Charles Anthony

So if Canada declared war on Afghanistan they would all of a sudden be serving Canada's interests?You have it all backwards. Part of declaring war involves Canada's military justifying a threat to Canada to the Canadian people. This is how things should be: Canada's interests are threatened. Canada's military MAKES A CASE to Canadians. AFTER making a case and getting approval from Canadians, THEN Canada's military declares and goes to war. The fact that it makes no sense to declare war after the fact makes being accountable moot. I am suggesting that militaries at war be more accountable to the people (and the tax-payers who pay their way) they represent. Thinking that Canada's interests are threatened is not enough. The military has to convince the Canadian people too. If Canada's interest were TRULY threatened, why not declare war? What is there to hide? I will tell you what is to hide: Canada's interests are NOT being threatened in a way in which Canadians would approve if they had a choice.

We of no principles drink imported beer.

The problem that I fear with this condition is that it might be impossible to explicitly specify policy. What fail-safe mechanism can prevent it from evolving over time into misuse of funds? For example, today we may accept tax-funded police, law and order services. Tomorrow, we collectively believe that road safety is part of those services and we assign the police the tasks of patrolling streets for dangerous driving, speeding and seat-belt enforcement. The next day, a friend (who owns a lumber pulp and paper mill) of a politician lobbies his friend to criminalize marijuana because the hemp manufacturer is able to produce paper at double the rate and with less by-products. Under the guise of protecting the public from danger, we have public money going into more law enforcement. Outside of law enforcement, cronies constantly lobby government to support their personal commerce. Laws and public spending are often presented as public services to dupe the electorate. An other example could be electricity and energy. We may designate them as essential services. However, instead of using clean wind-power, we burn coal and gas to power our generators. Why? because some crony-friend-of-the-government owns a local power plant or some secondary industry related to it. This sounds like sweet music to my ears! Hallelujah! However, to be nit-pickey, I do not like your example. Private fire insurance policies might resolve that issue. Again, this sounds good but personally, I can not think of what monopoly government service would would be exempt. Please provide a possible example. More music to my ears!

Wrong guess. An independent Quebec is more along my line -- but I suppose that would be too logical particularly in this thread.

I question the motives of this law. It is completely ridiculous to both say that the welfare of the child's lifestyle is of concern AND to have no accountability of how the recipient spends the money. This law is a smoke-screen for divorced couples who use their children as shields behind which they hide their own personal greedy lifestyle. How about we just set a maximium amount which is reasonable for child support? Anything above the maximium is at the discretion of the payor.I agree. 1) Cancel it entirely and designate a fixed amount for every child of divorced parents in Canada. Non-custodial parents will not be obligated to pay more than the designated minimum amount. 2) As suggested here: and here: The spending of the money should be accounted. The custodial parent should be required to demonstrate their grocery, clothing, recreation, education, etc. bills on a periodic basis and present a budget. For example, at the end of every year, the non-custodial parent has the right to demand an audit. 3) I think it is a good idea to link child support with visitation. For example, if the divorce requires that $1000 is paid every month and the non-custodial parent sees the child every week, the custodial parent gets paid $250 at every visit. What would be wrong with that? --- I have a general question: what happens if the non-custodial parent goes bankrupt? or loses a job? What are the obligations towards child-support?

A traitor is a person who refuses to bow down and lick a statist's tail.

Yes. You brought up the issue of morality. I see them as both the same on the scale of morality. I want to hear your explanation of morality as it pertains to nationality. What does morality have to do with loyalty to Canada? Loyalty to any country has nothing to do with morality -- it is just a personal preference. Just like favorite colors and your birthday, there is no morality involved. I am not implying that at all. You state that somebody in Quebec should consume products made in Quebec. That is racist because it imposes something upon a person based on their demographics -- not on their personal merits. Not only is it racist but worse: it is highly ridiculous. Does EVERYTHING that you consume come from where you live??? You never consume imports???? Even if you did consume imports, what is wrong with consuming imports?? He have to! Should a Canadian loyal to Canada only consume beer made in Canada???? How ridiculous can this line of reasoning get???

Foreign mercenaries are soldiers hired by a foreign government to fight for them. The Canadian troops in Afghanistan are there because they were sent by the Canadian government and they are paid for by the Canadian people. That is the difference.Big deal. I put that semantic difference in the same crony-geo-political-exploitation bucket. No. By my definition, if a declaration of war has not been made against Canada, Canadian armed forces in foreign countries are NOT serving "Canada" but rather, they are serving SOMEBODY ELSE's interests.

