Charles Anthony

No. Ghandi made a mistake. He did not realize that some people are stronger than others and some people have the wisdom to realize that a world of blind people are not the best business associates. Why is that a problem?

extracted in response to the Should rich prisoners pay their keep? thread There is no moral premise. To get that moral premise you have to demonstrate the morality of unprovoked aggression or coercion and the definition of a state. Like I said, saying something is legal means that it is written in a book and enforced. I clearly made the distinction between "legal" and "moral" and you quoted me on that. Are you deliberately misrepresenting my statements? You do not have to. You can do better than that. That is for "legal" reasons and not for "moral" reasons. How is that? Go ahead: justify your state-criminal concept.

There is no moral premise. Further exposed in Is "An Eye for an Eye" the best justice? -- Moral & Religious Issues category.

It is getting funnier and pathetic. When it comes to the gay-sympathy angle, I am inclined to think that my characterization of it being a two-way street is still accurate. The stupid BrokeBackMountain skit is being dragged out, dusted off and replayed by the media -- not by Boisclair nor by the party. However, it does not help to have a PQ candidate publish a controvertial history book about the Ruwandan genocide.

On an individual basis, not always -- see below. When it comes to evaluating the quoted statistics, that can not be the deduction. Birth control pills and condoms have a much higher than 50% success rate. The quoted statistics indicate that 50% of the abortions are a result of women not being responsible with their actions. This article is fresh off the press: The Boston GlobeThis botched abortion mal-practice suit really does not chalk one up for the responsible women. If you trace back the timing, being 20 weeks pregnant in the middle of July and having a child born in December makes for quite an extended pregnancy. Something does not jive. Maybe the journalist got the dates wrong. Nevertheless, a woman going that long and not knowing she is pregnant is a bit bizarre too. Not much for the personal responsibility factor but still technically possible. However, if she goes and gets an abortion and it is botched. Who is responsible now? To top it all off, why does she not give her unwanted child up for adoption? Her lawsuit is for an unwanted birth. This does not help in the personal responsibility factor much at all. The botched tubal ligation is even more hairy. This woman tells her sperm-donors that she has her tubes tied but then gets pregnant. Who is to blame?

I am sure members of the Taliban eat their wheaties every morning too. What do you fear?

There may not be a "lawful basis" only because there is nothing written in our law books which says so. However, there can certainly be a moral basis if the criminals and the victims agree to negotiate a settlement.

Anybody else have difficulty accepting the fact that women have more control over whether they get pregnant or not than do men following copulation?

Buy stocks in some of the major banks. There is an active thread started recently that discusses this issue: The Fed Gov't and Banks., The hypocrisy of the opposition.

I get the sneaking suspicion that maybe -- just maybe -- the people at the demonstration have a different take on the matter. Just a feeling on that one.

Let me just cut to the chase first and then everybody can have fun reading the rest of my post if they want: There is an academic school of thought that proposes a return to free-banking. They say government should be out of the money market in the same way as government should be out of the pop music or hot-dog vending or the shoe market. Justify why the agents in the money market should get protection that is different from the agents in any other market. Who has the right to oppose it? Should we apply the same rights to the coffee, sugar, bananas or oil markets too? A potential foreign bank may be satisfied with a little less than "significant profits" but regulation may keep that foreign bank out and never allow consumers the opportunity. That ascertion is like saying "All black modelT Fords are good enough! The government should not permit any other foreign imports." The Canadian economy may be relatively small but it is still divisible. A regulation or a restriction in the market will not increase available choice. However, the discussion in this thread involves more than ATM fees and the Opening Post said: "Let business do what they do, leave government to government." to which you objected. Of course it means nothing. That argument also means less than nothing without a defense. No. It is like explaining the finer points of evolution without an explanation of evolution.It is also like explaining to a Canadian farmer that Canadian consumers do not need Canadian farmers to be protected by government.

No, they are not. That is a bad generalization. A woman has more control over whether she gets pregnant than does her copulant sperm-donor. Those statistics state that to be the case for 50% of the women getting abortions. That is a different argument worthy of a different thread. Citation? Do not assume what I or anybody else accepts. The statistics suggest that responsibility is an issue for 50% of the women who get abortions.

No. I would say that both parties are irresponsible. You are scurrying around the issue of responsibility by changing the subject. Those statistics on abortion state that half of the abortions are directly from women who are irresponsible with birth control. Period. Why bother? For half of the abortions in the U.S.A., taking a pill is too difficult a task.

Can you prove that all of this can NOT be better with less bank regulation? or at least with a change in regulation? Should foreign banks be outlawed or restricted from operating in Canada? Prove it. You fail to see why the government should exist at all. Is there any point trying to explain why the government should regulate some things but not others?I am not asking you a personal question. You fail to justify your argument. My personal beliefs and your personal beliefs on "government" have no bearing on the validity of your argument. If I changed my username and re-asked my question under a pseudonym, would you answer my question? There is a point to explain why the government should regulate some things but not others. The point is that your demands and impositions affect people other than yourself. An other point is that your demands and impositions on bank regulation is not universally accepted and you speak as if it is as glorious as the sunlight we enjoy every day.

Welcome, Jenny, to the forum.

I beg your pardon? You know what, Crony, I am getting ruddy-well fed up with you -- and with your stupefying ignorance of elementary economics. You want to make unfounded and foul personal attacks? You do not know what a free market is. Your twisted examples do NOT represent free markets. Is it your obnoxious lack of knowledge in economics that leads you to accuse me of justifying child prostitution and Enron? or is it your obnoxious personality? If you and I were discussing the history of the Titans and the discussion evolved into which one of them happened to have a huge crater that resembled the Death Star, it might make sense for me to accuse you of arguing YOURSELF round and round in circles, right? However, it would NOT make sense for me to accuse you of justifying child prostitution and Enron. Let me refer you to a particularly fitting essay: B.K. Marcus

Should foreign banks be outlawed from operating in Canada? I beg your pardon? What kind of apology is that for government regulation? We can not expect consumers to understand the intricate details of millions of things. Let me re-ask my question: With what criteria in the world do you decide what you can expect consumers to understand and what they can not understand? Be more explicit. Are you saying that the "government" should force financial institutions to offer specific rates and products regardless of the demand or supply?? If everybody is illiterate or lazy or stupid or any combination of the three, I fail to see how we should have a government regulate a finance industry.

That is actually one of my more recent goals in life. Oh, do not get too comfortable with that thought. The day that YOUR vote carries ANY weight, will be the day that you are completely surrounded by people like me. There is a reason why the "government" spends advertizing money to convince people to vote.

Welcome to the forum, DOAP.

Just to clarify: relative market power is your criteria, correct?

No. I do not believe that. I believe that a free market is just -- regardless of the impact one individual has on the dynamics or the outcome. That is a major difference.

With what criteria do you decide what "needs" to be regulated and what does not?

People who believe their vote matters are complete fools.

Does anybody know what "when everything is equal" means?

I do. Bingo! There is no crime. I was trying to lay a trap and you blew my cover. I tip my hat to you, FigLeaf. I wanted to rope people into accepting a compromise of our current justice system by at least allowing victims to negotiate a settlement with their aggressors. After that, I hoped to force people into examining how the State could determine what my proposed "victim's rights" time sentence would be with the ultimate intent of exposing how NOBODY logically has a right to determine such a sentence other than the victim and the aggressor. Our justice system is arbitrary.