Charles Anthony

I disagree with that! I would not support "heritage" movies either! I never knew that word was absorbed by the English language. At first, I thought you meant to use the word "connard" which may have also fit the same context of arguing for subsidies. You learn something new everyday! As an aside: That is understood completely. (What makes you believe that is misunderstood?) The point is consumer choice and freedom. In free trade, the grocery store should have that right. The grocery store is not forcing anybody to walk in and buy it a lower price. You can leave if you want to buy a higher price. The grocery store has reasons for reducing prices that make up for the "loss" that you perceive in that one little "egg" sector of the economy. That is none of your business. The grocery store should have that right. You take away and deny that right by making arguments of heritage and national security and the rest of it. You can not claim that right without forcing consumers to pay more. It would be more noble for the heritage farmers to ask for a charitable hand-out from the consumer (provided that the consumers are not forced) and let there be free trade. We could have change boxes at grocery store cash registers that say "Save our heritage." like we do for other worthy causes.

This is ridiculous: Re-defining your own ambiguous (Quebec game) term with a second nebulous (constitutional blackmail) term does not answer the question. Can you explain what your terms "Quebec game" and "constitutional blackmail" mean with an actual explanation?

Let us create labels for people who ARE consistent. What would you call a person who supports both abortion AND capital punishment? Would you call him a person who supports killing? What would you call a person who opposes both abortion AND capital punishment? Would you call him a person who opposes killing?

I will take the liberty of explaining what is silly about it. The concept of right and wrong about the trade practice pivots around "another nation has to subsidize that operation" being known to us. From your argument, you are saying that if the U.S. simply had better farms and cheaper corn, you would accept free trade. From your argument, if they kept their subsidies secret and lied to us and told us that they were more efficient, you would accept free trade. From your argument, you are refusing free trade only because they subsidize their farmers. The concept of "subsidies" is very very subjective. If I give farmers extra money to pay their utility bills that is a subsidy. They could produce and sell at cheaper prices. If I give farmers extra money to pay their education and training and the education and training of all of their children and employees and I pay their medical and dental insurance and their telephone bills and reduce the taxes on their home insurance and on their friends and families and I pay and pay and pay every ancillary business that indirectly deals with farmers etc. etc. etc. I am able to hide subsidies and fool you.

To play the devil's advocate, what if Mr. Gair suffered incapacitating mental illness as a result of incarceration and had no friends or family to support him? He would never get justice and we would never have heard of him.

Does Stuart Gair get justice? Does "the State" get away scot-free?

I agree. Nothing else makes sense.

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living? See my post just above. Essentially, unions are more or less paper exercises, leading merely to spawning of bureaucracies. So do Canada and the U.S.A. have bureacracies to keep them together. Where is the connection to excluding Mexican migration? A lot of commodities are traded that way. In fact, Canada and the U.S.A. and tons of other oil producers trade amonst each other in the same oil markets. What is so special? Where is the connection to excluding Mexican migration? We have little to offer them??? Sorry, amigo. No comprendo. I agree. Why not keep our borders as they are but eliminate barriers to trade and migration entirely? I would expect the theory to be that if 'less privileged immigrants' are used to living in hovels, then they would be tickled to come here and build bigger hovels. Then they'd think that they were rich. I suspect that your theory touches closer to why some people would exclude one particular nation from migration. I think there are people who simply do not like Mexicans. The original issue was warfare, in which the comparison with commerce can not be made with simple pareto economics. As we know, the basis of it all depends on freedom or a lack of coersion. (Although, the game might conceivably be redefined in a convoluted manner to incorporate the market of force and possibly allowing a way to explain the outcomes.) Nevertheless, if you are looking at pareto-efficiency in general, where it does apply, as we know, "opportunity" is loosely defined vis-a-vis freedom. I have heard confused socialists and confused anarchists and confused communists define "opportunity" and "choice" as they see fit to justify their means. For example, if you are born without a brain, you do not have the opportunity to go to school if there exists a technology on the planet Krypton to regenerate a brain. The confused politician will say that somebody other than yourself is responsible for going to Krypton, getting the technology, regenerating your brain and paying your way through school. Otherwise, going to school is not an available "opportunity" for you. Neither, it has to do with freedom. Being "given a fair shake" is twisted by freeloaders to expand their definition of freedom into the realm of getting-something-from-somebody-else or to justify their theft. But, I am sure we know all of that already. Should the dust from old threads be brushed off and revived? I am not sure 'Charles Anthony, Joined: 29-May 06Member No.: 1823 is 'old enough' to have those feelings...lol Yeah, it is a combination of other forums and searching through the previous posts of this forum from before I discovered it. I have come to learn from other active members that I am not the first anarchist to push the principle of freedom. Think of me as Dr. Frankenstein (Hmmm... maybe I should change my Member Name....) pumping life into the veins of a monster.

Easy. You keep the records in the 7th tower of the World Trade Center complex. Then.... ....you demolish it and hide the evidence when nobody is looking. In fact, it may also help if: http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html After that, everything just falls into place.

Forgive me but... ...your message may be concealed behind your grammar. I would suggest writing shorter sentences. Otherwise, you may be misunderstood.

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living?

To play the devil's advocate, the Canadian federal governments have been off-loading to the provinces and the provinces off-loading to the cities. In turn, the cities amalgamate (sucking up rural residents to increase the tax-base) which is effectively an off-loading from the big cities to the small towns. The little guys pay more and still get less. Thank you federalism.

What is stopping them now? Why has it not happened already?

Most discussions involving the super-natural are best resolved on late-night radio.

