Charles Anthony

"All of the things that we call 'rights' are derived from the principal that 'you should not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you'." Not really, from the Libertarian perspective, that is. This is REALLY splitting hairs now, but the Libertarian would say that what you should or should not do has no bearing on what you want people to do to yourself. Thus, the element of subjectivity is eliminated. "Property rights fall into a different category. For starters not everyone owns property nor do they expect to own property." This is a MAJOR inadequacy within the Libertarian perspective. "I would argue that slavery is a waste of potential. Slaves don't work as hard as freemen." Absolutely correct, but if freemen demanded a higher wage and the difference in productivity can be accommodated with more slaves, that point is moot. "Slavery is unethical because it is wasteful." Surely you jest? Such a form of ethics terrifies me. "The first property right is the right to ourselves. On efficiency grounds (not equity grounds), it makes sense that we are not slaves." If it turns out that the evil dictators of China found a mechanism by which slavery can be MORE efficient, would that make slavery ethical? Personally, I think that the fairest way to deal with the distribution of land is in the manner (as mentioned previously) in which the Natives did so historically. It only makes sense that because: - no one person made the land - no one person can really claim ownership on a current plot of land or a future newly discovered land - thus, we must share and conserve for future generations

"I don't understand why the State is involved in this issue." If I owned a coffee shop that was next door to a bar (that allowed smoking) and saw all of the business going to the bar and none of the business going to me, my jealousy and selfishness would lead me to lobby my government officials with all of the guilt-trips possible to put my neighbor out of business so that everybody can enjoy green-tea in my smoke-free environment. I can not believe that the omission of children in cars (or homes) was a mistake. I can not believe it.

"What level of "protection" are we willing to give our children?" At the very least, the same level of protection that is afforded everybody who is "protected" by this law. My whole point is that between the two scenarios, I have sympathy for the children more so than for the adults. "Are you advocating that we monitor what parents feed their children too?" No. I am pointing out a glaring omission and bizarre set of priorities where the health and welfare of children is completely disregarded. "PS. I smoke and daily lament to my son the awfulness of it. We don't sit there and blow smoke in his face, but yes, we do smoke in our house." I grew up in a similar household. I do not have respect for my offending parent over this precise issue. "Why is it now that less than 25% of people smoke -- the incidences of childhood asthma is on the increase?" A lot of obese children are diagnosed with asthma and given ventilators. Their poor respiration is largely (pardon the pun) due to the obesity that nobody wants to admit or address. The puffers are a band-aid that can be claimed on insurance.

"There's nothing in there regulating smoking in a private home or car where children are present. Whether or not a court would still see such smoking as child endangerment is another matter." Bingo! You win the prize! The point towards which I wanted to lead was this: compare the severity of 1) a parent smoking in a car (or house) with the children enclosed to 2) a group of adults all consenting to work together in a smoking environment. The new law says nothing about 1) but outlaws 2) so, where are our priorities???? This glaring injustice is so severe that I can not believe that 1) was omitted by mistake. I can not believe it. I can not believe that tons of bureaucrats and politicians with tons of our money overlook the most obvious injustice when it comes to second hand smoke. I can not believe it. The scenario of the children in a house or car truly is the first place where I will give the legal authority the right to intervene. Everything else is just disgraceful selfishness in comparison.

"I don't know if this post will make any sense. There's an empty room with a large pie. Five people walk into the room and make different claims on the pie and about how to divide it up." It does make sense. It simplifies the entire matter very well. I do not think Libertarianism adequately answers how to divide newly discovered property (pie in empty room or farm land or whatever). However, I believe that there is a difference with the farmer and the highway: the farmer is starting off as having a piece of the pie already. With the scenario of the empty room, the mob taking the farmer's land would be equivalent to four people ganging up on one so that they each can get a quarter not a fifth. The principles of Libertarianism would identify these as transgressions and just simply wrong. The principles of Libertarianism can not say what will actually happen. "where possible, the pieces of the pie will wind up going to the person who will best use them. Now, this criteria doesn't decide always how to accord rights in the first place (or even to transfer rights between people) but the criteria sometimes helps." The problem is that the criteria of "who will best" is subjective and thus pliable. The Libertarian stance seems to make things objective. "then society will also have the duty to protect that farmer from mob action" Libertarianism actually does not answer to that or insist upon it. Libertarians often believe that people will likely develop checks and balances or a form of justice system because they think reasonable people in that situation will develop it naturally. However, the principles of right and wrong in Libertarianism do not require "society" or anybody the duty to do anything -- other than respect eachothers rights to freedom, life and property. If a "society" has a history of slavery or pillaging or anything objectively wrong, Libertarianism does not adequately answer to how to make it right or how to compensate people for transgressions. "Regardless of if the farmer understood the reercussions or not I would not consider it "stealing" if "society" paid at least a fair price for the land." The Libertarian would call it theft if the farmer did not consent to the terms of trade.

