Charles Anthony

I do not think any Canadian has a duty to rescue them. I feel sympathy and I would like to help them personally if I could. However, I do not feel obligated.

This is nothing new with the EEC. There has always been commerce. The EEC is an economic union, don't confuse it with a military alliance. All the members maintain their own independent military and have independent governments and foreign policies. That is precisely my point. Independent militaries can be maintained. When faced with war, they co-operate to defend their own interests.

Where did you explain that? Follow the links for more references.

I do not give a damn about what a person's "citizenship" happens to be or how they got it or how many they have or where they are born. Questioning what makes a Canadian citizen does not seem to lead to a concensus. Thus, I question whether it matters. I am not going to treat a person differently. The interaction that I have with people on a daily basis depends very little on their citizenship. The concept of modern-day citizenship is mainly for the purposes of collecting income tax and nothing more. If collecting benefits was not possible, we would not care about citizenship that much.

Are you using a Microsoft browser? I am just being silly.

Tower 7 was a controlled and well-planned demolition. Hence, the need for explosives. You are not serious. Are you denying that Tower 7 was rigged and detonated? That is exactly what happened in Tower 7. If they could bypass everything that is "complicated" and demolish Tower 7 in less than 10 seconds, surely it is possible to have rigged the Twin Towers. I disagree. I think it is quite the opposite. Can you look at the falling of Tower 7 and say that it was not detonated? Can you explain why the debris from the Twin Towers was so quickly disposed without forensic investigation at all?

The bottom line comes down to: Are we better suited to protect ourselves under several small militaries in several small jurisdictions? or Are we better suited to protect ourselves under one large military in one larger jurisdiction? Yes. I will take it one step further: forget about a "military" and let people have the right to arm themselves. Have you ever seen how farmers across the entire country unite when they are threatened? I have faith in free people standing up and defending their neighbor against obvious injustice. That is completely different. Canada's military is not defending Canadians. They are akin to foreign mercenaries. They would have a better chance than they do now. Compared to conquering one larger population that already has one great big central command and hierarchy already in place, the argument can be made that historically it has been more difficult to conquer many different smaller tribes or populations with several different governments or commands They would not have to. They would fight for their own self interest. People will co-operate in self-defense when competing interests overlap. Many questions. Other provinces would support only out of self-interest. Commerce alone would be a driving incentive (it seems to have been for many other wars in the past too!). Here is a simple example: if a neighborhood is targeted with an increase in burglary, the neighbors co-operate to defend each other better than any "government" can. If the baker down the street is attacked, the butcher is better off defending his fellow merchant. Thus, they can continue to do commerce after the foreign invasion. The butcher does not want to serve meat and bake his own bread. In fact, that is the motivation behind a lot of our current wars: securing commerce. The example of Europe is perfect. The one thing that stopped the ongoing wars and the incredible development of the European Union was commerce. It was simply ridiculously expensive to continue to go to war compared to co-operating peacefully. Go back one hundred years. Never in your wildest dreams would you be able to say that come hell or high water, France and Germany would create the European Union even if it meant they were the only countries in it. CAVEAT: I am tickled by the door that is being opened by this thread.

If there was a common threat to all of the provinces, I believe both the populations of Quebec and Alberta would take up arms to fight together. That is what Europe did in the last century.

I should think it would be the opposite.Ah.... the borders / no-borders paradox. I must clarify that when I said "geographic size or borders" I equate a larger country to go hand-in-hand with a larger population. The numbers of people sharing (but separated by geographic distance) the same leadership with me is important to my choice. Thus, I will generally choose a smaller jurisdiction over a larger one. The reason is simple: I trust a smaller population (read: the "government" is physically closer to its population) to keep its government under control more than I trust a larger population (read: taxation without representation) would. A different way to look at it is that it is more difficult to hide injustice in smaller jurisdictions than it is in larger ones. I want to understand your terms so that I might crack the riddle of Thelonialism. I doubt we will be......if it is kept secret. Much like I must first know the rules of soccer -- I mean, football, so that I can better understand the game that is being played before me. Previously, perhaps on this thread, I defined 'the meaning of life' as 'being'. That is, 'to be'. In that spirit, I believe the absolute moral 'summum bonum' is that all things are given 'the right to be', or to have access to those things which enable them 'to be'.Only "to have access" sounds concrete to me. That one clause suggests a lot. What power does a human have to be "moral" in the Fleabusiness model?

