theloniusfleabag

Dear Hugo, I see a problem developing from our current policing system, which I also think would be an inherent problem under any 'self-policing' system. It is the profit motive. The Calgary Police (and I am sure other cities and districts) have begun to move their efforts away from law-enforcement and crime prevention, and are putting them towards revenue collection. Red light cameras, and especially the Multa-nova radar system, are cash generators moreso than they are 'safety generators'. If I were wealthy, a photo radar ticket would be no more than a minor inconvenience. I would even ask, if I were able, to buy a 'monthly speeding pass', or to make a cash deposit against any future tickets I might get. "Here's $1000 dollars, let me know when I use it up". It is only a deterrent to those of lesser income. If the profits generated by devices such as these are used to buy more devices, it suits to serve the profit motive, but not (or at least less) the citizens. (I disagree with the practice of any of the fines collected going to cover the costs of the police service). The goal of those involved in business is to 'maximize profit' and it cannot be said that there is any profit to be had arresting a murderer, (Or even less, preventing the murder), so in what direction shall the police go? Now, relating this to Anarchy and self policing, the Anarchist has a vested interest that the same 'policing for profit' scheme would also occur. It would be folly for the individual anarchist to spend more on policing than one could expect in return. You would 'bleed red ink' and therefore your rights would be doubly violated, should a 'crime' occur. (For the sake of reasonable argument, let's take a simple example of such a crime. Say, a tresspasser comes onto your property, and siphons gas from your car. Two crimes, really, but with demonstrable loss) Now, if you catch the person responsible, and make them pay restitution, what shall it be? The cost of the gas? What should the penalty be for the tresspassing? If you only recover the cost of the gas, you have still lost overall, because you spent effort (that could have been used elsewhere) in the recovery. It would only be fair that you you recover your gas plus the costs of recovery. How would an anarchist recover anything without violating the rights of the tresspasser? ( To take this to extreme, some places in the US have the 'instant death penalty' for tresspassing, if you are caught on the wrong person's land) This is one of the reasons why I believe that the policing system must belong to a non-aligned 'social structure mechanism' with standardized penalties, and a shared cost through the taxpayer.

Dear Hugo, My apologies, I have been too busy recently for any posts, though I have tossed a couple out there on a few subjects. There are some points I will concede on, but there are a few I still have issue with. Policing, mainly, and the gov'ts role with it. I shall try to make some time this weekend to revist this and a couple of other points.

Dear Imissreagan, Speaking of irrational hatred, it is pretty clear that Mr Bush won the election by making 51% of Americans feel safer from the threat of nuclear attack from Iraq. There was no threat from Iraq, and America is not safer, but some THINK they are, so it's all good. Dear kimmy, I agree that Mr. Kerry's concession will be good for America, rather than a lot of uncertainty. I wonder what he got out of the deal. 'Doing the right thing' ain't worth 'piss in a pot' in the US. My predictions for Bush's new term... war with Iran, and with it, institution of the draft, late 2005. War with North Korea in 2007. The US has already shown that they haven't the 'cobblers' for a real fight (and they never have), so they won't defend Taiwan if China invades.

A recent estimate by The Lancet estimate Iraqi casualties at 100,000. Hard to believe, given the much lower estimates of other organizations, and the relatively small study base. However, there is no question that the number of casualties is soon going to (if it has not already done so) surpass the numbers blamed on Saddam's regime. The Lancet claims that the average Iraqi is 58 times more likely to die a violent death post-invasion than before it. It shall be hard to prosecute Saddam, with an ostensibly worse regime 'in power', after his removal. Vae Victus!

Slavik44, there is a good song about this from the 60's, called "Whitey's on the Moon" from beat-poet Gil Scott Heron.A trip to the moon WAS unimaginable, and to do it WAS astounding. Even a man on Mars is no longer unbelievable, just costly. As Hugo implies, perhaps another Ansari-X prize might justify such a venture, but it cannot be justified out of my (a taxpayer) pocket.

Dear Hugo, Indeed. It is a small company, with only my wife and myself as the shareholders, and 1 employee (for now). I am reasonably confident that my actions will not be the cause of a lawsuit, but such cannot be said with the same confidence of any employees, with risk increasing in direct ratio to the # of employees. These employees act on behalf of a company during working hours, so it is only fair that the company carry insurance to protect the company from bankruptcy due to the possible negligent actions of an employee. It is also fair, I believe, that a person harmed by the actions of an employee should be able to sue the company that person represents for damages. This, of course, is a two way street. For example, if I go to McDonalds and get served a McChicken Sandwich with a big cyst on it (true story,glad it wasn't me), that makes me ill, whom do I sue? The server? The company? The cook? It has to be the company, for they bear ultimate responsibility for what I get served. They carry insurance, too, believe me. What happens after the fact, like quality control, screening employees (If the cook knew about the cyst and served it anyway, just for larfs)etc. are the internal affairs of the company.The insurance issue is not much different from an individual to a corporation, theoretically. It is meant to cover risks. Auto insurance is the similar. Both the insurer and the insured agree on a fee that will guarantee that reasonable costs will be covered by the insurer should a mishap occur. It is like gambling. (Unlike operating without insurance, which is gambling for the stupid). Shareholders demand insurance, as August1991 states, to protect their investments from the actions of a 'perhaps renegade' employee acting on behalf of the company, or from unforseen mishaps. I would suspect, Hugo, that you would be against forcing drivers to carry insurance.

