theloniusfleabag

Dear kimmy, I got this quote from Wikipedia, about the Muslims 'doing nothing'.

Dear Hugo, This thought is my own. I don't know that I can take credit, because I thought it was obvious. Let's call it 'Marxist-Fleabagist'. In a way, it does address Pareto-optimality, though I must admit I had not heard that exact term until you 'coerced' me to look it up this morning. Free enterprise vs. Marxism are systems of economy, while totalitarianism vs. democracy are systems of rule (or of power and law, if you will). I contend that only Marxism and Democracy, or Free enterprise and totalitarianism, can go together if they are allowed to run their natural course. Democracy can only be viable and 'true' if all the people are equal. In the free enterprise system, lobby groups, et al. taint 'equality' in their favour. If such a system indeed existed ( A post I'd gladly give up all 'eathly possessions for) then that person would merely decide upon what choices the 'equal masses' would vote for. That person would have to be very careful, for he/she would only benefit equally and to the same extent as everybody else, so 'greedy individualism' would have to benefit all.

'Canada' knew these subs were 'damaged goods' but decided that it would be cheaper to 'fix them up' than to buy new. What I find hard to believe is that they would send out a Sea King to be involved in the rescue mission. I was expecting it to crash into the sub and kill everybody. I guess Canada got the 'infamous tail-light' warranty on these subs, like buying a used car. Once the tail-lights are out of sight, the warranty's over! To lose a sailor's life over this is truly a sad, sad day for Canada.

Dear Hugo, I would suggest that the 'monopolistic police force' of society is at least Pareto efficient for it places all citizens in the same boat, as it would for a democracy or a dictatorship. The police are given the powers to uphold the law collectively because individuals cannot be trusted to uphold laws in the same manner, or to the same degree, as a set of collective laws. I would further suggest that the reason many favour the 'free enterprise system' as the mechanism for driving society is that it is fuelled by human greed. This would render 'Pareto optimality' unobtainable, except for under a system of 'true communism', a Marxist-Democracy.

Dear Hugo, Yes, but that is all it is, and it is limited. 'Property ownership' gives you the right to call the police 'or (army) to take your side in any 'demarcation dispute'. Basically, protection money. You would have to enlist a 'private force' if the land were ruled by 'anarchy'. You get that same protection, now, from society as a whole, with the masses funding that force. If the country were over-run, you would either have to pay the new occupier for 'recognition and protection' of your 'private property', or lose it all, depending upon the whim of the new 'occupying force'. Thus is property ownership. The 'right' to own can only be protected by, or scotched by, force.

Dear Hugo, I didn't say they had the 'right to', I said they had the 'guns to'. Guns don't make things right, they make things happen. Interestingly, Saddam Hussein said in one of his 'Open Letters to the People of the United States' that "White Europeans have still been the only people in history to carry weapons across the Atlantic to North America for the purposes of conquering". If you deny the legitimacy of ownership of conquered territory, and think the 'conquerers' should return all lands 'ill-gotten', we'd all be huddled in a gorge in Kenya. but I digress.

Dear Hugo, In regards to the 'ownership of Canada' I shall begin with this quote. As an anarchist, I'm sure you'll agree to it's relevance. It is taken from my Canadian Global Almanac (1992) of '100 Canadian Quotations and Phrases' p.97. #6. "We we Caesars, there being nobody to contradict us." Pierre-Esprit Radisson, French explorer and fur trader, describing the life of the coureur de bois, journal of 1661. First claim of 'new wilderness' was made, (albeit against the ignorance of the 'originals', the First Nations, to it's implications)and 'Kanata' was claimed, for the first time, as property.(How far did this claim extend? How far can/should it? As far as the eye can see? As far as can be imagined? Or as far as it can be defended by force of arms?) The new 'country' was claimed, sold, bought, fought over, etc. as a whole (At least New France, Upper & Lower Canada, etc. were concerned). It was long ago 'claimed' far before you or I ever got the chance to. It belonged to the 'crown'. Therefore, it was theirs to dispense with. Now, I'm sure you'll remember the 'sodbusters' that were promised 'free land' if they moved out west, and worked the soil. (Again, some 'injuns' had to be killed, because they had no idea what it meant to 'own land'. They were just part of nature's cycle, according to them) The Crown never actually 'gave Crown land' away, they just made it sound that way, because they still owned 'the whole' . They 'de facto' leased it to the homesteaders, for they still expected 'Crown laws' to be obeyed, and expected taxes in return. The Crown became 'The People of Canada', and developed a 'representative democracy', but the 'ownership of the whole' still resides in the theory of 'Crown land', subject to annex for the benefit of the whole if 'the people of Canada' feel it neccesary. The 'people of Canada' place this power in the hands of elected officials, the 'majority', willingly.