By using the "interests of society" as a justification, we have the power to get away with anything. Libertarians do not want people to be able to get away with anything. "A farmer that refused to sell a property to allow a much needed highway would likely discover his home would be burned to the ground by a mob." You are right. That is exactly what the mob would do. The Libertarian would still identify it is as wrong. However, the Libertarian would also wonder if the selfish farmer was stupid or not. "because of the faith in voluntary co-operation being plausible." That is a mistake. Libertarians do insist that everybody will co-operate. They expect that most smart people will co-operate but the principles of Libertarianism only suggest what is right and wrong. They do not insist on making any expectation of human behavior. "in soceities in which women are not granted the same rights as men, that the women don't in fact have those rights?" The principles of Libertarianism rise above this and would identify that as just plain wrong. Here are some questions about the highway: If the farmer is intelligent enough to understand the repercussions of his selfishness, would it not make sense to say that he should expect mob action? The Libertarian would still identify him as a victim, albeit a stupid selfish man. If the farmer is truly not intelligent enough to understand the repercussions, would you think it "right" or "fair" for "society" to steal his land without warning?

"Rights are nothing but a social construct that have no meaning other than what society chooses to give them. In other words, the only way someone can get rights is to have them granted by society" Libertarians do not agree with that stance. Libertarians believe that each individual has a God-given (if you do not believe in God, that is OK too, you could still understand the principle) right to property regardless of whether it benefits any conception of "society" or not. For Libertarians, the point is that individual "rights" are not pliable. Libertarians do not believe that just because groupA wants something from groupB, that groupA has the right to take it without groupB's consent. Libertarians identify that as theft regardless of who benefits or who is the majority or who is included in the definition of "society" or how "society benefits" is defined. Libertarians are very absolutist in that regard. Try to extrapolate into the issue of slavery: Years ago, slavery was normal and "society" accepted it and "society" benefitted from it. Years ago, Libertarians would have gone against the norm and insisted that it was wrong regardless of what "society" grants. Today, advocating slavery is abhorrent. Today, Libertarians advocate that you have a right to your own person and nobody has dominion over you regardless of what aspect of "society" benefits. Likewise, yesterday, today and tomorrow, the Libertarian stance is that you have the right to property. CAVEAT: Libertarians DO UNDERSTAND the concept of accountability, so when it comes to libel and freedom of speech and crime and anything else that involves transgressions of rights, they have ways of dealing with those scenarios. That is a fun discussion too!

After Quebec separates, what will YOU expect from your federal government in Ottawa? what will every other province expect from Ottawa? Our federation will change.

Does anybody think that bureaucratically and governmentally Canada is too big? that the main source of our federal problems or inefficiency is inherently a result of managing a HUGE land with too many different people with competing interests? Which Canadians would be better off if Confederation was dissolved? Which Canadians would be worse off if Confederation was dissolved?

I believe we should. It is called Libertarianism or Anarchism. Libertarians would side with the greedy or simply stubborn individual only to defend his right to property. Much like they would defend your right to free speech even if they did not like what you say. Without the right to property or to free speech, you are a slave. I would fear those people with such power and I would not trust them. Libertarians do not believe anybody has the dominion to bestow rights of any kind to anybody. Libertarians believe that you inherently have the right to property in the same way as you have other basic human rights such as free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom from slavery, etc.... How you acquire that property may be a different issue but so long as you have acquired that property without stealing it, nobody rightly can force you to give it up without violating Libertarian laws of fairness.

