eXploiTeD

I can't find any information about the independent analysis you refer too. Perhaps you could show me the way?

Irrelevant. They make the choice to drive, and so they should shut up about the cost of gas because (A) they don't really know the true extent of that cost and (B] they'll pay for it either way. It's not "morally wrong" to up the price of gas, it's morally wrong for the government to be using taxpayer money to help these inefficient and incredibly costly industries along. And it's morally wrong for the government to impose artificial price caps, as is usually suggested by those ignorant enough to say upping the price of gas is "immoral." Link. Less biased? Impossible. The report includes the externalities of gasoline consumption to form a figure for how much it actually costs to buy some gasoline. It is therefore unlikely to find any report of this nature that is unbiased, nor any study of it un-mutated by ideological filters. Oh noz.

14% THC is not schwag...

It was not referring to Nazi Germany. It was a hypothetical made to demonstrate an exceedingly simple point: that if the majority of your country holds authoritarian values, democracy is just as dangerous as any other form of government.It is absurd to think that because everyone gets a vote, the government will do no wrong, or that it if it does wrong, it did so because it transformed into a total fascist state. Look at the United States. It successfully incorporates elements of fascism - namely, the promotion and protection of corporatism; that is, the merger of business and government. That is true, but the fact is that, on the whole, the US does allow a great deal of personal liberty. It is, in fact, a very good place to live, one of the best in the world. But look at it's history. The US does alot of good things... it's just that those good things are usually built upon violence or servitude, and are for the benefit of only those who agree with the government. The US formed on stolen property, than exterminated millions. Then they killed six hundred thousand of each other before destroying state's rights, all the while attacking most of Central and South America, most of it's neighbours (including Canada), and later, at one point or another, nearly the entire Middle East. And here you are telling me that democracies should always be obeyed. What about Vietnam? Was it right or wrong to avoid the government slavery (sorry, it's called "the draft")? Democracy refers to rule by the people, which can take many incarnations. Direct or indirect representation, unitary or separated powers, the rule of law or the rule of whim; it does not matter. You are referring to rights-based liberal democracies... which have democratic elements, but are not true "democracies" by any means. In fact, the government is in place usually to guard against the democratic element (self-rule) of society. When you are referring to such a specific thing - the West - perhaps you ought to say that, instead of changing the historical definition of democracy. Perhaps you can show me where the US government corrected Vietnam. Or where Britain corrected the overthrow of a democratic (though non-aligned) government in Iran? Or Cuba, where thousands of innocent people struggle under a dictatorship, economically punished by the most powerful country in the world? Law is a statement of commonly shared moral values. Teaching that it is better to do your duty than to do what is right is absurd. Wouldn't things have been better if nobody in the US reported for the Vietnam Draft? I concede that point. I should have said legitimate moral codes. Because morality did not dictate those things. Few humans obey the principles they adhere to, and even less actually even think about the moral decisions they make. There is an entire unconscious mind that does most of our decision-making... and trying to account for our flaws by always and necessarily making decisions together is both irrational and dangerous. People need to be taught how to be individuals who will make up their own mind, not insects in a hivemind that are dictated their tasks and expected to obey, no matter what the consequences.

That's the kind of nonsense that's comes from the likes of the world progress report. Great rebuttal.

Gas is hugely expensive, and has been for quite awhile. It's just that the government subsidizes oil and gas companies to the tune of $1.4 billion. And so, an inefficient, bloated, uncompetitive industry is made slim again. Not to mention the fact that when we're talking about gas, we're really talking about cars, and thus a whole range of associated costs. The Ontario government spent $5.6 billion on roads in 2007-08 (Link). I wonder how much it spent on treating the various hosts of diseases caused by car pollution? One study in the US showed that the cost of gasoline was actually around $15.14 per gallon (Link). When you factor in related costs, that is, such as maintaining supply lines overseas using military force, or having an adequate navy, so you can make sure Iran doesn't close off the Strait. The point is, the supply and consumption of gasoline is costing people way more then they think.

I'm so sick of hearing car-owners whine about the price of gas. For Gods sake, a liter of gas costs less than a liter of Coca-Cola! I walk to work everyday! Get over it!

Incorrect. Democracy is rule by the people... that says nothing about what decisions are made, or how they are carried out. If 75% of the population decides they hate Jewish people, and they enact laws that ban it's practice, that is both legal and democratic. And when the law of a democratic society becomes corrupt or hateful, I will instruct my children to disobey it, even when all of their friends disagree with them. Your attempt to define democracy as basically any government that respects human rights and allows the vote is 100% incorrect. It is any government that rules according to the wishes of it's people, regardless of what those wishes might be. Right. Which is not necessarily the case in a democracy, as history has shown. Absurd. For one, assuming that the State has anything to do with teaching morality is patently false. Parents already provide their children with vastly different moral codes, and yet the legal system has not dissolved, has it? For two, while certain grey areas exist, all moral codes hold theft, murder, assault, rape, usury and fraud to be morally wrong. These are subjective standards, yes, but standards that are generally agreed upon by the vast majority of people. And it is with these standards alone that government ought to be primarily concerned. Actually, criminal gangs operate in precisely the same manner that governments do: using social coercion backed by physical violence, they decide to seize others money while pretending to provide them with certain services, i.e. "protection." You defend this by insisting that because morality is subjective, society ought to be able to inflict upon the individual whatever it pleases, so long as most people agree with it. To use a hypothetical, let's pretend a rich, spoiled brat is walking down the street with $500 in her purse. She intends to use this $500 to buy a pair of shoes. Passing by a bunch of homeless people, who ask her for change, she refuses to give them any money. Half-starved, the homeless decide to steal her purse. Using the money obtained in the theft, they are able to feed themselves for a month and a half. Two things: first, while it is clear that more good came from the theft than would otherwise have occurred, it is also true that it was not the bums decision to make. In other words, unless you can provide a legitimate justification for State power over the individual, you are simply arguing that "might equals right," and that because "morality is subjective," society ought to hold precedent over the individual. This is obviously absurd, and your thinking in this matter is fuzzy and ill-defined.