Dear caesar, Indeed, the US, and the UK especially, must consider the Iraq invasion as 'crying wolf' and it has served to undermine international respect for them. The second time it happens, (in such an obvious way), people will be more leery. The third time, they will cry "Bullsh*t", and it may be when they actually need help the most. Oh well, if Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair haven't read the story, they may be the ones eaten.

Dear Hugo, Then you should have ran. Either away or in the election. I believe 'society' to be a progress forward, from anarchy. If we try to change things, they should change forward, not backward.

Dear Hugo, No one forces you to vote, but if you do, then you are 'rolling the dice'.

Dear August1991, Indeed it is, but there must be some controls over what is acceptable. The KKK, for example, should not be allowed to run it's version of how it sees the world and call it 'news' either. After having viewed Fox and Al-jazeera news sites, I would say the latter is more reputable.

Dear RB, I found this on google, but a bit difficult. I remember this story when it happened, as well as a woman who had displayed the rotting corpses of rabbits for 'Art' money.

Taken from al-jazerra today, Fox News Channel has disciplined one of its senior journalists for posting a falsified article about Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on its website. Fox official Paul Schur said on Sunday chief political correspondent Carl Cameron had published a fake story with several made-up quotes attributed to Kerry. The article lied about a post-debate rally at which the Massachusetts senator was purported to gush over his "metrosexual" appearance. "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" the article by Cameron read, purportedly quoting Kerry after the event. "Women should like me! I do manicures," the story also quotes Kerry as telling the crowd. The article also has the Democratic candidate contrasting himself to US President George Bush "I'm metrosexual - he's a cowboy," Cameron quoted Kerry as saying. Apology Officials for Fox, which has been criticised for being partial to the Republican party, declined to explain how the spoof article ended up on the network's website. A statement by Fox on the website on Sunday apologised for the article, saying it was a joke. "Foxnews.com erred ... on Friday, posting an item purporting to contain quotes attributable to Kerry," the statement read. "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. Foxnews.com also regrets that error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."

Dear Hugo, You rolls the dice and takes your chances...but it is wrong to not 'pay up' if you are unhappy with the outcome. Besides, tyranny is in the eye of the beholder, not too many people go around after an election and say 'yay, my tyrant won!'.Taxes are a neccesary evil, and the vast majority of Canadians agree. It is the waste of those tax dollars that most people have a problem with. Will explain later, going fishing with a buddy. I will need to use public roads to get there, though, and I gladly paid my pittance for a fishing lisence. The gov't owns the fish too, you see, by enforcing rules regulating fishing practices. If it were not regulated, there would be no fish left. They allow me to catch only a certain number, of certain species, and at certain times of the year, in order to preserve the long-term health of the species as best they can. Now, I'm off to catch some delicious gov't issue rainbow trout!

Dear Hugo, 'Sound' is a human word that represents the registration of percussive waves against human receptors, or eardrums. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make percussive waves? Yes, absolutely. Does it make 'sound'? Not unless a human receptor calls it such. Until then, percussive waves have no 'humanly identifiable or understandable' name. (A dog or a coyote couldn't tell you what they call it). That is the nature of 'representative democracy'. One (actually everyone) is expected to swear fealty to the candidate given the 'mandate of the masses', rather than 'true' democracy. Technically, the Gov't does 'own' Canada. That 'ownership' is transferred every election.

