theloniusfleabag

Dear August1991, Well done, very droll. I agree, and disagree with Hugo's notion that the 'summum bonum' of gov't was to eventually enslave and murder it's subjects.

Dear gerryhatrick, The US (and Israel) announced that they were immune to 'war crimes' prosecution. However, internal discipline may use that, or possibly other, verbiage. I doubt that they will seek the death penalty, though. While 'the fog of war' probably can't be used as a defence here, fighting guerillas sometimes calls for 'alternate' measures. Sometimes 'innocent noncombatants' are far from that. However, this seems to be of 'reprisal' killings, which should be rightfully outlawed. I am glad to see an investigation, though.

Dear ClearWest, 'Sharing willingly' is anathema to capitalism, though it does happen. Have a quick read about the Dulles brothers, the United Fruit Company, and Nicaragua. "Sharing bananas' , or the 'fruits of your labour', is something the US gov't, and all capitalists, are willing to kill to put a stop to.

Dear August1991, In the thread 'tyrrany (sic) vs. freedom' ownership 'rights' (indeed, all 'rights') were defined as what is given to you by others. Generally, the more powerful dispense rights (including 'the right to ownership') to the less powerful. Well, were I to aspire to become God, I would say, "The banana trees are mine, and the bananas are free". Then, I would shake my head sadly as the people killed each other for 'ownership' of something they cannot own, but only control.

Dear BHS, No, the hours suck. It is my understanding that a 'caveat' is a lien (mostly on real estate properties).from... http://www.century21.com/learn/glossary.aspx?term_id=184 'Caveat emptor', on the other hand, is 'Let the buyer beware', which applies to a broader spectrum than purchasing items. I spoke with one of my customers, who's specialty is corporate litigation. He told me "Yeah, it's fraud". This is because they posted their numbers publicly (and legally), and the numbers were false. Had it been simply a case of 'word of mouth' advertising, then caveat emptor could apply.

Dear August1991, Rubbish, this is pure 'commie talk'. As a 'libertarian', (or a capitalist), you wouldn't care one whit where the bananas went (to each, according to his need?). You would strive for sole ownership, and charge as much for the bananas as you could get away with, solely for your own personal gain. You yourself have argued that this is the best way to do things.

Dear Leafless, This is one where I must take exception. Sports activities are often healthier activities than sitting on the couch, injuries be damned. I have cracked a couple of ribs while playing hockey, andf broken an arm playing softball, but in total only missed about 5 days of work over the last 15 or so years, all money lost out of my own pocket. (I even got billed for the cast on my arm, as it was before health care agreed to cover the fibreglass casts). I believe I am healthier and happier because of taking some risks such as playing sports. The rest, though, such as addictions being a 'disbility', are outrageous. If a company wishes to voluntarily consider it, and offer rehab, good for them. Job performance should be the only thing they should be legally bound to consider, though.

Dear Renegade, Riverwind gives an all-encompassing (though on the surface, vague) answer here. You ask, and I must answer, No, really. Riverwind touches on why, but I'll tell you in my own words. I am a 'democratic socialist', (though not the NSDAP variety) and believe that if majority will dictates that a thing is needed, all should pay. Mostly this is true, enough times at least, for me to support the notion. Well, let's take the street light. Do you eat food? Well, delivery drivers need those streetlights to deliver product to markets safely. It keeps costs down. Do you drink water? Well, city maintenance engineers sometimes need those streetlights to perform their job so you and I can have water. It would be well nigh impossible to figure out exactly what yours or my benefit would be relative to the percentage of consumption of the lumens of that streetlight. It seems to me, that to 'opt out' of public services would render living conditions 'semi-troglodyte'. I don't see this as being in anyone's benefit, least of all mine. Yet the 'libertarian argument' is to believe that some wealthy benefactor (or the notion that some 'Petey Punchclock' will voluntarily forgo his beer money so that some delivery driver doesn't run over a blind jay-walker in the black of night) would pay for the streetlight out of the goodness of his/her heart. I have my doubts.

Dear August1991, Mine too, but I usually try to avert my eyes to avoid that queasy feeling. BHS, Never mind my question, I googled it. 'TomKat', too, Hrrrrp.<splash>

Dear BHS, Who the hell is Brangelina? I thought you said Angelina Jolie was in Namibia. Is that her nickname? Like 'J-lo'?

Those boys should be drawn & quartered. I read an interview with Mr. Haskayne, a philanthropic millionaire who donated a substantial amount of money to the University of Calgary. He was of the same mind, but perhaps not so extreme. Fraud is a serious charge. If one is led to believe that their investment is doing well, and that they should invest more, and they have no way of finding out otherwise, how can the individual be held in blame? The stock market numbers corroborated the Enron books, at least that is all anyone had to go on, and that is the same with every company (no one can conduct an audit on a huge company such as Enron to see if the 'product' being sold is legit). The other message is that no company can be trusted, and no one should ever invest in one. A dangerous and unproductive way to do business. Caveat Emptor is one thing, but fraud is something else entirely.

Dear BHS, Good lord, stuff like this makes me wretch. How can someone 'wield celebrity status'? Did she threaten to quit acting? This garbage is why I gave up television over a decade ago. Who cares what 'actors' think? People who listen to other people because they are 'celebrities' (for pretending to be yet other people, no less) are the most pathetic excuses for humans I have ever seen. Just my opinion, of course.

