Charles Anthony

You know, RiverWind, I just want to say thank you again. I really am torn between whether this is feeding or trolling and where it belongs vis a vis this whole forum. I follow some of these threads in a wrestlemania sort of way -- ultimately, it never ends until one of the producers of the show gives a cue to end it. As much as I WANT to believe that the towers were rigged, it becomes simpler and simpler for me visualize the physics behind them falling down solely as a result of the two planes. The first thing that did it for me was recognizing that the buildings started to collapse at the points of impact. That really was sufficient. However, now there is this: which pulverizes (permit the pun) any doubt in my mind of the possibility. Maybe try a different line of attack. I do not have any link or reference but I remember a long time ago seeing a scientific examination of why it was physiologically impossible to have a giant the size of Gulliver if the Lilliputians were normal-sized humans. Our bones could not withstand gravity and be able to move at the same time.

No. The state imposes law. Everybody gets Robin Hood confused. He was not stealing from the rich. He was reclaiming taxes -- in other words, money stolen by the king from the citizens. -- the reason why they occur is irrelevent. Are you suggesting that a democratic State is the only just solution to the ills of the world? I think not. Beyond you? You brought up despicable Coase Theorem to justify state law. I do not think you understood that ExPLOItEd was explaining that theft is wrong under all circumstances. Your Coase Theorem does not say that. Ca signifie quoi? A part de leur ecritures, moi, je ne connais personne ici.Neanmoins, je ne vous demande pas d'echange avec lui. Vous m'aviez demande d'expliquer ma philosophie qui est clairement anarchiste et ca ne me gene pas. Parcontre, ma foi et mes croyances ne sont pas uniques je le jure. Donc, out of respect to the focus of this particular thread, further discussion of my personal thoughts should not continue here -- that would be thread drift or hijacking and I like this Opening Premis of this thread because it is a very difficult subject. I have already done so at the end of Hugo's thread.

The other thread is YOURS: Fixed Election Dates on the Way, Yeay ! created only days ago.Surely you should be able to look up the threads that you posted yourself. Are you familiar with the Search function? Alternatively, you could search MLW for "fixed election dates" in all of the threads.

Yes. However, a television set has never turned itself off nor told me I am watching too much junk nor kicked me in the ass nor sent me to bed without my supper nor bought me any junk for Christmas.

Can you expand on that?Mu is what you reply when you interpret the question as being unanswerable of sorts. For example, to the question "Are all cork-screws straight?" I would likely answer Mu or ignore the question or present a litany of cockamamie conspiracy theories.

?? I would recommend choosing a thread title that was less dramatic and more focussed on the topic. For instance: example1 example2 example3

Let me put it where it belongs.

Agreed and the reality is that there are agents of coercive foreign countries occupying in both Iraq and Afghanistan. -- which is a direct result of the continued presence of foreign states. expropriated from the Teaching respect for the law -- A quandary of principle thread Of course NOT because I do not own the road in this circumstance. Of course NOT because I do not own the "victim" in this circumstance. It depends where the transaction occurs. If it occurs on my property, it is a violation of my freedom. What you are over-looking is the right to own property and that includes a patch of land. States only exist because they are able to confiscate property and I deny anybody the right to steal. Wrong. I always claim we do not need government. What we need are fire protection services, road repair, life savers and lawyers.

I can appreciate that "a village raises a child blah blah blah" is an influence. I disagree because a child starts in life dependent on a parent for its most basic needs. A parent is the first person to convey (or fail to convey?) an appreciation of consequences to actions. Parents hold the first concept of social authority in a child's life. Television, pop music and hoola-hoops are not going to feed, bathe, clothe, shelter or love a child.

Personally, I understand that definition but I do not think it is right. Can you not just accept the fact that some people might want the taxation laws to change?

The trouble is that he has more power than a member of government and the horse is out of the barn: he has acted upon that power. I think this event will feed people who see no natural reason to respect state law and will foster criminal activity.From the Opening Post article: This effectively shuts down the entire internet. Thankfully the world is divided up into many small jurisdictions as opposed to a few larger jurisdictions. This: is absurd and ridiculous. My bet is that the judge will likely rule in a practical sense and side with the big players. There is no way all of the intermediaries on the internet should be held liable.

