Charles Anthony

to guarantee that teachers have jobs and that parents have cheap day-care. What else does public education manage to do?

If you want to stay in Canada, here is a trade: -> you get 100% resource and coastal control in exchange for -> Canada cancels 100% transfer payments Does that sound reasonable? No, you do not get more seats in the Parliament. Why you ask for more representation, I do not know.

I think some people are missing the whole point of the original spam -- I mean, post.

This is the problem if we make rescue a Canadian government policy. Once the government falls short, people have a sense of entitlement and the government is held responsible for compensation.

Bingo! I am also willing to bet that if we did have windpower, we would also see vigilante union highwaymen tearing them down. We would think city spray-paint vandalism looked like cultured and well-disciplined art.

Is it just to score political points? or should it be an obligation like "health care" or "education" or "child-care" happen to be? Do you believe that should be government policy? If so, what is the limit? Forget about what other countries are doing. What is the limit for Canada? Two Canadians got murdered vacationing in Mexico. Who is defending Canadians abroad? I slipped and fell on the ice last winter HERE IN CANADA. Who is saving me? If we make it an obligation to save Canadians abroad, there is no limit. De facto, somebody will not be satisfied.

It should not be -- not for Canadians and not for anybody else. Charity should be handled by charities -- not "governments".

Two things: 1) what "industry" is that specifically? does it generate power in competition to windpower? 2) why does the "industry" not do it themselves? whose jobs are at stake? We have a lot of space in Canada. We could put a lawn-garden pinwheel on every tower and the total power generated would add up. I wonder what competitors in the dirty-electrical-supply industry think about windpower.

I think it is nobody's business and certainly not what I want a "government" to mind. What is the difference? You explain.Personally, I was born in Canada. Call me what you want. I do not care. How you treat me is more important. I would hope that you treat me the same as you would treat any person standing on Canadian soil regardless of their citizenship. I would treat you the same.

I have defined anarchy quite simply already and there is not need to repeat stuff. That is why I continue this thread so that there is less opportunity for (perceived) confusion. Also, I have very little to add other than practical application of anarchist principles. I do not believe that you have me confused with some Lord Of The Jungle theorist. How can anybody "fetter themselves" with morality? or anything for that matter? You said people have free-will. Remember that question?

I have a completely different take on the same things and the same changes. They represent the changes that many people want. I do not think that most Canadians identify themselves with an RCMP uniform any more than they do with Inuit soap carvings. Today, I think Canada's culture is more accurately identified as a constant influx and tolerance of foreigners. It is a bit laugable to expect many Canadians to identify with an old uniform. I would rather have an officer who is the best for the job (wearing a turban) than the second best officer. Now, this opens up the possibility that the turban-officer was hired because of ethnicity to fill some racial quotas -- I do not know. If that is the case, the uniform is irrelevant. I want the better officer, even if he has to wear plain-clothes. I realize that my attitude seems culturally poor. However, I do not think there is much practical choice. It is like fighting to subsidize the hoola-hoop industry -- nobody cares anymore. You can not force culture nor traditions.

This is a very valid demand. I agree with it. However, what else do Atlantic Canadians deserve? If Canada separated from the Atlantic provinces (kicked them out and forced them to be either independent countries or one Atlantica country or some combination) what would Atlantic-Canadians do differently?

It is these "small governments" of individual people that actually make a concrete difference -- provided the market is free from government interventions. I do not fear any American take-over because I do not EVER hear individual Americans expressing that desire.