Dear maplesyrup, Sadly, it is how the US views others. As I have posted elsewhere, an assessment by the US Army suggested a 'value ratio' between the lives of Rwandans vs. American soldiers, and it was, in a 'valuable asset' sense, eighty thousand to one. It has been estimated that 800,000 Rwandans died in approximately 100 days. The US would not risk any soldiers to save them, because if they lost 10 it would have been considered a bad investment. Source of ratio: "Shake Hands With The Devil" by Gen. Romeo Dallaire.

Dear maplesyrup, Sadly, it is how the US views others. As I have posted elsewhere, an assessment by the US Army suggested a 'value ratio' between the lives of Rwandans vs. American soldiers, and it was, in a 'valuable asset' sense, eighty thousand to one. Source of ratio: Shake Hands With The Devil by Gen. Romeo Dallaire.

It has been said that "The first casualty of War is the truth". I just read something on a Yahoo news link about the US fighting 'anti-Iraqi' insurgents in Iraq, and I wondered what on Earth that meant. How can the Iraqis, fighting the occupation of Iraq (in their mind) be anti-Iraqis? Propaganda at it's most inglorious. Does the media have the right to engage in propaganda, or should it serve just 'truth'? Should they be forced to issue a disclaimer before news broadcasts that says "The information contained herein may not be truthful nor factual, but is presented in such a way as to maximize profitability for us, and to serve the interests of a third party?"

Dear Hugo, In regards to monopoly, you admit this... If 'free enterprise' were really free, one should be able to pursue monopoly. If one is to increase market share, the most it could be increased to is 100%. Once one of the competitors reaches a certain level, (let's say 51%) buying out the competition becomes easier. The point of any competition is to win. If there is unlimited freedom (or self-policing), monopoly becomes the ultimate goal (why aim for less than 100%?). Monopoly over every industry, every supplier, and the monopolist becomes a living (if resented) God. If anarchy promises the ability to attain this, who wouldn't want it?

Dear kimmy, Yes. The west has enough problems at home, they don't need to borrow trouble. If the US leaves the Arabian peninsula, and stops supporting brutal dictators who oppress Muslims in order to exploit their resources for the US sole profit, America will no longer be under threat of terrorist attacks (at least from OBL)

The Govenor General is a figurehead only. When was the last time someone feared 'the almighty hand' of Adrienne Clarkson? The best PMs we've had in my lifetime were all French, the Anglos were all boobs. (actually, they all were) Nobody claims Canada has been 'hard done by' because of the ethnicity of the PM. (Unlike other countries) Canada could and should be proud that ethnic diversity and background is not the foremost judge of one's character.

Why does one masturbate? (Better yet, why can one masturbate and be funded by the Canadian Arts Council?) Art is everything, but only valued (or evaluated) by the beholder(and/or peer pressure). Art is love, and, as an abstract entity(as is love), is manifested (and bound by the limits) of those in love, the artists. What compels them? The desire to unfetter their 'loves' from convention.

Dear Hugo, Let's say Canada is a vehicle, one driving into the future. You and I (and others) are passengers. We all vote as to which direction we shall go, (hopefully to a brighter future, and not to some sordid place like Tijuana, or Washington D.C.) and you are the lone dissenter. Do we force you to continue with us, or do we stop by the roadside and kick you out? It seems, as an anarchist, you do not want to go anywhere. Why did you get in the CanadaMobile in the first place? (I guess you could say you were born there) So, should the others (parents forcing an education on you, for example) make available to you the information regarding your options? Do you have the right to refuse such information? (of course you do, you can also disbelieve it, or twist it to conform to whatever belief you may have chosen). Then, if you say to your fellow passengers, "stop the Canadamobile, because I wish to go nowhere!", what obligations to the other passengers are there to stay at the roadside with you? I say they should be free (as you) to make their choice and proceed or secede. But you can't take the car!

Dear Hugo, Here's one.

Dear Hugo, My apologies, you are right, slinging insults is wasteful. However, my frustrations arise from not receiving answers to direct questions. I would certainly be happy to revisit certain points and address their feasability, but I must say that your examples of 'working anarchy' are far less than 1% of history's model examples. Any scientist would certainly take a 1% 'success rate' as not feasible. Failed Anarchism? I believe in the right of the individual, but only as a starting point to build a society.