Dear Hugo, I own an incorporated business, and have insurance. It is taxed separately, and is 'legally liable' separately from myself. I have been told that to further protect myself from liability, I should create another 'shell company', (Fleabag Holdings, for example) to 'own' the first company and further remove my personal assets from risk. In contracts with my customers, they are doing business with my company, and not with me personally. Liability is then limited to the insurance I pay for, and not my home or car. That is why there are clear liability issues between "proprietary", "limited", and "incorporated" businesses. It seems that you are arguing that all businesses should be governed by 'proprietary' rules. Corporate entities, as much as you would like to think they are 'non-entities' are vital to business. If the consumer has a choice of where to purchase goods or services, they often go to 'brand name' companies. The corporate "Brand" is often as important as the product itself. It gives the consumer peace of mind knowing that they could sue, and have a reasonable expectation that they could recover their loss. The same could not be said for most proprietary businesses.

Dear Hugo, This has been done, I believe. The purpose was to help eliminate the large number of loan defaults, and I think it was RBC or BMO that underwrote student loans in Alberta commencing some years ago. I wonder, though, if the bank loaning the student money has a say in what the student can take for classes. Just as banks are loathe to lend for high-risk ventures such as restaurants, would they give a student a loan for a philosophy degree? Or a BFA? Should the bank have a say? Not really, just cheeky. If a certain percentage of people are needed to work low-income or menial jobs, and if private enterprise were to control schooling, it would be in the best interest of the school to 'direct learning input' early. Why waste a seat in in chemistry or geography class on that percentage which will never utilize it? The privately run school system (Let's say McDonald's Corp bought all of Calgary's high schools and The UofC) would maximize returns for themselves by 'weeding out' the lower 50% of students from the classes that require 'higher intelligence'. The top 50% would then have smaller class sizes and receive a better education, and be more likely to pay off those exorbitant student loans. The lower 50% could then be focused on being better 'peons'. After all, why would a privately run school invest time and materials equally throughout the school when the return on investment is guaranteed to be 'not equal'?

Dear August1991, Hamburger University, and hands on training for a McJob.

Dear Hugo, I have personally seen the opposite. I believe it can be possible in individual cases, but for the vast majority, it is impossible. I agree, scholarships and bursaries are available to those who strive for them, but they are limited to the top 1-2% at high school. I have never heard of this. Do you mean schools run by cults such as the Dukhobors and Creationists etc.?

Dear kimmy, I understand that selling one's identity and/or passport can garner a pretty penny. Canada, Australia, etc command higher prices because of the lack of restrictions on travel imposed by the passport issuing country, and the general 'goodwill' of certain countries. Two alledged Mossad agents have been charged with identity theft recently in Australia (or New Zealand, I think) and this is a common tactic among those who wish to operate anonymously, internationally, and beyond the law. Possibly the case here, but it is too early to tell.

Dear kimmy, I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to war, it's declarations, and it's boundaries. I would not call the actions in Rwanda 'civil war', although it was part of it. The Hutus tried to exterminate the Tutsis, man, woman or child. I find this different than warfare, which is usually about territory and/or political control. Legally, if one faction wins the territory of another, the become responsible for the welfare of the people in the country/territory of that which they conquered. (Interestingly, the victor also becomes responsible for the body count, something which the US hastily estimated recently in Iraq). So, the Rwandan genocide could not be called a 'circumstance of war' any more than Hitler's attempted extermination of European Jewry could be considered 'an act of war'.

Dear August1991, As far as I know, you can show that video in a public place. What you are not allowed to do, is sell admission or otherwise profit from showing the movie 'without express written consent of "yada yada Broadcasting Corporation".I would guess that Hugo is not against file-sharing on the internet.

Dear kimmy, Where would the USA be if they weren't 'allowed' their Civil War? Should England, France and Spain have invaded the USA and imposed a gov't by force (which would not be the 'will of the people') in order to avert 'too much' bloodshed?The 'humanitarian cost' would be 4x=y, most likely. I think Hugo sums it up well with They must make their own way, and true freedom is never granted, but won if the will is there.

Dear Argus, Well said, and I must agree. I believe in the spirit of what the UN stands for, but it's current set up is near farcical. What can be done though, or what would be the optimum structure? Having the majority will of the citizens represent the vote cast on behalf of the nation on resolutions? Or have the UN run by people who must renounce citizenship and live with no country to call their own, or represent?

Dear Hugo, I believe that in a round-about way, the far-right proponents of the free enterprise system seek to accomplish the same thing, without the directness of genetic manipulation. If such social systems, such as a publicly funded and mandated school system, become privatized, the owners will 'chart the course' of everybody from kindergarten on up. The owner of the schools will be driven by his/her own economic interest, and so what you will learn, and why, will increasingly be about what serves the owner, and not the individual nor society, or at most,just to the basest degree.

