theloniusfleabag

Dear Hugo, That one group will forever be 'the one who is not you'. What I am saying that some are fortunate enough to be able to choose which group that is. Some, such as the Jews in Nazi Germany, did not have a choice. Even as an anarchist, because you empowered (or employed) them(private police) to be the 'final arbiter of rights', you have not, nor cannot escape the fact that someone else must bestow 'rights' upon you. You just seem to want the ability to pay for their favour (and whatever 'rights' package they may have for sale, as close to yours as you can get) on the open market. Or, we can choose one that tries to give equal 'rights' to all. Neither will be perfect, both can be dangerous. I think it would be folly to assume that you could control that 'private army' (or police force) just because you pay them.

Dear Hugo, Perhaps if I called it a 'graphic novel in the philosophy genre', you might check it out. Really though, it was only a reference to ' Who's watching the Watchmen?', a line that appears in the book. The makers and keepers of the law must watch them. That would be, ideally, the people who elect and empower the makers of the law. No, Hugo, it is perfectly logical and consistent with my 'rights' theory. All groups, and individuals, bestow rights. Whether one group 'could' or 'would' bestow more or less 'rights' is irrelevant.

Dear Sparhawk, As Solomon would have said, "Cut that baby in half!" Otherwise, we'd be faced with confronting 'just what land ownership is', and nobody wants that out in the open. Sticking a flag in something doesn't mean ownership, even when it is something so remotely desirable that I had never heard of it until recently.Or, the island could be an ICBM target practice site, and any country can use it. (I'd like to see Martin declare that!)

Dear Hugo, Ultimately, the law itself. There was a great 'adult comic book' I read a number of years ago, called 'The Watchmen', which dealt with, among other things, vigilantism, state power, and ends justifying means. A very interesting read, I hope you get a chance to peruse it. Ultimately, Hugo, I contend that 'rights' are bestowed, so really our best choice is to have the most say in deciding which group that will be doing the bestowing. As August1991's favourite quote about democracy goes, (according to Winnie Churchill)..."Democracy is a terrible way to decide things, but it is better than all the others." If one is invaded or overcome by force of arms, you get no choice whatsoever as to what 'rights' you will be bestowed, whether the invader is Communist Cambodia or the Mafia. The only way to 'maximize your input' as to what rights you may or may not have is through democratic gov't.

Dear Hugo, We need laws for that, and state power to ultimately back it up. Yes we have, and also determined that murder is the only tool of 'land ownership' and 'rights'.

Dear eureka, Thanks for posting such excellent info. I suppose the rest of us should do a little research before dismissing the GG office as 'powerless'. However, I am not sure how old your computer is, or what version of windows you are running, but... this makes me unsure of it's legitimacy, even with the bit, is it still legally binding even though we have achieved independence from the crown? If not, what boob overlooked this bit in our constitution?

Dear Black Dog, Touche. crazymf, I find it difficult to imagine Martin Luther King Jr. a 'scumbag' for being so bold as to sit at a 'whites only' lunch counter (which, at the time, was against the law). If 'blackish' people had just shut up and obeyed the law, there would still be segregation. (Mind you, there is an element of society that would approve) Some 'unjust laws' need to be changed, and the only way to do that, or call attention to them, is to break them. By the way, I do believe the majority of Canadians are in favour of changing the 'pot laws', whether decriminalization or legalization. But, as with most things in a 'democratic society', the concensus needs to be overwhelming, especially on issues such as this one or capital punishment. 51% just won't cut it.

Dear eureka, I have to agree, they are relevant arguments, but the population increase taints some of those numbers. I agree, though, that society hasn't progressed much, at least not enough that we take a different approach to viewing others in society. I knew that decision would eventually be the source of all our problems. (j/k) In Canada, almost 100% of these things are treatable for free. Trauma??? One either heals or dies. However, I hear it said that the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy claims in the USA are due to exhorbitant medical bills.

Dear Black Dog, Both you and crazymf are right. and are seemingly in conflict, but if one is going to knowingly break an unjust law, one must also be prepared to 'martyr' oneself. Martin Luther King and Ghandi both knew that they risked jail. (tough to lump a pot advocate in with these two, but the theory is the same)Until such laws are changed, (and I am in favour of legalization) people like Emery must be fully seized of the potential consequences of their actions. Perhaps it would be different if the seeds were free, but he did make substantial money from their sale, and that is why I favour legalization. The most feared, and notoriously powerful 'gang' that has 'trump power' in law enforcement is the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. They would clean up the 'pot industry' in a hurry if it was legalized. They would force 'grow ops' out of residential areas and enforce minor accessibility far more than the police have the ability to.