No. Not in my opinion.Then you are contributing to and advocating separatism.Actually, you are correct on both counts. However, I do not contribute in anyway that is explained in this thread. You just made a lucky guess. In fact, I contribute in a more direct way but there is nothing in this thread that suggests that. Actually, I do not anymore. I did before but now I am full. Why should I (or any non-racist) care? Most of what I consume on a daily basis is the product of slave labor and human rights abuse in third world countries under conditions that nobody can even imagine. Why would I feel compassion or responsibility for an affluent and luxurious industry like beer? ---- What is moral about Canadian federalism that makes Quebec separation immoral???????????

You never really answered this question directly: Who requires that the Foster Care Council of Canada organization publish the names of its board of directors? Playing the devil's advocate, what is this Foster Care Council of Canada organization doing? If the organization members participate in a Child and Family Services Act hearing or proceeding, why should they NOT respect the same law that you quoted?

No. Not in my opinion.

I am lost. Where is this thread going??? The National Energy Program speaks volumes of the federal Liberal party track record. The Adscam also speaks volumes. I do not like their track record. CAVEAT: That is not to say that the other parties are better. That is a difference in opinion that can not be argued. I am glad that you stated it. In my opinion, several repeated injustices by the same political party makes me doubt the sincerity of any new members of the party. I would not give them a second chance.

I think it is good for Quebec nationalism. I also think it might be good for Quebec sales. If a private advertizing company can sway a population's common political opinion, maybe federalists should develop an advertizing program of their own to counter it. I am sure that Canadians would be happy to send their taxes to fund such advertizement contracts. As an aside: Can the Labatt Bleue corporation (or any corporation for that matter) run as a political party? with their own candidates? Analogous to their last mock federal election advertizement campaign, can they do that for real?

Only if you insist it reflects directly on "prosperity" and you can connect it to "right" as opposed to a "wrong" outcome. Making Peter pay for Paul's education without Paul's consent or choice is wrong regardless of who prospers. No. That is not my argument. My argument is that it is still wrong. If I take money from you and spend it on charity, I still took money from you. What I did is wrong even if it helps more people and even if those people in turn directly or indirectly "help" you. I stated that in response to your assertion: You are right. It is impossible to prove my statement that taxation has ALWAYS existed. I was remiss. I should have have said that "taxation has always existed throughout the ages of recorded history notably from the ancient Roman empire to today" instead.Are the taxation systems of the middles ages relevant to this conversation ?Stop. Is that bait? I hope that it is a mistake. You made the assertion that no-taxation systems existed before. You made that assertion to justify your position. I said taxation existed long before. Now, you are are asking whether the issue is relevant????? You are the one who raised that issue. I am curious to know: what defense would you want? Would it be a type of opt-out clause?

Forgive me, I am not being clear. You made the assertions without explaining them to counter my position and I am asking you to prove or demonstrate your assertions explicitly. A public system provides education to pretty much 100% of the nation's children. That provides a wider talent pool for the nation as a whole.In this case, prove that: 1) a public system provides 100% education to children and a non-public (where a public one does not exist) one can not 2) corellation between public (and non-public) education and prosperity 3) corellation between non-public (again, where a public one does not exist) education and prosperity More roads and better roads.Prove that tax-funded construction and maintenance leads to more and better roads. Also, prove the relationship between roads and prosperity. How about the microchip ?Tell me how the burden of taxation is required to produce a microchip. Sorry, but I didn't do this.I know you did not state any of those. I am asking you to explain your original assertions in the context of the thread. A "multiplier effect" is an old macro-economic principle that describes short-term gain from government spending. That gain is greater than the initial spending but only in the short-term. Some people use them to justify government spending because it improves the economy -- nevertheless, they can have nefarious effects in the long term by affecting interest rates, future tax rates, inflation and crowding-out other markets. In general, there are two things that distinguish my argument from yours: 1) I do not assume that "prosperity" can be related to "right" or "wrong" 2) I do not assume that our economy can not produce the same "prosperity" without taxation, you do You brought up "prosperity" in an "economy" as a counter to my argument but you have not made the connection. I stated that in response to your assertion: You are right. It is impossible to prove my statement that taxation has ALWAYS existed. I was remiss. I should have have said that "taxation has always existed throughout the ages of recorded history notably from the ancient Roman empire to today" instead. 'Prosperity' is a subjective term. If I owned everything, I would be prosperous, to the 'summum bonum' degree. Then I could watch everyone else starve to death, if that was my wont.That is possible. That is why I would not relate taxation to prosperity. That is like the robber saying "Your money or your life!" to you. Since he is giving you a way to save your life, he is not morally justified in taking your money. That is why I say taxation is morally wrong.