No, I do not agree. 1) If you believe in democracy, you have to give them equal opportunity in Parliament, no matter what their stance happens to be. They pay taxes -- or rather, you take their money and call it "taxes" same difference, anyway. 2) Their interests are not only separation. Their interests also include defending their constituents (oh, my! what a foreign concept in Canada's parliament!). Correct. They have a much more noble dimension: representing their constituents. A dimension which seems to be lacking in the other major toe-the-party-line clubs. What are your "national interests" that can not be enforced by a more local government?

No. Not until I know who is asking. However, I would fight for my neighbor and my NHL hockey team. How can patriotism be swayed by what a "government" does?

Not only do we not live in a desert, but we do not have free trade. Not if our desert had oil. However, your level of understanding of trade seems to have stopped short at the word "desert" and thus I am sure YOU are glad. Do your local farmers need barriers to free trade? The benefits of free trade have nothing to do with what other trading partners CAN NOT do vis-a-vis what we can do. The benefits of free trade come from what other trading partners CAN cheaper than what what we can do. If our farmers forcibly prevent us from purchasing products from a foreign competitor, our farmers are stealing from us. It would be more noble for them to beg for a handout from the consumer and let the consumer buy a cheaper product.

Yes. Too many people minding other people's business instead of their own. You took the words right out of my mouth! People minding their own business instead of other people's business. Which one is it? What do you want your parliamentarian to do? Go to Ottawa and defend the interests of a different constituency other than your own???? How can a group of people co-operate if individual interests are not even known (let alone defended)? Sounds chaotic to me. What I mean by "learn from the Bloc Quebecois" is that they are the first party to make a point of effectively defending the interests of their constituents instead of some "national vision bigger picture" hulabaloo. No party can stand up to them on that record.

I'll assume you mean 'pareto-efficient', but you'd still be wrong.I dug myself a hole. I should not have used the word "efficient" because technically it only applies when each agent respects individual freedom. We do not have that and probably never will. I should have said "fair" instead. Wait a minute.... I am starting get some forum deja-voodoo.... I am going to do a forum search.... Dang! the search function is fouled up! Anyway... Correct. Nevertheless, each individual makes decisions on how to act based on (their belief of) the probability of success. Thus, the resolution ends up in "sharing of the spoils" anyway in an efficient manner based on information available.

No. Not if it can produce something else more efficiently and trade for food. Well, in that case let us look at how bad things could really be. Imagine living in the desert. All that you have is sand, heat and oil. All that you need is food and water. What the hell would YOU do? Build greenhouses or trade? Now, let us apply this principle to our Canadian corn dumping example. Imagine you are the government of people living in the desert. All that your people have is sand, heat and oil. All that your people need is food and water. What the hell would YOU do with all of the power in your hands? Force the entire population to pay for greenhouses to support your "friends" who happen to be farmers or let everybody trade freely?

Precisely and that is where the fairness comes in effect. Nobody will be bigger than the others. It will never be efficient to choose violence and war over commerce and trade. It will never be possible for a distant government to manhandle a population, i.e. a West Coast trade minister determining policy for the East Coast lumber market.

Why? The power will be turned off after separation? The lights will go out? Who in their right mind would stop doing business in Quebec and with Quebec simply because Canada/Quebec debt negotiations were in a stalemate? What formidable business in an independent Quebec requires the burden of a foreign government in Ottawa? Canadians will not go to war. They will negotiate because Canada will not be able to unload its debt on any other country. Excellent point. Indeed, it is not a one-way street as Canadians have been bred to believe. Quebec is not just a mooch to Ottawa. Canadians benefit from Quebec. Me too. Unfortunately, I think that it is inevitable when you have big government. Pierre Trudeau has convinced me of that. I also think that our country is non-sensically too big to be governed by a club in Ottawa and that Quebec separation is logical. I do not understand why more Canadians do not learn from the Bloc Quebecois. There are a lot of hard-working people who are not well-off in Canada. Nevertheless, they pay a lot of taxes and see a lot of waste.

I get it. When you say "I guess if Health Canada ok's it," the next thing I see is that it we then eventually expect it to become a covered service by the provinces and following that you end up paying for it through your taxes. Thus, I say you should have a say about the decision (despite the fact that you probably still would have no say). I agree but only because you should not be paying for anybody's treatment (elective or otherwise) no matter what. Again, I agree but unfortunately, you can never implement that effectively by taking the middle road. Where would you draw the line? What about the kid who falls of his dirt bike? the over-eater who gets heart-disease and diabetes? the mentally ill who attempts suicide? Many medical complications can be traced directly to human behavior and decisions.

Bakunin, pourquoi y a-t-il dix députés conservateurs québécois au fédéral, à Ottawa? Pourquoi? Que répondre? Tous sans exception, la seule différence c'est qu'ils avaient des stratégies différentes pour y parvenir. Je ne comprends pas comment tu pourrais affirmer qu'il y aurait un mouvement centralisateur au Québec. Un mouvement fédéraliste certe mais pas centralisateur. C'est sûrement le discours le moins populaire au Québec. S'il-vous-plait, expliquez la difference entre "federaliste" et "centralisateur" parce-qu'au Canada, il me semble qu'il sont les meme. Je suis d'accord. J'aimerais cette explication aussi.

I question the reliability of the Search function of the forums. I just did a search with the following keywords: republic canada and got nothing. I just did a search with the following keywords: republic of canada and I get the currently active The Federal Republic Of Canada thread. Both searches have the "Search titles only" criteria and under "All Forums" to boot. If this could be improved, there would be fewer multiple threads.