Dear eureka, This was taken today off of autonet.caGood news about the drop. Incidentally, my numbers do appear to be wrong, but there isn't really that many auto insurers in Alberta. I did a google search of 'alberta insurance companies' and on something else, and I was a bit surprised. I do believe that I was told (by an insurance broker) that the 'super-underwriter' is Lloyds. (not 'of London', I believe, but I could be wrong)

Dear eureka, Don't get me wrong, I am still quite far left in believing that a 'social safety net' should exist, whether it be addictions treatment or short-term financial assistance (though I'd think a different system other than handing out cash should be applied). However, I regulary see the worst underside of human existence, and have had TV and newspaper interviews about it. I totally agree, but since I see (and claim) that it is only about 5-10% of the homeless population, I'd say lumping them together (as by treating the problem with an unsupervised drug program and then giving them cheques to make their life choices with) is inequitable for everyone, especially those with the legitimate illnesses. Again, I would say perhaps 5-10% truly had a run of bad luck, (no friends or family, losing jobs for 'legitimate' reasons, such as bankruptcies of companies, nepotism, etc) and the rest, I claim, are victims only of their own bad choices. Truly, if society were different, we might actually eliminate the need for 'the basics', food clothing and shelter, but I see these things already being offered by social services, and I see certain people shunning these gifts and society a whole because they prefer the lifestyle of the addict, and choose accordingly. (a lot of them call it 'partying')If society is going to progress in the future, I believe we have a 'moral obligation' to offer them a ride. If they refuse the ride, though, what compulsion do I have not to leave them behind? The rest of us would never get anywhere. (besides, gas grass or ass used to be a nation-wide motto)

Dear Hugo, I will gladly concede the point that certain gov'ts, driven by certain ideologies, have directly or indirectly been the cause of death for millions. What I will not concede is that causing death is the purpose for, or primary function of, a gov't. Nor is it, as Rummel claims, the purpose of gov't to have 'flagrant disregard for people's basic needs'.

Dear SirSpanky, Absolutely, 'tough love' instead of 'free love' should be our 'social safety net' motto. Even the cops and social services workers have a name for this behaviour. They call them 'Millionaires for a day'.BHS, Amen to that. I think our justice system needs a total overhaul, and most of 'the poor, victimized homeless' have done at least some time in jail. Why not start there, with a 'captive audience'? For starters, have jails contracted over to the military, where there is no nonsense allowed. No TV, swimming pools, pool tables or BBQs. No drugs supplied by prison guards. Just discipline and working for your daily bread. No work, no bread (that is how my life is, so why should criminals get 3 square meals a day, free cable, dental and other medical coverage, etc?). I am not talking about slave labour, mind you, like making wallets for export to the streets of Hong Kong, I mean the cooking, cleaning and maintaining themselves and the facility.Why should the victim of a crime pay twice? First, they are victimized (by whatever crime was committed, be it theft, assault, etc), and second, the victim then pays for the criminal to lead a possibly even better lifestyle than even the victim may enjoy. The fact is, there are many alternatives to the excuses given as to why people are are either on welfare or are homeless. There are lots of treatment and outreach programs, free job training or re-training, etc, and it really is a question of 'choice' as to what one will do after one wakes up in the morning.

Dear Hugo, While I could spend more time on his work, I felt it was not worth the effort. Rather that choosing to dispute his figures and methodology, I will freely admit certain gov'ts have killed millions. I was merely trying to point out that his figures for 'war dead' appear to be very wrong. As to 'renowned source', that is very subjective. As I understand it, he is a professor of 'Alternative History', which sounds dubious at best. Most everyone else in the field of history are quite critical of his numbers, which are provided free of the burden of proof and sometimes reason. More often than not, the 'lone voice in the wilderness' is that of the loon.

