") 3) the same motive as that of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma (ergo, my first answer: "Who cares?") 4) mental illness (ergo, my first answer: "Who cares?") 5) possession by the Devil (ergo, my first answer: "Who cares?") I can think of a lot more reasonable ones but my original answer: "Who cares?" is the best because most arguments AGAINST some sort of conspiracy keep asking for a motive. A possible motive is irrelevant because not every action must be rational. The chances of ABSOLUTELY NO American being complicit in the demolition of the World Trade Center exists but so do the chances of AT LEAST ONE American being part of it.

I agree. What I am saying is that "society's interests to prevent people from scewing up their lives" is false.

[Please allow me the liberty of being a snarky smart-ass.] Therefore, that would tear down your initial premise: "It's in society's interests to prevent people from screwing up their lives onlyu to the extent that it impacts society." would it not??? [Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.]

Laugh at yourself. That is exactly what we do now.What are YOUR goals for a justice system?

No. The reason is very simple: you can only steal something that is physical. It really is as simple as that. It is more approriate to refer to it as some sort of breach of contract. Am I a copy-cat? Yes. Am I a cheat? Yes. Am I a yellow-bellied copy-cat cheating slimeball? Yes. Am I an arse? Yes. Am I a fool to think that I will not suffer consequences? Yes. However, unless there is a physical medium in question that goes from one person's possession to an other person, calling it "theft" will follow a path of logic that will also disallow you to whistle a popular tune that you heard on the radio. Reconciling patents, copyright, intellectual property and so forth is an interesting examination and luckily for us the debate is not new. This forum is a goldmine of information. Before anybody thinks they know anything about the concept of piracy, I suggest that they review other older threads and see some of the groundwork has already been laid down. Here is a brilliant start: and I must apologize to other forum members for waking up The Giant. I could not resist.

Bob-the-non-parent is paying.It costs more than $50 per kid to fund our schools and they make up the difference by pinching it from other Bob's who do not have kids. Furthermore, if the government monopolizes the issuing of currency and or spends by issuing debt, Bob-everybody pays -- albeit in a roundabout and indirect manner.

I admire the suggestion of using isolated tracts of Canadian wilderness instead of penitentiaries. Usually the best ideas are simple. Whether it moves towards rehabilitation or not is a different issue but I think it is a solution. It would be similar to exiling people to a desert island, a modern-day Australia or North America. Cynically, I would fear that it may have one draw-back: non-criminals may want join such a wilderness haven.

Even if you define a terrorist to include people who harbor terrorists, the ambassador is wrong. Somebody should call him on that one day. The U.S. had no problem negotiating with Quaddaffi about 15 years ago with regards to the Lockerbie bombings.

What I find most interesting is that it is all happening democratically.

Hearing you justify killing others by saying that the victim "was going to die anyway" makes me feel very comfortable. We need more public policy, law and order generated with such a perspective. I will not scream strawman. I will scream: "Nonsense argument." You point to some other policy that is wrong and say: "Let us have this WRONG policy, too." Who cares if your parties or somebody else's parties agrees with something??? Are you going to start quoting the Communist party policy if it suit your strawman argument??? We should not be doing it with babysitting either.

Is anybody open to the possibility that it was a conspiracy involving some Americans OTHER than the government?

Slavery was once a rule. Congratulations. Your social outlook is enlightening. Are you open to changing "rules"??

Quebec separation is a foreseeable circumstance. Are you categorically ruling out the possibility of Quebec separation for ever and ever, amen, not now, not ever? [Personally, I think that it will be a long time before Quebec separates but I do believe they will eventually. I use the same logic that people use to believe that we evolved from sludge. Just give Quebec enough time.] Once Quebec separates, it is unreasonable to think that Alberrta would not do so later.

The reason is that some people reject your "rules" because they did not consent to them. No. The difference is that you justify exerting control over people whereas I do not.

If I were to take the liberty of imposing my morals upon other people's family situation, I would first say that the kids are being wronged.

Would you extend that power -- I mean, "courtesy" to me so that I may tell YOU what you can or can not do? and exact punishment upon you? Yes and that is what is wrong with a lot of laws -- if not all of them. You decided nothing. We use the term "society" as a label when we want to hide behind personal responsibility. No. Laws are a strategic way to exert power over people.