Michael Hardner

From my knowledge of labour law, and of Ontario, that won't be happening here.

There aren't. The Canadian army doesn't set out to kill any innocents in Afghanistan. And what does this have to do with China's murder of students ? China send tanks to crush riots in which Chinese people were killed. Yes - China murdered students. And you seem to think it's ok. It's pretty rare, but it does happen. There was a very public trial and testimony and the people responsible were found criminally responsible. Did ANYTHING like that happen in China after 1989 ? No. So why are you defending China and saying they did nothing wrong ? They kill people on purpose for expressing their ideas and send people like you to Canada to defend them where there is no government censorship of free speech.

But you're just listening to how these numbers sound, with no analysis as to what is involved. We're currently feeding 4 or 5 billion perfectly well, if world hunger numbers are to be believed.

Nobody is justifying the killing of innocents, except you. You still haven't answered why you think it's a good idea for China to send tanks to crush people who protest peacefully.

Okay, but a disaster for one sector often means a disaster for one group over the other. The ineptness you mention can be mitigated. Like I said, health care should have another thread if we're going to discuss it in detail. The government went to the people with an election on free trade in 1988. I don't think it's a good idea to negate the democratic populace, as you call it. I do think, though, that they can be encouraged to participate in such a way that the truly informed become local opinion-makers for those who aren't really informed.

Agreed, but my solution is not aimed at changing their minds, so much as showing the unenlightened that their claims are extreme and not the view of all with those political stripes.

When did they kill innocents in Afghanistan for protesting or stating their opinion ? If the Canadian government thinks that bjre is saying things that criticize the government will they arrest him ? No, they won't.

It's not publications like the Globe and Mail, National Post or NYT that are the problem, it's the online and broadcast community. One solution is for right-of-centre folks to decry the far-right blog monsters, and for left-of-centre folks to decry the far-left blog monsters.

Pssst.... Harper has been PM for 4 years now...

This has nothing to do with the discussion. Don't forget to blame those who were peacefully protesting for being killed also.

Could be worse - we're still talking about China and its control on media.

You can't use Scripture as evidence when discussing with a non-believer as they don't accept your source. An opinion is not the same as a belief. Opinions are often based on facts, and that's the key difference. Agnosticism is not a belief, and not a religion. Atheism (when defined as non-belief in gods) is also not a belief.

And sometimes this is the right thing to do, and sometimes not. If that's what was meant. That's not clear. Ok, well your ethical standards presumably include allowing those accused of wrongdoing to defend themselves, and the investigation by UEA will give you that input. That's a good point, but inherent in that is the idea that scientists should be taken at their word and commentators should not be. That's not the case with the political media that has developed over the past 10-20 years. They're not held accountable for what they say, and their adherents trust them more and more.

I don't see why buying local is necessary, except as an exercise in understanding local supply and demand. The very idea of economy came from Sumerian trade for metals and agriculture. The costs of transportation aren't that high, even in terms of ecological costs.

No, I have a problem with using "nothing is forever" as a basis for saying effectively that monopolies aren't really a problem. For example, saying JD Rockefeller may have cornered the market on oil, but only a few decades or a century later, there was nuclear and solar. The example of jobs disappearing is not a "problem" either. As I indicated above, it's an economic improvement that needs to be managed. It's an opportunity. The health care example probably deserves its own thread, as this thread has drifted quite a bit anyway. How many times do I have to explain that it's not about wealth distribution, but managing economic change ? The industrial revolution wasn't managed at all, and the resulting shock to the economic system brought revolution. At no point in this thread did I advocate the creation of monopolies by government. You keep trying to pull the conversation back to wealth distribution, I guess because that's where you're most comfortable - where your abstract philosophical points ring the truest. Yes, and I made that point to illustrate why monopolies or oligopolies may arise around limited resources, or trade secrets. When Blueblood said "Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations. " he spoke of government guarantees of exploration rights, as if to say that one way to stop monopolies from arising would be to rescind patent or exploration rights. So again, I'm not talking about wealth distribution but management of change which can bring economic improvements and, simultaneously, catastrophe to any sector overnight. The laissez-faire philosophy, if executed to its symmetrical perfection, will not mitigate these catastrophes.

You didn't provide a cite, but even if it's true - who cares ? We don't have a separate charter of rights for rural Canada. A better breakdown than urban/rural is young/old - and the youth are a group that support same-sex marriage at a rate 3 times that of older Canadians. There's no reason to think that they will change their mind as they age, either: EKOS Poll 2002

Very clear, bjre - "we need to kill people to maintain peace, it's very important".

Wikipedia

As with the RCMP case, the public decides for themselves but they don't render the decision. The former pundits have the advantage of damaging emails that they can misrepresent and quote out of context, though. "Hide the decline" - to someone who doesn't know better - sounds like global temperatures were declining and that fact needed to be buried. Well, you sure have made up your mind. As a side question, do you agree that we need to hold the press to the same standard as scientists, if not more so since they interpret the science for the general public ?

Not in every situation. Your definition is too rigid. Nothing is forever, and there's no such thing as "zero chance of losing it". Even crown corporations aren't necessarily forever. "gov't making it happen" meaning government protecting private property, as I said in my last post. We're going in circles.

But the question is whether he has a "belief" about these things. If he simply doesn't know, and keeps an open mind, then he has no "belief".

You fell into bjre's poorly laid trap. In his world, because the Canadian government bans racist groups from churning up violence, China can ban as much free expression as it likes including any criticism of the government itself. bjre is not open-minded or reasonable, IMO.

This is a poorly-laid trap and anybody who knows your style of debating will give you a conditional answer. In other words, just because there is some internet control for public safety, it doesn't mean that any internet control for any stated reason of safety is reasonable.

Ok. So, you're saying that a way to stop monopolies is to release patents, take back mineral rights and so on where required ? I'm confused. Aren't those ways that the government could come in to prevent monopolies ? I guess your statement: Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations. means that if government didn't prevent theft, grant property rights and so forth, then there would be no protection for those who try to corner the market on a commodity, or process. If that's what you mean, fair enough, but it's really a statement of philosophy that you have made, as far as I can see, and nothing that we can incorporate into real policies. We still have to protect patents, property, and secrets and we still have to mediate those rights to make sure the common good is still served.

What was breached or not breached would be ethical boundries in place (published or not published) for university staff and scientific bodies. I don't think the issue is whatever differences in standards exist between the public and scientists. The public looks to pundits to interpret the findings anyway, and those pundits are the ones in this situation who have no ethical body to report to, and exist to inflame situations for their own attention.