SharkMan, I disagree. One of us might have the cart ahead of the horse. I believe that pop culture, the media, whatever are all consequences as opposed to causes of social behavior. I believe this thread is important because I believe respect for the law is a derivative of a child's upbringing -- in other words, the parents. How a parent scolds a child, how a parent behaves to other children (read: favoritism and shunning) or adults, and so on are part of what creates a child as a social entity. Maybe part of that is natural and the pendulum is swinging. More properly, you should say: "Respect for State law, and by extension State authority, is at an all time low in these mediums too." I just saw a television program that had a parent dealing drugs with children who publicly humiliate a hypocritical drug-taking city counsellor. The children also want to help run the family business. A local D.E.A. officer is also in cahoots. I agree. Two things: 1) acting upon any conception of "the good of the people" is done by individuals 2) it would be wise to examine why such objectives may not apply in totalitarian states; I would say because of level of power and control This is a restatement of the Original Premise of the thread. Beneath it all, it assumes that a state is distinct from the individuals that comprise it. I maintain that when we say The State all we are doing is personifying organized coercion of many individuals. We are putting a human form to something that does not exist. It is analogous to us reducing green-house gas emissions as a ritual sacrifice because a wise voodoo doctor told us it would appease the ancient god who controls climate change. Ultimately, rightly or wrongly, statehood and government are just a sublime power-grab between individuals. I disagree.[First, I think it is important to understand why totalitarian states are illegitimate. Certainly, that is probably best for a different thread but the connection might undermine your position if it can not be proven or even if more and more people do not believe there is a difference.] Second and more to your point, if more and more people think of government services as I do, it might be rational to consider that statist authority can gradually become powerless. I believe what you said "if the populace wants a government" is very important because ultimately, the power and the authority of a state is supported and can be undermined by the populace. I like reminding people that voter turn out over the past several years is not rising. This: sounds like a concession. I agree with you. However, look at two things: 1) citizens may not agree with the method of how government carries these "objectives" out -- they may believe that a laissez-faire mode achieves that result best 2) citizens may not agree with those "objectives" at all What if we observed that the overwhelming majority of citizens find free health-care to be desirable? We could probably agree that we should expect them to make that an "objective" of government. However, health care is not free. My point is that attributing "objectives" to a government really amounts to a reshuffling of responsibility from one individual to an other. Now, back to the principle of the Opening Post: let me ignore whether there is an objective for a moment. Is there an incentive or a practical method for representatives of "The State" to enforce such an objective if citizens simply begrudgingly obey or teach obedience out of prudence? I think not. Shhh! Please do not tell anybody. Of course there are people with more power than other people: law enforcement agents. My definition of morality starts by stepping out of the dictionary: a method of determining right from wrong among human behavior. Now, I have to define and distinguish both right and wrong. right -- a respect for freedom wrong -- a violation of freedom I agree. Let me just say this: - whoever owns the road dictates who is permitted upon it. - you would not expect a "democracy" to decide how you should shovel your drive-way. H.L.A.? I have never read any of his stuff. I wonder how he defines morality. Also, I see nothing inherently wrong with different laws.

Yes, I am serious. The only salient feature that distinguishes "democracies" is that there is an organized method of switching leadership and it is peaceful. The ultimate control placed upon the majority of individuals is the same. Good. I can work with that and thankfully it makes my end of the discussion easier. -- to prevent anarchy, I agree. -- to prevent chaos, maybe but I am not convinced of that. You most definitely did. You just made a moral judgment call above by demanding government-created inefficiencies in some cases but not others to prevent chaos and anarchy. Why should chaos or anarchy be prevented? I am going to cut to the chase: 1) I do not believe anybody has the right to impose their will upon anybody else -- unless in self-defense. 2) I believe everybody has the right to own and defend a patch of land. 3) I believe in an absolute free market resulting from 1) and 2) above. Hmm.... you give me more intellectual credit than anybody else in this whole forum! Thanks!

Obviously the government is not doing an adequate job. Yes. Let the airlines take care of their own security. You are proving my point. What gives?? The price you have to pay for that is government-approved security flying over Lockerbie Scotland. Congratulations.

Correct. My true beliefs are a little less palatable in our current State of affairs. No, you were not. You were categorically making the following association: any type of user pay = absolutely no government roads, not now, not ever That is wrong. Governments can build roads and charge people to use them. Anyway, roads are already constructed. Nobody is advocating demolishing roads. If it does not make them reduce their emissions, at the very least it will make them pay for their emissions.

