Michael Hardner

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.

No. The findings need to be published, so that the public is satisfied that the system is sound.

So, again, I'm wondering why we're still saying that monopolies happen because of regulations. Sure, there are regulations regarding non-competition, and laws protecting private property, and laws that govern mineral and oil rights - is this what we're talking about ? If so, then I don't see why we're saying that government regulation leads to monopoly. Is that what we're saying ? We should also throw oligopoly out there as an ownership structure that doesn't serve the public good in some situations.

If Bill Gates had a patent on the idea for all operating systems, then that would be a true monopoly.

Right, so an investigation is required first to see if that was breached.

They don't speak for themselves. Many of the points that came out are defensible as discussion, or because whatever they're purported to mean (such as people colluding to keep someone from being published) didn't happen. That's why there's an investigation.

Don't we need to determine if there were individual misdeeds first ? I don't see any option than to wait for the investigation.

He wasn't though. He had bought up much of the supply. How does the government legislate that ?

I will wait for the investigation to see what they have to say for themselves.

It seemed to me that they were perceived as a threat to us by some on this thread. If they have laid down their arms, then what ? I don't know that anybody is pursuing combatants for the purposes of justice, unless you count the UN investigation around the execution of LTTE prisoners.