Dear BHS, As you and Sparhawk both note, the system is open for abuse. Except, although I play 'left-wing', I'd go even farther than you. I advocate 'work for welfare', with rare exceptions for the disabled (who can often work better and are more appreciative of opportunity that the 'fist-fighting freaks') and the elderly. For every ten 'single moms', one of them could run a daycare while the other nine worked. The one operating the daycare could get tax breaks from the gov't in return for subsidizing the rates of the other nine. Many reforms could be made along these lines, and in my opinion, it would be for the betterment of everyone. I work near Calgary's new 'Drop-out centre', and I can tell you that the gov't social services should change their name to "the Great Enablers", for they molly-coddle the addicts, the lazy and the criminals. You should see 'welfare in action'. Drinking or smoking crack from sun-up, then smashing their booze bottles on the street or in the local park (why should they put in an effort to recycle and get some money back? The gov't will issue another cheque!) I regularly have to clean up discarded clothing, personal items, stolen property, etc from the front of my business, and almost all of the discarded items are from well-meaning people who donate to the Salvation Army, etc, but these people don't see their 'gifts' being used as toilet paper by drunken, violent crack-heads on a daily basis as I do. Perhaps I have become a bit jaded, but it is the truth.

Dear Hugo, This is not exactly true, but I am not absolutely sure what the procedure is. There is no question that all of the 'insurance companies' are in cahoots. Normally I am very selective with my conspiracy theories, but they all seem to change their policies and rates to the exact same ones as the others, and at nearly the same time. The biggest reason is that all insurance companies (and in Alberta, I think there is only about 5 'carriers') have to be 'underwritten' by another, super-insurance company, of which there is only one. The part I don't know is whether or not the gov't has dictated that there shall only be 1, or if if the status quo is kept by the companies. Private insurance is no better. I dread a car accident because basically the insurance companies are loan sharks, they'll lend you the money to get your car fixed at the time, but will jack up your rates and get 'their' money back, regardless of fault. My ex-boss got rear-ended twice in a year, and though neither were her fault, her rates went up. They told her "We're starting to see a pattern here", and classified her as a 'high risk' driver. If you make a claim, you're a risk, so it is best to settle privately, whenever possible, (the anarchist way!) even though it is the private sector. Well, I suppose I should clarify, with 'some people', and some are actually capable of selflessness, charity and goodwill. Perhaps the gov't should be run by volunteers! The Rwandan gov't was incidental to the event. It was more of a case of 'tribe vs. tribe', than it was 'gov't vs. the people' (ala Stalin or Pol Pot). Here is a bit from Wikipedia (of whom I am a bit mistrustful) I am assuming these figures include armed conflict. 38 million killed in war is a bit of a wierd number. In WWII, the number of 'war circumstances' killed or missing, , of both combatants and civilians, between only Germany, Japan, China, Russia and Poland add up to about 50+ million. (This includes an estimate of approx 20 million Chinese civilians killed or missing) The total war estimate is about 24 million combatants and an estimated 40 million civilians killed.Starvation!!??I can see some of the blame being put on Mao, and some on Stalin, but most famines are a direct result of environment, and then greed and stupidity, in that order. Well, then, let's take a look at how many people gov't has saved. Forget the numbers, I'll just say 'the rest of the Jews and most of Russia'. One man (Hitler) used gov't as a tool to get people to do his bidding, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have done what he had done without gov't. He would have just needed enough followers to have 'overwhelming force' and he might have gotten started that much sooner.

Dear Hugo, I agree, and yes, I have also seen it's benefits. I am anti-union, (not because I am a business owner) and have seen some private enterprises doing what used to be gov't union jobs that are now being contracted out. Road paving in Calgary is a prime example. They are done more efficiently, quicker and cheaper, with, in my opinion, equal quality. However, there is always a gov't foreman, or project engineer (or overseer) to ensure industry standards and federal law is being met.I would also be in favour of at least a two-tiered medical system, of which Canada basically has anyway. Two of my customers recently sought medical attention outside Canada, rather than wait. One went to the US, one to Switzerland, because they both had the means (lots of money) and did not have the time. Politicians and pro athletes also have their own 'tier' of medical care, far above what the average shmoe has. However, there are some things that I believe that the 'state' provides that will not be done by the private sector without some degree of 'fairness'. For instance, vehicle insurance. It is law that one carries vehicle insurance, (and I don't believe that it would be beneficial to society to remove this law), but the few insurance companies have everyone over a barrel, hiking premiums at will and recording record, multi-billion dollar profits while crying crocodile tears that they don't make enough money. ("all those damned people making claims, they are just trying to get our, I mean their, money back") However, gov't run insurance, such as ICBC have recorded profits, and provided coverage, at a reasonable rate and can be called successful. There are a few other examples, which I don't have time for now, but I agree that a reduction in what the gov't has it's fingers in should be undertaken. I disagree with the abolition of gov't because of my prejudices towards people in general. People, in groups, rely on base instinct far more than the individual. In given situations people stampede. People lynch other people. People commit genocide. People need law. People need all encompassing laws that all are (or should be) bound to. The only way to enforce federal law is through the 'long arm' of gov't. Perhaps this is the only neccesity of gov't, perhaps not.