What do you guys think about reviving old threads to support a new discussion that arises from a currently active thread? instead of starting a new thread? If I want to expand on an issue (but after doing a search, I find the issue was already began in an old thread) I would rather revive an old thread instead of rehashing a new one.

All of that happens due to an absence of law, which is what you're advocating.No. You are misrepresenting my words PARTICULARLY IN THIS THREAD. I advocate an absence of coersion. I would enjoy discussing non-coersion related to law and order in a different thread if anyone is up for the challenge. I am not convinced that a built up publicly-funded education system leads to a more prosperous economy compared to a privately-funded one. Please tell me how you make that assertion. Tell me how tax-funded road construction (and maintenance) leads to a more prosperous economy compared to any-other-funded roads whether it be through more roads or better roads. These are my favorite: please tell me how ANY military or space program (regardless of how they are funded!) lead to any prosperity -- except for the military industrial complex elite and their cronies and parasitic bureaucrats. Hocus-pocus "multiplier" effects in the economy do not count for this one. CAVEAT: I would hope your summaries to touch upon any "right" and "wrong" aspects in the context of a "Moral & Religous Issues" thread. I also expect you to justify your standard or measurement of "prosperity" in an economy.

This is what a lot of Americans believe, as well. Throw Halliburton in also. And foreign governments. People love to believe conspiracy theories, but the reality is usually much different. Can you recall any of the Clinton theories that were making the rounds in conservative circles? I love conspiracy theories! You ask about Clinton theories?? Here is one: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/02/news/hague.php http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=2542 http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=11632Speaking of Haliburton and foreign governments.... http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032105B.shtml http://www.canadiancontent.ca/features/070501gowans.html...and Canadian governments.

We'be been in support of U.N. actions in Afghanistan. Now, we are in supprt of the Afghan government that has invited use to help.That does not sound like a declaration of war. If a declaration of war was not made by Canada or against Canada, Canada is not at war. I do not see the difference between foreign mercenaries and Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Easy: if we accept God's judgment back upon us. Take a look at the entire passage. I will repeat your quote: The Church of England (or you or I or anybody in this forum) may choose to judge somebody because we are not afraid of being judged in the same measured way.

Uh... I am still want to know explicity how men should entertain women.

In a practical sense, who has more power in Canada: the Queen or the Governor General? I would suspect that it is the Governor General. Therefore, by getting rid of the monarchy, we might save money by re-assigning our head of state to the prime minister or even a statue.

That's for the Church to decide.If the Church of England decides to treat these homosexual priests differently from how they would treat heterosexual priests who commit fornication, I will boldly say that this Church of England is not being fair. Thanks for the references.Yes! Thanks for the references indeed!! Who cares about gay priests?!? After looking up the full passage myself, I now have more ammunition against taxes and God on my side! Call me a ChristiAnarchist from now on! I agree, nevertheless. Ho, hum.

With all due respect, I know that and you do need to tell me that. I expect taxation to exist forever. I still see it as being wrong. You can say the same thing for pollution. We will always do some damage and leave an imprint on the environment even if we live a very minimalist existence. All animals do. I still see pollution as a wrong that should be minimized as much as possible. Zero pollution would be perfect for the environment although never attainable. That is the principle I am discussing. Again, it sounds like you are missing my point. I do not oppose social organization at all except when coersion is not involved. To illustrate: voluntary army is good organization and conscription army is bad organization. No. That is not a complete freedom to opt out. What you describe is that the ONLY way around taxation is to give up your current property. That is not complete freedom and I think that is wrong. and the ones who are born into it and do not prefer to live that way have to leave. and abuse without recourse. We agree. I accept that taxation will always exist and my anarchist model of zero-tax is what I believe to be a tool in leading people to think outside of the box.

Nope, too many individual owners. But obviously the cost of gas is much less, and you'd expect at least one of them to lower their price to attract business... but they don't. What you describe is unclear but it does not seem like collusion. What exactly do you see as an unfair business practice in our gasoline industry?