That is not fair. The union is the one taking the employees' money; not the other way around. Between the union and the members, the onus should be on the union to be more responsible with the members' dues -- not the other way around. If I took your money (or any other property) and then told you what hoops you have to jump through to get it back or to make me use your money in your favor, at least I would recognize that I was not being fair to you and it would still be abuse. I think this is a grave injustice and represents an abuse of the principle of democracy. The only option to you is to quit your job -- certainly, not very fair. Unfortunately, the same thing can be said about all aspects of democracy. If I do not want to support Trudeaumania, what choice do I have? My taxes will still go there. If I do not want to support AdScam, what choice do I have? My taxes will still go there. If I do not want to support the soft-wood lumber resolution, what choice do I have? My taxes will still go there. If I do not want to support our military action in the Middle East, what choice do I have? My taxes will still go there. et cetera.... To play Satan's Lawyer, at least as a member of the workers' union you have one choice: quit your job.

We could ask the same question of our politicians, could we not? The union leaders probably think they have the same right. I honestly do too. The only recourse they would have is to quit their jobs! Unfortunately, most members of a democracy (union) are stuck in the same trap: the citizens (union members) are forced (taxation) to pay for the policies (take your pick!) of its government with virtually no say in the matter -- save the opportunity to place an X on a ballot once in a while. Of course, the same imbalance of power exists in other forms of government but that is a different topic....

Unions have come a long way from their "defending workers' rights -- yadda yadda" origins.

Is it legal to smoke inside your closed home if your children are present? Is it legal to smoke inside your closed car if your children are present?

I think you are very right. He should have stopped his statement short at "I have not seen the report." and refused further comment. As Prime Minister, it behooves him to be more astute when it comes to responding. He did qualify his statements and repeat "If that's true..." more than once. Maybe he deserves an inch of slack...? maybe just a little bit? Looking back with hindsight over recent events: - national newspaper prints shocking story - reporter asks Prime Minister of Australia to comment on story before he sees it - reporter asks Prime Minister of Canada to comment on story before he sees it - inflammatory story turns out to be false - we blame Prime Minister of Canada for his comments - we blame Prime Minister of Canada for refusing to answer questions from the press gallery - we blame Prime Minister of Canada for refusing to give enough time between the release of a bill and a press conference I find it all quite humorous.

Most of the distinctions between the French and English version of Canada's anthem is poetic fluff. However, the final lines are very different. From the French version, translated into English: "Will protect our homes and our rights." This is very different from our official English version final line: "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee." One may infer, that the French call to their nation to respect their property rights whereas the English call the opposite: citizens are to submit themselves to their nation. This difference is great. Nevertheless, I doubt either composer was deliberately trying to state a political opinion.

Economic Left/Right: 7.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74 (I was expecting an extreme 10/-10) This is a ridiculous test. It allows the creator of the test to conceal their own political bias to skew overall results. Furthermore, some of the statements assume knowledge which the respondent may not have. How the algorithm deals with their answer can not possibly reflect their political opinion. Take this statement: Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. The first thing that I thought was "What the hell do I know?" The second thing that comes to mind is "Are they talking about EVERY multinational company or SOME multinational companies or whatever??" The third thing that comes to mind is "Are they talking about EVERY developing country....?" and all of the different combinations of the above. What the hell do I know what multinational companies are doing? Are you asking if I know what they are doing? or if I agree to what they are doing (assuming what you say they are doing is correct)? If I am ignorant of the true facts of how multinationals operate, my answer does not properly represent my political opinion. To infer my political bias from my forced answer is nonsense. The respondents should never have to wonder if they must assume any part of the statement is correct. An unbiased wording of the statement (for example) would be: Multinational companies should have the right to exploit the plant genetic resources of developing countries even if the methods are non-sustainable or the results lead to extinction of a plant species. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree Whether the companies actually do this or not is irrelevant when it comes to determining my political bias or the ethics of the propostion.

No. Rather, you are accepting the unfortunate reality that your freedom is violated. If you do not have the strength to defend it (or you can not afford to emmigrate), it does not make your submission voluntary. If a slave is bound by a ball-and-chain or over-powered by a violent master, will you say the slave is voluntarily "accepting" his plight if he does not bother to fight back?