Dear Thelonius, Wrong. He WAS a hermaphrodite. The proof is buried here: all six seasons -- 136 epsodes spread out over 17 DVDs Now go find it for yourself!

Like it or not, but that is the same principle upon which many democracies operate. Gladly but only if you are willing to clarify a particular aspect of your point of view below. Why do you disapprove of too much state interference in those instances? Do you recognize that there is actually state interference in those instances you list? How much state interference do YOU recognize as morally acceptable? Do you recognize that not everybody in a "democracy" agrees with you? If you can not address those three questions above, I see no reason for us to talk past eachother because your previous differentiation between a dictatorship and a democracy is lacking.

Kimmy, Do you have any idea how efficient your toaster or vacuum cleaner or microwave oven or air conditioner are? The government should not be managing such a market. Banning a light bulb is ridiculous. Part of me suspects that it does not get less ridiculous in a house that is heated with electricity. I have an incandescent light bulb hanging in a cold storage cellar that I turn on for about 30 seconds maybe once a week -- at most. Using a CFL light in that manner is not efficient and nobody will ever detect my clandestine use of an incandescent bulb. The aim of this ban is to reduce energy use. Fine. Why should we reduce energy use? -- because of pollution and to protect the environment. Fine. In other words, we are transferring the cost of the environment. Fine. Those are worthy goals but banning a light bulb is ridiculous. The cost of energy should be raised instead. Thus, CFL or LED or HID (I do not even know what that last one is!) or whatever light bulbs will be bought on their own merits and people will decide for themselves based on their energy savings. The government will not have to micro-manage anything in the lighting or the home appliance markets. There is no excuse for micro-managing a light bulb market. -- the cost of a light bulb is small (compared to the overal budget of a household) -- most households need them -- most households several of them -- people see their energy bill on a monthly basis Arithmetically, light bulb consumption is a very divisible unit and should adapt quickly to market forces. Compare this product to a car where some people have cars and other people do not. If the price of gas goes up or down, poor people will not suddenly be able to afford a car and rich people will not suddenly buy an extra car. I promote raising the cost of energy and leave individuals to choose how they use that energy. If people can not afford their utility bill because of their low income, subsidize their income.

So what. This is not the first crime committed by Canadians outside of Canadian jurisdiction. I do not want them up to no good either but I believe there should be limits. I maintain that the first responsibility lies with the Air India airline company for letting bombs on their plane. Canadians should NOT be subsidizing and taking the responsibility of security for every single foreign flight.

Wilber, The point of this thread is not arguing against government construction of roads. The point is to examine how the roads are managed and accessed AFTER they are constructed. Why not deal with the roads we have right now in a better fashion? Put aside the benefits of government subsidized transportation to depressed or inefficient parts of the country -- for now.

Do all the research you want. However, do not expect somebody else to re-watch all the videos that you did. Give a transcript or a summary or a cue-counter so that people can fast-forward to the relevent parts to prove your argument. If I wanted to prove that Redd Sanford suffered from angina it would be my responsibility to watch all of the videos, identify how many times he clutches his chest wincing in pain and to display clips of each attack. If you want to go back to the original source and watch them for entertainment value, go ahead. It would not make sense to give you an entire box-set and tell you to watch them yourself. That is what people often do with videos to substantiate their claims.

In the grand scheme of things, I would say it fits in like a drop in a bucket. It is certainly not a rational reason to expect people to abstain from defending themselves. I wonder what the victims of successfully-attempted and failed-prevented murders think about that. Hmmm?

Without meaning it, I think I have tripped you up. As such, you are defining a question that has any answer. The answer to your question can be a simple YES by virtue of the fact that you are granting the State the right to make any objective it wants -- one of which could be to force submission and indoctrination of its laws. I challenge you to justify ANY of those as being general objectives of a State.

Actually, they did argue that and a jury of their peers found them guilty of weapons offenses. Personally, I believe their argument of self-defense breaks down primarily because the children wilfully bought and took drugs while living under their parents' roof. Violence against the alleged drug-dealer was not necessary. Agreed. In our current State of affairs, somebody else has to do that.

I find it easier to simply say: she lost.Thus: Sure. That's why it was the exact reverse phenomenon when Belinda ran for the CPC leadership.No, it is not the reverse.