Charles Anthony

It is not I who mocks the Russians. You brought up the Russians. I am mocking your ridiculous fear of a potentially previous Russian invasion. This was your comment: Without a state to protect us, we would all be speaking русский from post #276 above If I am mis-interpreting your comment above, I invite you to explain what you meant by it. Otherwise, I find your one-liner defence for state coercion to be childish. I remember children saying the same thing. Quite the contrary. That 80's song reduced the Cold War to what it truly was: a bogus war. It seems you have been through this and so have others before. This forum is a gold mine of political thought. I suggest you wade through it and learn how other people evaluate the Cold War. That is what I did. Forgive me but I interpret the rest of your post as nothing more than: "I am happy with the status quo and everybody else should be happy with it too and continue to pay for it without choice and I will force them to comply."

I am going to back-track. I now believe this is an excellent law solely for the following reason: it placates Americans and gives them the illusion that Canadians are doing something to stop movie piracy. So that Canadians can see wonderful American movies before people do in Burma, Angola and Korea. We would certainly not want the Canadian theater market to be invaded by a disproportionate volume of foreign movies now, would we? We certainly would not want our small-size repertoire theaters to have a competitive advantage either. By the way, camcorder pirate movies started in Asia in the 1980's -- long before it flourished in Canada. I presume you are being sarcastic. Make no doubt about this: the piracy is an inside job. Anybody who is pushing this "camera ban" thinking they will prevent the public movie-goer from recording movies while sitting in the theater is barking up the wrong tree. I get frisked for weapons and recording devices by a bouncer every time I walk into a night-club or an out-door concert. Movie theaters can do the same. The ONLY thing that the movie theater disallows is surprise, surprise! OUTSIDE FOOD! Go figure. There is no "if" in this matter. The problem with movie piracy is NOT from the public sneaking recording devices into theaters. In the grand scheme of things, this law really is not that much of a waste of public effort. Just recently we paid our politicians to decide who should be allowed to play hockey.

Yes: Lawyer's Oath (Alberta) -- Intended to provoke debate...not jokes...

No, not at all. I do not know what you are looking at but just scroll down to the bottom of its very own page. It says: " © 2006-2007 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation | Contact " Just because it says: " Content here is neither reviewed nor approved by CBC management prior to posting. [more]. " only suggests that it is not moderated. Now, follow the links: http://www.insidethecbc.com/about I guess the great big CBC logo on the page and the link in the upper left corner to the CBC homepage was not obvious enough.

I guess soon we will see how "sovereign" Afghanistan really is.

Possibly. Ultimately, the authority of a school is arbitrary -- the State decrees it to do so and so. That authority can be changed. If enough parents who are entitled to public education lobby the government to re-draw the arbitrary line, it will be re-drawn. Your argument that the school authority stops at school property is purely bureaucratic and depends exclusively on the specific jurisdiction -- all of which can change. Having said that, my argument does too. Thus, the only valid appeal that either of us can make is The Will Of The Majority and some of us are comfortable accepting a school that exercises more discretion.

How is it wasteful?It could undermine public support for his party. That is a different issue. Report his posts to the Forum Moderator with an explanation of your concern. Get past the partisanship and think strategically: the Tories should have answered quickly if they want public support.

I agree. Ultimately, where we draw the line of a teacher's authority is arbitrary. Do you feel like you are entitled to a PUBLIC education?

No, it does not. You know, jDob, I rarely agree with anything you post but certainly this is one instance where I praise you for hammering away at the Tories. I hate government waste and non-accountability. I do not care what party-affiliation is the root source anymore. You are not entitled to being served by any merchant. My grandmother lived forty years in the United States and I have trouble understanding both her English and the English of the natural-born Americans in her city. They all managed to make due.

This is a ridiculous move. Movie theaters can and should and do enforce this ban themselves. There is no need for the government to declare this illegal. Should the "No shirt, No shoes, No service" rule be declared by government decree too? A couple of weeks ago, I watched one of these CamCorder Pirate DVD movies for the first time in my life. I can guarantee you that it was an inside job. The positioning of the camera was motionless and perfectly centered.