No, they go hand in hand,Yes. I am relieved. For a moment there, I thought we were talking apples and oranges while walking through a vegetable patch. Yes. Morality is not an issue when they are pure. You know anarchy more than most people do. Wait. This is where your understanding of anarchy (and hence its application to the real world) is lacking. There is no inconsistency. Anarchism does not mean "no laws" but rather it means no authority in the form of coercion. An anarchist does not coerce an other person. An anarchist trades freely and willfully with people. This is why pure anarchy is the same as pure capitalism. They both require this stringent condition. Yes. Their aim would be anything they want. Their end result would be a function of personal preference (arbitrary) and the physical constraints of the environment and the free market. The anarchist and the capitalist do not have super-powers to overcome the physical constraints. There is no inconsistency of my response to you. You asked me about my choice of imposed government given that we will never have absolute anarchy. My choice is a function of any other free market. I may want everything but the physical constraints of the world make me wise to chose to settle with something less. Where is the inconsistency? The mistake that you are making when you say that I am preferring less over more is that we live in a HUGE combination of many different markets -- not just the market for government power. I must also base my decision on devoting energy to the market of personal freedom (and buying food and mowing the lawn and watching television and collecting comic books and whatever else I want to do). Everytime you choose one thing, it is often at the expense of not choosing an other thing. Unless, you have some confused perception of claiming ownership to everything, of course. Why do you not look at my choice in your capitalist sense and recognize that I am choosing MORE freedom and MORE peace and LESS government?

That was not your original question which I will recopy: To which I answered already and explained my position. What does this have to do with your original question? Are you asking me to justify simultaneously being a capitalist and an anarchist? Sort of. To imply that as an absolute means that morality only can exist outside a system of laws, and I would disagree.No it does not but before I get myself led up to The Fog Mound, I have one simple question: Do you believe humans have free-will?

I said that "Canadian" is a bureaucratic distinction in my opinion. The "bureaucratic distinction" issue came up originally in the thread as a qualification for citizenship. I think Canada is different from many countries. I can not speak for the Chinese. Yes. I think being a Canadian and Canadian-citizen are the same and I think they are only bureaucratic distinctions. Your example of "Chinese" is a poor choice for an analogy. The term Chinese can refer to citizenship or culture or heritage or ethnicity. There is no Canadian ethnicity. Thus, it seemed like a red-herring. Correct. That would be an accurate way to describe my opinion. [My honest opinion is even more flexible than you can imagine but I dare not say it. I should fear being tarred, feathered and chased out of town if I made it known.] No. Not anything worth legislating. That is the salient feature of my position. I would rather the determination of who is a Canadian simply be bureaucratic.

We are talking about citizenship. We are not talking about ethnicity or culture or nationality or whatever-other-red-herring. If the qualifications for Chinese citizenship was just the simple possession of a Chinese passport. You are a Chinese citizen in your example. If that is their rules, that is bureaucracy. In some countries, such as Switzerland, becoming a citizen is not that easy. Before any bureaucracy, you must have ethnicity or heritage in the country. Those are their rules. What are the requirements of Chinese citizenship? You tell me. How am I supposed to know??? Did I say that? Why the red herring? In Canada, I do not believe that our population mix and history makes for any valid or useful arguments for ethnicity or heritage or culture or anything else that is subjective. Therefore, we should stick to simple objective criteria such as bureaucracy. In other words, filling out a form or number of years living in the country or one-parent-citizen or something else that is quantifiable.

Incorrect conclusion. When a government is far away from the people it "represents", it is more difficult for one person (or anybody for that matter) to work towards change. A distant government (regardless of label) physically can not represent each individual's interests. Hence, the borders / no-borders freedom paradox: you need to erect more borders to get more freedom. Actually, I was specifically speaking of your nation (of one) growing larger.Stop. You are making a mistake. YOU identified the nation (of one) should grow larger. I did not. I see no reason why it should. Are you asking me to explain YOUR theory of how the nation (of one) should grow larger???? No. It is not subjective. It is a human right within anarchy among other social organizations too. In anarchy, freedom is the right to NOT be the victim of violence -- except in the case of self-defence. Plain and simple. The anarchist concept of freedom is objective because it can only be violated by having a person commit an act of violence against you or your property. There is no subjective imposition of "to have access to" in anarchy. People are however moral they choose to be, it cannot be imposed, only laws and punishment can. So, yes, for the last point, it can be required.You are describing obedience and submission. Morality involves what one does when the opportunity to escape punishment exists.

