kward

Yes, the same diplomat who says, "oh that's too bad, I guess you won't be needing 'x'..."

If they're dumb enough to put their money into a Canadian owned bank and then turn around and attack Canada, they'd deserve to fall apart as an organization...and they would in that scenario. With no money they'd be scattered to the wind.

With what...invisible ninjas? They try and take it, we destroy it. Sure we won't have it to use, but neither will they...you find their weaknesses, and you exploit them. A far more cost effective policy than wasting untold millions and billions arming to the teeth.

You stated it beautifully..."they had something the Germans needed and they used it against them" Canada is nothing if not loaded with resources other nations need. You find the pressure points, and you exploit them. You don't waste everyone's money on a never-ending parade of toys.

The smart ones do.

At the end of the day, if someone wants to invade, they'll invade. No matter how many billions you waste on fighter jets this is true. So why waste the money. Diplomacy and trade work. There are lots of reasons the Nazis invaded the USSR - your broad brush only illustrates the point that at the end of the day you can only do so much. If someone is determined enough to try and attack...then attack they will. You think buying 'x' amount of fighter jets and wasting everyone's money in the process makes that less of a reality? I'm here to say it doesn't. I can't help it if people do not want to listen to reason.

That's fine, and I will continue to tell them they're wrong, and they don't have the control or the freedom they think they do. Of course, some people learn the hard way. Not enough have yet though to embrace freedom. That may change once currencies collapse.

Those are examples I gave of alternatives to having everything regulated by the state. Removing government regulation is good, and there may be some merit to privatizing all of the above. But as I've said, time and again, the best solution is to have a free market, and a minimal sized government that can provide an efficient, relatively red-tape free system of courts, contract enforcement, and defense. Protecting liberty would be job one. If the will of the people in the free market decided to have the government provide firefighting and police force...so be it, but it would not be the expensive over the top model we have right now. Ways to reduce those costs are to have people take responsibility for themselves. Protecting your property is important - be it from theft, trespassing, or from threats like fire. If people took more responsibility for themselves and felt less entitled to everyone else's money, maybe the government could play a role in policing and fire protection while keeping the bureaucratic waste in check. THEN, we'd be getting somewhere. Medical service under government control is not the way to go. I don't advocate eliminating government. I advocate minimal government. How you cannot see the difference is beyond me. In one scenario there is no government, in the other there IS a government. Do you understand yet? Cop out. You don't have a valid argument against free market capitalism, so your idea is to try and label me an anarchist and argue against that instead. The only problem is, you're arguing against yourself...I don't want anarchy either.

Anarchy is no government. I propose minimal government. Under what I'm proposing there is still a government. See the difference?

Remove inefficient bureaucratic policing yes. Remove any kind of policing no. See the difference? I'm not proposing anarchy at all. How many times do I have to say that government has a role, albeit as limited as possible? Turn off your selective sight. Contract enforcement is necessary at a government level, otherwise we take a step toward anarchy...which if you've been paying attention, is not what I advocate. Hold on...why can't they do anything about it? Not via an income tax you don't. That's essentially theft. But not all taxation is bad, taxing consumption is a viable option. Tariffs are another. People who want to do away with all government are anarchists. For the millionth time...I do not advocate zero government. I recognize it has a function, but it should be kept to a minimum. If you knew the difference you wouldn't say that. I have not suggested anarchy, i.e. no government...not once. I'm not sure why you cling to the belief that I support anarchy. Maybe because you've realized the virtues of a free market capitalist society, but you just don't want to admit it out of some point of pride? I don't know. Just a guess. Otherwise why would you continue to mischaracterize what I am saying as being something else? Perhaps you still don't understand the difference? Why wouldn't they be able to enforce? No, I am for property owners arming themselves if they'd like. But I think building a widespread form of defense is probably best left to the government - albeit, it'd have to keep spending as low as it could. Billions wasted on fighter jets would be too much. What situation? Keeping a thousand jets doesn't do anything either. And not once have I said the government should employ "a thousand soldiers". It'd have to be more than that. It's a big country. Why can't they enforce them? Why won't anyone listen to them? A democracy is mob rule, and a terrible way to run a society. Move to the woods? Why? Freedom is worth fighting for...no need to remove myself from society. No progress is made there. And freedom is not anarchy. And anarchy is not what I propose.

A free market is free of coercion, but in a free market capitalist society you still have the rule of law, and you still have some kind of defense. It wouldn't mean throwing billions down a rat hole in an endless attempt at providing 'x' amount of fighter jets or anything else. But there would be some role for a minimal and very limited government to play in terms of protecting liberty. My argument continues to be, you need to use diplomacy before thinking about wasting money on war machines. Of course something there just in case makes sense. Spending needlessly with no end in sight does not.

In an anarchic state, yes you're right. That's not what I'm advocating.