-- and thus, a school insisting that a student arrives on time is coercing -- according to your logic -- a cost upon the student. A student who must arrive on time -- read: "low-grade coercion ... a bureaucrat in control of a needed service to which you are entitled nevertheless demands acceptance of an ancillary 'agreement' before they will provide the service" your words -- is bearing a cost. Again, your words: "The cost of non-compliance is denial of your entitlement, with attendant inconvenience." I am applying your logic and your justification for your position. Mind you, I am being exceedingly nit-picking for argument's sake but ultimately, students have to share the cost and that line is drawn arbitrarily. ???Indeed, your argument is questionable when applied consistently. It leads to a logical dead end where a student who is physically incapable of entering school is deemed to have been coerced by the school and denied his public entitlement. I wonder how your logic would apply to students who are mentally incapable of learning. The be-all and end-all is that students must accept arbitrary power in life. School is part of that learning process. Part of me suspects that it was probably biased from the get-go anyway. Not really. We are quick to treat teachers differently because they are "authority figures" when we suspect them of having sex with students. If you do not like your public baby-sitter, send your kid to a different one.

This is where the old adages "You get what you pay for." and "garbage in, garbage out." step in. Here is a summary of my view -- pet food and beyond: If you want to have accountability, deal local. Unfortunately, you will probably pay more for many things to which I say: "Tough luck. Nobody owes you anything." This goes for more than just food. It applies to all goods and services. If I hire a plumber to fix my faucet, I know where he lives if he does not fix it right. I ate a can of tuna yesterday and I have no idea where that tuna fish swam. I know for sure it was a bargain (3 for $2) but that is all I know about it. I trusted it was fine. If it was NOT fine, I would have no recourse. I do not even remember the retailer. In my town, home-made super-natural healthy-healthy locally-produced pet food is available. However, it costs nearly double the price of that garbage pet food and I tell you, all of that low-price pet food is truly garbage. You may as well feed your pets table scraps or stuff cooked up from the ReducedToClear rack. That is the price we pay for cheap and fast food.

Those laws can technically be contested. Now the argument against the "right to bear arms" passes through its comedic stage and enters the realm of absurd hysteria. Extending the argument against our God-given right of self-defense to "the right to have a nuclear weapon" is blindly misunderstanding the inherent evil of monopolized state defense. I have the God-given right to own a pink Cadillac but unfortunately, I can not afford it. [i will try to be a good boy for Christmas.] Furthermore, nobody extends credit to every single person who wants a Cadillac but has no collateral. The market for nuclear warcraft is controlled by statesmen. States own and research and produce and maintain and sell and transport nuclear weapons -- not a cheap affair. I would expect that statesmen are highly selective when choosing their customer base. Great start! Now, do you prefer your freshly squeezed apple juice with or without the pulp? --------- Here is a different and perspective: Block, Walter and Matthew Block, " Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control," Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2000, pp. 289-298

Do not put words in my mouth and do not twist the argument. I am not arguing that it is so bad here. I have faith in the ability to gradually shrink government into irrelevence. My ideas are not harmful to others. You clearly do not understand the core values of market anarchy nor the non-aggression axiom all of which have been extensively reviewed in this thread. This: belongs in a little red pamphlet kept in the breast pocket of every single automaton pulled out of school and forced to stand on the side of the street to hail a dictator with his marching totalitarian army. You can not impose YOUR subjective value system on an other hypothetically irrational person. Yes we can. It's called Democracy, and is governed by functioning legal system to prevent abuses. [Forgive me but my writing may not be clear enough or, in your defense of state coercion, you are too quick to change the subject. Either way, I will reply to your original question again. Let me remind you that your question relates to the principle of rationality.]People -- except for the comatose, like I said before -- must always act rationally because the concept of rationality is subjective. This: is a different argument but boils down to: "I am happy with the status quo and everybody else should be happy with it too and continue to pay for it without choice." and nothing more. Without addressing the validity of how this "functioning legal system to prevent abuses" succeeds, I will just say that I advocate voluntary associations between people. You are happy with an elite group of people having the right to impose their will upon an other group of people. Parts of the world???? Here is a challenge for you. Try to say: "Well, I immigrated to one State to escape the idiocy existent in many other States of the world." Anyway, the weather sucks in Canada. You should have gone further South. There are a lot more States down there. Yes, there are many reasons but none of them are relevent to my opposition against state coercion. Just to be nice, I will throw one reason at you: I love my country. Ladies and gentlemen, let me present possibly the most childish argument against anarchy this side of the world: The last time I heard that level of debate was in a schoolyard when mocking the Ruskies was in style and Frankie Goes To Hollywood was all the rage. Correct because we are talking about the morality and principle of state coercion versus non-aggression. Technically, they were employing the exact same logic that is followed by statesmen. I am opposed to both. You are defending one. Are you still going to use the Coase Theorem to defend your choice of which one? Interesting that statesmen and state-cronies occupy the warcraft market. Without state warfare, the technology you fear falling into the hands of individuals would not likely exist. Maybe for the same reason that millions of the dreadful Ruskies who speak the language that you fear do not leave Russia. Maybe I stay here because I have faith in the gradual shrinking of government services/functions into irrelevence and hence shrink the State by default through non-violence. This is where your defense of state coercion becomes ridiculously circular: You say we need a state to defend us but you identify states that are bad.