This is a ridiculous assertion.Why would they complicate their plan, and multiply the risk so much just to make a 'consistent' attack ? It's even more absurd if the assertion is that ONLY WTC 7 was demolished by explosion. First, it was a wild guess. That is the point. After five years, we are all still guessing. Second, keep in mind that this has never been done before. Maybe the terrorists were not sure either of what would happen. Maybe they thought that the impact would make the buildings topple all over the city and destroy other buildings. Maybe they rigged up the explosives as a back-up just in case the buildings did not fall as hoped (that would explain the delay). Maybe they rigged up the explosives as a back-up just in case the planes got diverted. Maybe they wanted us to feel small, compared to the rest of the world. Maybe they were trigger happy. Maybe they enjoyed the chase as much as the kill. Maybe Zacarias Moussaoui knows the answer. Maybe the terrorists wanted the western world to feel terrorized. Forgive me, but I will boldly say that in the grand scheme of things, questioning why they would make it complicated is beyond ridiculous because they managed with unparalleled success. Complicated in our eyes was in the palm of the hands of the terrorists. They could have flown pirouettes around the towers if they wanted. Whoever the mastermind was behind the attacks, "complicated" does not seem like an obstacle.

To make the shock and awe consistent. It may have been impossible to infiltrate the security of the Pentagon to plant bombs. The terrorists probably said: "The only way we can attack the Pentagon is from the air. Therefore, lets attack each target the same way: from the air." They must have needed the World Trade Center towers to be demolished but just wanted an attack on the Pentagon. Are you kidding?? It took less than 10 seconds for Tower 7 to fall in its footprint. I think a better question to ask is: why were the remains of the towers so quickly disposed? In the greater context of the flawless execution of the attacks and the continued success of keeping Americans (and us for that matter!) completely confused, asking why they needed to fly airplanes and the timing of the collapse is trivial. It is like discussing what caliber of bullet fatally killed JFK.

I would like to see the engineering reports that insist that a World Trade Center tower can collapse SOLELY as a result of fire in the AFTERNOON of September 11, 2001 and WITHOUT ever being hit by a plane. http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/collapse.html

I will play the devil's advocate. Maybe there is more to these stories that we never hear? Maybe the cops in question have a deliberate incentive to catch these people alive? Maybe these murderers (in their own minds) in question were acting in self-defense?

I am not trying to be difficult but I will not say myself that they are under paid. However, I do insist that if you want more people in the military, then you should first raise their pay. That is the best way to increase enrollment. Now, I am going to be a smart-ass: Do those trade figures include the "anti-drug policing" market as well? I ask the question because I firmly believe that the reason why we do not de-criminalize many street drugs is because it would put a lot of drug enforcement agents out of jobs. It would be like making cuts to elementary school education: the first people to complain are teachers unions not parents or students.

No and I did not say that. Oh, really? Tell us how much more money. Again, I did not say that.

You should. I think voting for yourself is the only righteous way to vote.

I do not know. It is an original idea a friend mentioned to counter the "ugly windmills destroying the aesthetics of the country-side" argument.

We could have a windmill attached to every single power line transmission tower. The towers are ugly to begin with anyway. Oh, but think of all of the jobs that would be lost if we converted to free electricity sources!

I would not say we need it but I would say that if you want to ensure that people will join the military, paying them more would be the most effective method. Relying on patriotism is not stable.

I have read it and more people will too eventually. That cover-up must have cost a load of money. Nobody spends money unless they will make money. When there is no more money to be made, cover-ups usually are handled brutally but simply, for example: with concrete shoes.

That reminds me of a joke that I heard told by an obstetrician: "As an obstetrician, I am always resisting the temptation to tell new parents that there is a way for them to return their new product. It is called Correctional Services."

or maybe use it as a practical commodity currency in the future like olive oil once was.

I think they are back. But I wonder in what manner? Should anybody worry? Are they going to be a threat to world freedom or simply a commercial competitor? I think Putin deserves a lot of credit. Putin has to return to Russia. His comeback was a gentle way of NOT letting Bush's statement slide and saving face himself when he returns to Russia. Bush should have known better. Anybody who has spoken to a Russian (or any immigrant for that matter) would have known better.

Sure they do, they fund the military.I still don't see what increased loyalty and flag waving would really do to change mine or anyone else's standard of living. If everyone thought like you, who would join the military? Probably nobody. We would have to pay our military more than we currently do and people would enlist. Simple.

Now, I will bite because... ....finally, we are talking about something more concrete and practical. To be fair, the answer is not logically universal and depends on personal preference. It is like asking "What is an anarchist favorite ice cream flavor?" I can only speak for myself. The type of leadership is irrelevent compared to the geographic size or borders. In other words, I would rather be trapped in a smaller jurisdiction than a larger one. Now, I would like to address some of your statements. A good analogy, but it also must be seen as zero on a 'moral thermometer'.Please explain your defintion of "moral" in particular with respect to how the principle is applied to inanimate objects and hypothetical ideas. I want to make sure that we use the same measuring stick.