Yes, with their giant dumptruck that can drive across the Pacific. Or, their huge helicopters who will swoop in and carry the oil sands away...better break out the buckets. Give me a break. A bunch of pussies? This is economics. This is business...not the UFC.

For the last time! I do not advocate anarchy. Do not. Get it? Yes, right now we have the nanny state that takes care of everyone from cradle to grave, or tries. I don't advocate we give up the status quo for anarchy. How many different ways can I say this? Apparently, you haven't read about the difference between free market capitalism and anarchy.

That's funny because the current way of doing things isn't viable, and yet here we are. The scenario of someone gathering "enough" strength and taking power from our government could theoretically happen at anytime under any political system. Spending billions on jets won't change that. So what's your point? The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating, period. That's your paraphrasing talking, not what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying citizens should enforce the law. The government can have a role in enforcing property rights, and other laws through a system of courts. But it has to be kept a minimal as possible. The government's function should be to protect liberty, and not much else. Of course professional standards can be maintained and upheld, we just don't need a bureaucratic, inefficient government body to do it. In a free market economy, the playing field is leveled, and you gain power, you don't lose it. They had a set of ethics and principles, they just happened to not align with ours and most others. What's your point? The people paying them. Even if that means a government-operated police service paid for through something other than an income tax. Yes, Africa is home to many nations that practice free market capitalism. Again, you're talking about anarchy. The reins? You want to wear reins like common livestock? Not me. Those protesters are people. They protest because there is currently not a level playing field for everyone. A free market economy is the answer to that. You're arguing with yourself. You keep bringing up examples of anarchy, which is not what I advocate. If a business owner offers low quality, they don't win customers. A business owner unwilling to satisfy market demand of affordability combined with quality is out of business in a free market. You need to understand how market forces work, and how the profit incentive benefits us all. You definitely need to understand how the free market works instead of constantly using examples that can only happen under the current system of subsidy and protectionism. The more you make, sure the more you can afford the top level care. Nothing is free, you have to earn it. But does that mean people with less money will have poor quality care that costs too much? Compared to now? No...in fact, good quality care at an affordable price would be available to all in a free market. Why? Because the profit incentive coupled with no barrier to entry for any startup and no limits on competition will always keep prices low. Business owners want to stay in business. Right, that's why you do your research before you put down your hard-earned money. People do it when they buy expensive appliances, or digital cameras, or automobiles...so why would you be hasty in deciding on a health care practitioner? Yes, very realistic. Also, an example of anarchism. People get what they pay for. A lower standard will be cheaper yes. But a higher standard will still be affordable. Why? Because the demand for it will be there. Anarchy, not free market capitalism. Anarchy. Incentive for the "poor" to try and get rich. And they'll make others rich in the process, and so on and so on, and so on... Anyone should be able to practice medicine and charge for it. Luckily, only the ones providing a high standard care at an affordable price will be the ones who stay in business. Bad doctors don't stay in business without help. In a free market they're on their own. There is no government subsidy that allows them to keep doing a poor job. If they're bad at what they do, no one will pay them to provide care. No choice is a product of a government controlled marketplace. A free market is not government controlled, businesses only stay in business if they win customers. If they provide bad service or charge too much or both, they don't stay in business. There's always room in a free market for businesses that provide value for the money. Only the best survive. The consumers have all the power. The reason such a society does not exist is because the current powers that be do not want consumers to have the power. They don't want a level playing field. They use scare tactics like comparing a free market to anarchy, which it is not.

For now, right? Until we need more. And then more after that. And then more after that. Where is the line? And how do we wait until we cross it? And how much private sector wealth are you willing to steal in order to keep playing this game?

How about a rangy diplomat?

Who indeed? That's why buying billions worth in military gear is a waste of money.

Absolutely. Canada ought to make friends, take control of banking, and accounting for nations wanting the service. Store gold, sell resources. Anyone threatens violence, we've got 'em by the balls. That's when diplomacy and negotiation come in handy. This is all a lot more cost effective than putting up walls and buying endless amounts of military hardware.

You just made my argument for me in terms of not throwing away billions on military hardware. So you agree then that we can defend ourselves via diplomacy, trade, economics, and through the kind of tactics Sweden was able to employ? Looks like you're starting to get it.

Oh, so in this instance you're all for relying on one's self, but you're not willing to apply that to your own body, your own health care? So, at some point there's a line where being responsible for yourself stops and someone else has to take care of you? And, NATO...really? Alliances are wasteful, and just asking for trouble. Friendship = good. Alliances = bad.

Riiiight...diplomacy, money, and trade had nothing to do with it.

Is this where you trot out the formidable Swiss army and mountainous defendable territory as being the deterrents to invasion? What of their banks, trade policies, gold, rail lines, economic ties? Did that perhaps have anything to do with it?

Learn the difference between anarchy and free market capitalism. You're arguing against anarchy. I am not in support of anarchy. Learn the difference.

Yes, because somehow anarchism and free market capitalism are the same thing?