I am not much further ahead than you but I try. Best hope for what? The PQ wants a country!-- and I want a decentralized Canadian federal government! [i want a little bit more than that but I will settle with less for now....]As a Canadian, I want Duceppe to stay in Ottawa. He defends Quebec interests in Ottawa and keeps the federal government in check. This is where Louis Bernard's concept of focussing exclusively on independence may be the PQ's only way to keep the right and left divide together.

What do those questions have to do with the thread?

Now, BDog, can you briefly compare apples and oranges for us too?

Oil companies do not get together because they can just look outside their window and see what every OTHER oil company is charging. That is not collusion.

Nice of the Liberals to have spent tax-payers' money on a moot point.

discussed in the recent thread: When will André Boisclair resign? -- When, not if under Provincial Politics

After Parizeau quit, he went on a speaking tour throughout universities outside of Quebec. To summarize, he briefly reviewed Quebec history and diplomatically explained the origins of the separatism. He also took questions. This was marvelous. I attended one of his speaches in a completely non-Francophone school and he was met with immense respect from the students. Boisclair can bow out and do something similar. I hope not. Duceppe is doing fine where he is right now.

Correctly according to what? Did Person B act morally? No. Did Person B act in his own self-interest? Yes. Did Person B act in such a way that he could avoid repercussions? Maybe! -- and that would be because of what institution? I'm refering to public education for minors ages approximately 5-18.Why public? Which is directly related to the school, rather than being totally outside and away from it. Do you remember what the issue is here?It is not directly related to the school before they get to school. Do you remember how you supported your position? You were appealing to the cost of non-compliance to a perception of coercion. If a student can not physically get out of his house, is the school coercing him by not carrying him to class? I'm refering to a well known principle, not a particular section of a statute. Google the concept and you'll have no difficulty finding a plethora of material.I will just take your word for it. The only 'big deal' about it is that there is no authority anywhere that authorizes a school to do any such thing, and so doing it is an abuse of power.I disagree. The source of this problem is the general public's sense of entitlement.

What does it matter? The gasoline companies can use any methodology they want. Step in and do what??? -- lead to companies moving out of the gasoline supply industry and consumers would get shortages. The general public would only see supply shortages. I can not believe I am hearing an advocacy for the Soviet experience. Anybody for a game of football? I have a loaf of bread.

Truth about what?? What are you suggesting?

Everybody has to compromise and bend a bit. Incidentally, I believe people in North America should focus their efforts on local crime prevention instead of trying to investigate the backgrounds of every single potential migrant. Let us look at the following hypothetical situation: if on a local level, Canadians fought crime substantially better than did Americans, Canadians might have an upper-hand when it comes to harmonizing migration policy within North America. Despite some of the true colors (Initially, you just lashed out at foreigners) still shining through, you are now open to a wider debate: how Canada deals with people crossing its border. That is a different and more important issue. There are tons of foreigners in both the U.S.A. and in Canada. Some people do not like it and that is too bad for them.