I seriously think he is. I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

As a capitalist, it is nice to see that saving and making more of the Almighty Dollar is what motivates it!

If Newfoundlanders do not have the money they should save up. Do you want every other Canadian to pay for it? Forgive me for coming across as very harsh, but if I want something and I can not afford it, I have borrow. If nobody wants to lend me the money, I eat humble pie and ask my family or friends. If they do not have the money, I have to save up. I realize that throughout the entire country, different regions get money from other regions and thus, it may seem unfair to Newfoundland to not get a handout. However, I feel the same way for every Canadian. Nobody deserves a handout from the tax-payer. There are poor people in Canada and I do not think it is fair to pick favorites.

I'm curious. What other attitudes are not Canadian? There are none. In the same way as there is no Canadian favorite color and no Canadian favorite hockey team, there are no Canadian attitudes. The concept of "Canadian attitudes" is impractical. I am confortable saying that a Canadian is a bureaucratic distinction. Other than bureaucracy, what should it be? morals? national pride? willingness to pay taxes? It is the easiest and most objective method. Nobody can cry racism or discrimination. That change can happen overnight.

If you had your 'perfect gov't of choice', it shouldn't matter how big the geographical area is (nor the population in it), the same rules would apply throughout.My choice centers around the innate characteristics of humans (some are evil and some are lazy) and when governments step on individual rights. Thus, one person (myself) lost within a larger (regardless of the label or government) country will likely be trampled and have no voice. Whereas, one person among a smaller country has more chance at defending oneself. It is just a balance of power. Also, I give people credit for defending themselves and their neighbors -- otherwise they would not live next to one another. Most people appreciate eachother's peaceful company. (I believe that is why solitary confinement usually leads to madness.) I do believe people who live in peace rise up to unite to defend a neighbor in need or to defend themselves against a foreign invader. A larger population (or imposed structure) will tend to make it easier for evil to be concealed and easier to shirk ones role in defending their neighbor -- even though I would still not make it an obligation to do so. Correct. Thus, I prefer sharing 1/100th of total power instead of 1/30,000,000th of total power. Simple. It is a balance of power. Remember, regardless of the label of the government, my government is closer to me with a smaller jurisdiction. Thus, if I wanted to speak out or defend myself, I would have a better chance with my neighbors by my side. I prefer being called simply an anarchist for a few reasons: 1) that is the best word despite its bad reputation 2) I am not ashamed particularly when I get a chance to explain my peaceful stance 3) there are too many confused communists and disillusioned socialists who call themselves anarchists. I enjoy defending the good name of Anarchy against them and being a thorn in their side too! I could use the label libertarian but there are too many variations of justifying the existance of government. I unequivocally oppose coercion (and thus, any form of "government" per se) even though I recognize some are better than others. The term minimalist is likely subject to interpretation. I will not even bother looking it up in the dictionary. Correct. I am a capitalist. Incorrect conclusion. When a government is far away from the people it "represents", it is more difficult for one person (or anybody for that matter) to work towards change. A distant government (regardless of label) physically can not represent each individual's interests. Hence, the borders / no-borders freedom paradox: you need to erect more borders to get more freedom. In "capitalist" terms, big government = bad small government = good Simply put, it is a balance of power. Since anarchy (government of one) will never happen, the next best thing would naturally be a small association of people who cooperate. The smaller the better. True anarchy is synonmous with capitalism but we do not really have capitalism in the same way as most communist countries never really had communism. CAVEAT: Maybe this should be a new thread entitled "Charles Anthony's application of anarchism to the real world".... I am not sure I understand the question. The 'power to be moral' lies with each individual.I am asking if The Flea coerces individuals to maintain its moral ideal.Are people moral out of their own volition? or is it imposed? or is it required?

I have a suggestion. If Newfoundlanders are not satisfied with what outside oil companies want to make in profits, Newfoundlanders should put up the money themselves. That way Newfoundlanders will have the control.

This: does not address motive.