Dear Temagami Scourge, This is quite ridiculous. Firstly, mass murderers are different from serial killers. Mass murderers also are prevalent in every racial stock, whether Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Negroid. Secondly, 'racial profiling' cannot be done on a race for something such as being a serial killer. It would be absolutely impractical. I'll agree the number is likely higher, but unless significantly higher, the numbers are meaningless. Are whites more likely to be perps in a crime that involves seeing someone else as 'prey'? (As opposed to other races incarcerated at greater rates for other genres of crimes) Possibly, but wouldn't that mean it is because that are on the 'top of the food chain'?

Dear Renegade, I'll also admit a bad analogy here, but...streetlights, marked crosswalks, even beepers to alert blind people at crosswalks when it is safest to cross are all paid for by the public purse. They do tend to be safer than 'Jay-walking for the blind'.However, I will skip this and address your clarified point: It can be argued that you do benefit from almost every sort of 'infrastructure', whether it is plain to see or not. If you chose to 'opt out', how would the rest of us keep you from using our publicly funded roadways, sidewalks, etc? City water, garbage collection and sewage services? We would have to make you a pariah.

Dear Renegade, It could be argued that they do 'use' it, for it enables drivers to see them better. They get enhanced 'safety measures', because they cannot see a car coming (though they might hear it better than the sighted), but the drivers can better see them.

Dear August1991, I don't like your 'marriage' analogy. It is somewhat true, but it is more like a 'shotgun wedding' or an arranged marriage. You don't really have a choice to remain single, as would be the wont of a Libertarian. Indeed, I am in complete agreement here. The 'Communist Utopia' and ClearWest's vision of a Libertarian society are quite similar in that both would require a similar thought: the individual will benefit from voluntary involvement in community projects. That is like saying "Given absolute freedom, people would turn into 'communists-by-choice". Both 'voluntary communism' and Libertarianism are likely only workable by a very miniscule minority.

Dear Pliny, I would agree on the point with regard to income tax, but the trade off would be exchanging gov't power back to 'private organizations' like the Church. Socialism is basically 'taxation from everyone for the benefit of everyone', though some disagree with the allocation of benefits. Really, it is any system that has between 1-99% taxation. "You are are allowed to keep some of the fruits of your labour, but not all". Or, "You can ride in the 'vehicle of society', but, as the old bumper sticker says, "Gas, grass or ass...nobody rides for free". A couple of points... Mercs have no need of laws, nor restraint, and their loyalty lasts as long as their paycheque, sometimes less. Private police will only uphold the laws, and therefore the individual rights, as decided by someone else. The Nazi SS and SA were a 'private police force'.

Dear KrustyKidd, Not by the US, they would giggle and say France had it coming. It would have to be the UK, Canada or possibly Australia and/or some US interest like the Phillipines to make the US scream 'atrocity'.

Dear ClearWest, I urge your to read through the 'Tyrrany[sic] vs democracy" thread. However, just imagine life becoming a big game of monopoly. (It is now, but pure capitalism is fettered by monopoly laws...you aren't allowed to win) Now imagine Adolf Hitler becoming the world's richest man. Or, imagine I do. I buy the Coquihalla Highway in BC, and Roger's pass. In fact, all of the mountain passes. And a huge spread of land, say the Okanagan valley, and I want no trespassers. It would be my right to do so, and if I had enough money, it wouldn't matter who got screwed. (And to think that BHS proposed that 'charity' was irrational in a market system...he ain't got nothing on Howard Hughes!)How many others of the (30+million) 'nations of one' would stand for it before they banded together and forced their way through? Libertarians claim 'every individual has the right to forcefully defend their property'. So, too, did individuals have the 'right' to defend themselves against the Mongol Hordes. Yet individuals don't fare well against hordes. The animated intro claims that Libertarians are free to choose a leader, yet what about when they don't agree 100% with that leader in the future? Then they must be free to withdraw, and any notion of 'leadership' will be forever impotent. Libertarianism breeds chaos and anarchy. Not because of it's own theory, but because that is the way people are. While we're at it, ClearWest, what is a 'right'? How do 'rights' come into existence? I'll tell you. They are given to the individual by those with enough force to make it otherwise.

Dear Pliny, Not all, I'm afraid. At the administration level, I'll agree. As to the passing of laws and allocation of individual rights, it should never be in the hands of someone with more self-interest than interest in the group. Not sure about whom you are talking, for everyone I know harbours no such illusions.

From August1991's link... As long as Harper sticks to this, it will be good for the country. 'Winings and dinings', though par for the course, if done to excess, will raise the ugly spectre of graft.

Dear KrustyKidd, It actually isn't a good point, because it isn't compared to the soviet occupation in year two.

The story isn't actually false, for it is based on conjecture. The word 'envisioned' was used, an accusation that cannot be proven true or untre. A similar example is William Casey, (former Reagan campaign Chief, then head of the CIA) coaching Oliver North on how to give testimony... "To the best of my recollection, ...[i never did anything illegal]"." Absolutely unprovable, one way or the other, by any court.

Dear Slavik44, Amen, Brother. That is why I strive (not always successfully... lol) to post pue truth. That which cannot be logically eroded to untruth. I posted 'The Meaning of Life' elsewhere on this forum, and I don't think it can be successfully argued against. I wish more people would read it and try, though.

Dear ClearWest, Whoa. Whoa Whoa. Road repair is far down the line in the argument. Easement rights allocations supercede 'collectivist community' project notions. Not to mention that the fact that 'collectivist community projects' are inherently 'communist' in theory, and therefore are the diametrical opposite of what you propose as the best system. This assumes 999 out of 1000 people will voluntarily pay 'taxes'. Rubbish.