Dear Hugo, Here is something interesting in the news. It was in the Calgary Herld but was actually from The Times of London. So much for Anarchy. And for 'socialism', too I guess. Wouldn't the use of this, though, be desired by a 'free enterpriser' as the ultimate in 'maximizing profit'? Personally, I think it is an abomination, as is any 'GMH' (Genetically Modified Humans).

Dear eureka, The 64 billion dollar question. The UN must be able to wield the military might of it's members, or have a standing (and very costly) Army of it's own. It's not the law that is wrong, it is the impotence of the UN to implement resolutions that is the biggest problem. More things would 'come to the table' if the UN actually had the power to enforce resolutions. Israel, USA, Russia, China (though not a member) etc would 'play the ball' entirely differently. As to the Fox "News" article 'I miss reagan' posted, no wonder the CRTC doesn't want it in Canada. It is 'false advertising' calling what they print 'news'.

Dear Hugo, I read a book on Mao, written by his personal doctor of many years. While most of it dealt with the infighting within the system, some historical bits were also revealed. For instance, Mao had once seen a peasant smelting his own metal and thought it was ingenious. Virtually overnight the majority of the peasantry abandoned farming and took up smelting. The coal and other fuels were used up more rapidly, the metals smelted were practically useless and widespread famine was the result. From a search on google I found a source from Wikipedia, which confirms your claim that privatization was a key factor in avoiding famine, (Especially in the Netherlands), but also that famine occurs naturally from time to time. Especially in the 'old days', even one bad year could be devastating. People slaughtered their draught animals for food, so that the next season production capabilities were severely limited, and the consumption of the seed grains for food pretty much guaranteed famine for the next couple of years. This is no great surprise, the population vs arable land was hugely favourable in N. America (And it has only been farmed intensively for the last couple of hundred years) at the beginning, and only could have been a concern recently, but modern transportation has meant that N. America has no need to be self-sufficient.

Dear Hugo, Ok, I led with my chin on this one.However, many advances in science, and some by accident has led to higher yields, less devastation from pests, etc. Centralized agriculture was not the cause of the famines, but in some cases, did exacerbate the problem. Mao, especially, screwed up bad. I do not see how you can believe in a company, but not a gov't(actually, I can). The profit gained by the individual from gov't vs. industry is that the latter offers pure cash, while the gov't rewards must be shared. So, as an anarchist, you dislike sharing.

Dear August1991, Moreso? Surely you jest. However, Canadians are not seen as 'the pushers', more like 'the addicts'.With reference to inter-marriage, my wife's sister moved to the US and married a fellow from Texas. They live in North Carolina now, and he works for the Bank of America. They are in the process of moving to Canada, as they cannot wait to get away from the 'lunatics' in the US. Another close friend of mine lived in New Jersey for a few years, and coudn't believe the ignorance, and narrow-mindedness of the people in the US. He moved back to Canada when his wife got pregnant, because he said there was no way he would raise a child there. Perhaps these are isolated incidents, but I doubt it.

Dear Hugo, Water, yes, most definitely. Filtration (and it's standards), fluoridation and delivery are impossible for the individual. Food and farming industries are often subsidized by the gov't. I would guess that in the long run, it would prevent famine, because a farmer with gov't assistance is less likely to convert his land to Casino space, to maximize his return of the square footage.

Dear August1991, A wide open statement, to be sure. Do you believe in no controls? Society would be freer, but not neccesarily better. Fox 'News' is 'infotainment', not a reputable news channel. They are 'brainwashers'. As Bernard Lewis wrote in the Wall Street Journal in Sept. 2002, regarding the contempt Islamists feel about America. "The basic reason for this contempt is what they perceive as the rampant immorality and degeneracy of the American way-contemptible but also dangerous, because of it's influence on Muslim [and Canadian?] societies. What did the Ayatollah Khomeini mean when he repeatedly called America the "Great Satan"? The answer is clear. Satan is not an invader, an imperialist, an exploiter. He is a tempter, a seducer, who, in the words of the Koran, "Whispers in the hearts of men". Quoted from "Imperial Hubris", page 211 by 'Anonymous', 2004. Evidently Usama felt Khomeini was a bit soft on America.

Dear Hugo, I believe the gov't should have exclusive roles, but not all-encompassing roles. Gov't should be limited to those things which provide for 'public good', such as schools and roadways, law, etc. Gov't should have a job to do, just as the police, and 'individuals or groups of individuals' have to be trusted to do their job, without letting the 'anarchist self' control one's actions. If people cannot be trusted to be police as their 'job', then how could any company survive?

Dear kimmy, I would expect that 'political and philisophical' changes were unwelcome, as the Koran is the undisputed (according to Muslims) Word of God. Other than that, it is probably a good thing (for me) that Islam did not seek global dominance, or to be the most powerful and best equipped militant nation.