That is an awful large 'if.' What happens when those "built-in mechanisms" fail? When democracy ceases to protect human rights? When the majority of a country holds or are tolerant of violent, authoritarian beliefs? No offense, but I find your position a bit naive. There are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of examples of terrible atrocities committed by democracies. Where could I begin? Dresden? Iraq? The Phillippines? Cuba? Afghanistan? Venezuela? Iran? Locking up Japanese civilians during WWII? The Civil War? Nuking Japan? The wholesale extermination of tens of millions of Natives? The point is, the victims of these atrocities have every right to defend themselves, including the use of lethal force. Who are you to deny them that right? Democracy is only valuable insofar as it protects human rights; if it does not, it has no more authority then a tinpot dictatorship. Absolutely. And that is why I said that I will teach my son to uphold certain moral obligations, and not necessarily his government, even one where he has a vote. Because that sort of thinking has done more to harm mankind than any other. That is also why I was speaking hypothetically; of course, you chose to put words in my mouth in order to further your defense. I'm not asking for my morality to form a basis of your decision-making process. Frankly, I could care less about how you come to your decisions. The point is, certain decisions are mine, and will always be mine, and if anyone - including a democratically endorsed police force - tries to take them away in an obvious and gross manner, I will use whatever force is necessary to defend myself. For instance, let's say, for whatever reason, Canada requires a military draft. Drafts are a form of slavery; they may be legal, and even democratic, but they are nonetheless a direct and obvious infringement upon my civil liberties. If I refuse to report to the draft office, and police show up to ensure I do, it is within my rights to do what is necessary to get away.

Did you have a source for this? I'd really like to hear more about it.

Everything they have they grew in an abandoned mine in Flin Flon (home of Bobby Clarke and Reggie Leach). This was one incident, probably as a result of mismanagement (no surprise there - it is the government after all). It doesn't indicate a wider trend.

If a democracy systematically undermines human rights, there is no moral obligation whatsoever for accepting it's authority. Knowing when those obligations are dissolved is a fairly simple task. The only legitimate use of force is that which is intended to prevent or punish a more harmful act. Thus, if the government were to start using wide-scale and systematic violence against it's own citizens, I am relieved from whatever legal/moral obedience I had to it. Honour killings do not fit those criteria... but German citizens sabotaging Nazi supply lines (i.e. terrorism) certainly does. There are thousands of other examples of this sort of thing, so dismissing the use of vigilante violence against the State when clearly required is very shortsighted. As WWII showed us, even democracies are capable of producing great violence...

I will teach my children to fulfill certain moral obligations. If that goes against the wishes of the State, so be it. Respect for the law is only good so long as the law respects you.

What's the matter guyser? Don't believe in an objective and universal moral law? Perhaps you could reveal this law to us?

Marijuana cannot be definitively linked to cancer because the vast majority of it's users don't smoke 25-50 joints a day. Still, it is widely accepted that marijuana has many natural carcinogens, and therefore, does damage the body and may, in certain susceptible individuals (i.e. smokers), do more harm than good. That being said, once prohibition is over, the medical ramifications of marijuana and other drugs can be studied in greater depth, and we can have a better picture of marijuana's impact on the body. But saying it is harmless is probably untrue. Do you have any real evidence that Health Canada tests it's marijuana in contaminated environments?

Not even the study provided supports the idea that marijuana "cures cancer." It does inhibit the spread of cancer cells in the lungs, but the same article admits that it may actually cause cancers in other areas of the body. The point is, it goes without saying that smoking marijuana is not good for the physical health of a healthy human being. That being said, marijuana is illegal for many, many reasons. None of them, when seriously investigated, warrant any respect. For instance, it is often argued that marijuana is physically dangerous. This is probably true. The problem is that even if it is, the government still has no basis for restricting it's legal availability. After all, literally hundreds of more harmful (both personally and socially) substances are sold everyday: alcohol, fast food and automobiles all come to mind immediately. Furthermore, whatever can be said about marijuana, or any other drug for that matter, it can also be said that the War on Drugs is an expensive and resounding failure. The illegality of recreational substances has failed to decrease their usage or availability: production and sales are stable, if not on the rise. It has failed to act as a deterrent to future users. It has failed to effectively remove the criminal element that is empowered by the fact that nobody can legally grow a certain substance. And it has failed to make our city streets safer. In fact, it has accomplished the exact opposite. How many criminal organizations make their money in the drug trade? How many terrorist groups are funding cells in various countries using drug money? How many non-violent and non-criminal lives have been destroyed by the illegalization policy? How many teenagers had their records (and lives) forever tarnished? People support the War on Drugs because they are sado-moralists; they do not care if the punishment is not working... they only care that people be punished.