Dear BHS, Hilarious. You realize of course that Jimmy Carter sent Delta teams in to rescue the hostages, only to see them inexplicably 'crash into each other' on the way to the mission. Then, (after Carter was voted 'least likely president to accomplish anything) Ronnie RayGun and his sidekicks (former CIA director cum-Vice President George H.W.Bush, and election campaign manager-cum CIA director William Casey), came to the rescue with a negotiated secret arms deal (known to many people as The Iran-Contra Scandal) that was already in the works to 'free the hostages'! What incredible, billion to one luck!

Dear BHS, The terms of the 'exit strategy' were 'unconditional surrender or the resumption of hostilities'. Then, see "the Treaty of Versailles, the Yalta Conference, etc" as some 'post-victory' and temporary governance strategy' was developed in these cases. But then again, the Great War and WWII were 'official' wars. Korea really became the start of 'fighting a war without calling it one', and the smudging of the legal responsibilities surrounding a formal declaration of war, both at home and abroad, for all involved parties.

Dear Hugo, I suppose I should clarify with you that both the mafia and the gov't are made up of people. In the past, you have taken the position that 'gov't doesn't really exist as an entity', so I shall assume you undertand that 'those people' assume the power of law once they gain position in a 'state'. You are right, rather than 'sedition', perhaps a better (although more verbose) line would be "creative interpretation of legal parameters as they pertain to definition". You can't call taxation and policing a 'crime', when the state is given the 'right' to do so by 'law', whatever that may be in the particular time and place you are living in. Not exactly, as above, the 'law' gives one the 'right' to do what they do, (though as we both know it can be abused) and Mafia 'operations' almost exclusively run contrary to law. Even an individual anarchist must have law, and further a means to enforce it, or it's worthless. Unless, of course, you follow every negotiation and interaction with the word "Please?". If you know a way to non-violently change the world into a government and violence-free and fair world, I urge you to pursue it. Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha couldn't do it. 'Cause people are in their equations. My powers of reason and my pragmatism still lead me to believe, without a doubt, that at this time and place, the removal of the state (and thereby the elimination of state or federal law, by turning it over to private concerns) would more quickly lead to hell, instead of heaven, on earth.

Dear BHS, You actually don't seem like a moron. (I read the link, utter garbage, kindergarten-level logic).

Dear Hugo, Not exactly. There is still room for 'creative, non-harmful sedition'. A good accountant can save you from lots of tax. In a pragmatic sense, no they don't, I'll agree, just as you equally have no inherent right to privately owning land. 'Justifiable' to the individual, sure it can be. I see plenty of reasons, but practicality is the only one I see actually preventing you from doing so. No, that cannot be said. I haven't argued that the state would provide greater utility, but I believe in some cases it is or would be so. I also haven't yet told you why I think so. Because, as I alluded to above, my prejudices get reinforced ( nay, proven correct) every day.

Dear Hugo, Leaving one's own morals out of the question, yes they are. They both used, or tried to use, overwhelming force to be the one to dictate which 'rights' which group would have. The winner gets is who gets to define who gets what 'rights'. Interestingly, the German commander SS Lt. Gen Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski shook the hand of Polish AK leader Maj Gen Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski after the uprising had been put down, and granted the Polish insurgents 'Prisoner of War' status. Then guess what happened, Hugo. The Russians came. They became the 'overwhelming force', and any 'rights' that had been established or bestowed by either the Germans or the Poles became moot. The Russians came with what little 'rights' that they were going to bestow upon the conquered territory, looting pillaging and raping (some survivors said it was on a scale 10 times what Germany had done earlier in the war) along the way.

Dear Shady, It is considered wise to study one's adversary. Besides, I grew sick of the regurgitated propaganda on CNN and NBC, so at least this is something new. The last thing anyone in the west should do, if they truly wish to end the problems, let alone win, is stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la, its all propaganda...."

Dear Sparhawk, As Greg points out, we shouldn't feed the troll. Ignoring ignorance is the best we can do.