Cartman

There is no strike in the NHL.

"dogs know what to do with poles" Diefenbaker

Yeah, that function sounds great. The forum survives on honest and sincere exchanges of information. Intent to disrupt ruins the objective.

This statement precisely identifies the ignored, failing heart of free market exchange. Several times, I have aptly identified the tautological and teleological flaws of these arguments and pointed out that these sentiments are crude, antiquated and elementary. My well accepted criticisms, as evidenced by the reality of interventionist governments, are consistently ignored by some on this forum. Some MLW posters appear to know more than the majority of citizens in industrialized, democratic societies! How knowledgeable yet arrogant. Simply put, however, there exists in this world unequal exchange, particularly when there exists considerable power differentials (of all sorts). Tautology Perhaps I find no value at all in automobile insurance. The only choices I have are to not drive, drive illegally and become a criminal, or engage in unwanted exchange. Perhaps I find myself unfortunately underemployed. This sort of employment may be necessary in order to eat, pay for health care and put a roof over my head. Free market economists (FME’s) would then assert that there must be mutual profit from the exchange simply because the exchange exists. This is tautological reasoning in pure form! FME’s say that because exchange exists, it must be mutually beneficial. If it were not mutually beneficial, it would not exist. This is illogical and is strong evidence that the theory should be seriously questioned. Under such tautological reasoning, one can legitimize any negative characteristic of life. But, some things exist without being mutually beneficial (i.e. war, crime, disease, famine etc). The reality is that many people simply begin life with social and economic deficits relative to others, yet FME’s argue that any agreement the less fortunate may be or feel forced to make in order to live are simply free exchanges. This is absurd, arrogant and denies us all of our natural rights; social context is entirely ignored! Unequal Exchange Argus has rightly questioned whether trade with communist China is mutually beneficial because the Chinese may refuse to trade fairly. After all, many nations are willing to compete “tooth and nail” for access to this large market because it may, but not necessarily, be ideal to do so. It is possible to give too much for such access. Why must the possibility of unequal exchange be abstractly debated in circles over and over when it could simply be reality? If I am in the desirable position of considerable power, as I suspect may be the Chinese at the moment, then why is it so illogical to assume that I may accept, say, a television for a potato? Why should Canadians be the less fortunate in such a deal, yet be ideologically induced to accept it as mutually beneficial trade, since it simply exists? Teleology FME’s also argue that such exchange exists because of the purposes they serve rather than by postulated causes. FME’s deny the fact that health care in Canada, for example, has served us well. Despite the fact that, per capita, Canadian health care spends roughly half of what American health care does even though over 40 million Americans are not insured and these people must endure the tragic consequences of this reality, the US system is considered a potential model for reform. Rather than consider the ample choice of doctors, the glaring economic efficiency of this “socialist” system, the recent deal in place and the support of (the) Conservative leader(s), FME’s ignore this and point to waiting lines. This is teleological reasoning pure and simple! Why not just accept the possibility that the reason why the largest economies of this world are not free of government intervention, including the United States, Europe and Canada, is because the latter are viable and lived interventionist realities? FME’s pretend that their economic theories are irrefutable despite the fact that they are not even practised! Since most economies are “managed”, it is the FME’s that are the extremist, fanciful, radicals since they put forth a non-existent ideal. FME’s are equivalent to a religious following at best, or, more worrisome, to a brainwashed cult. Obvious evidence to the contrary is whimsically refuted as “self evident” because the world is, after all, flat. It is, strikingly, difficult to argue against the mythical number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin even though we observe that none do!

Stoker said: Hey Stoker? Just received an email from my dad about your stupid, assinine reference to "Canadian Hitler youth". He mentioned that when he was in the first grade in Germany, he learned how to throw a hand grenade. Did you learn how to do that in Canada buddy? He learned that Jews with horns on their heads were lurking in the forests waiting to eat German kids. Did you learn that kind of fear in a Canadian school during physical education? Yeah, learning how to throw hand grenades and learning about nutrition are precisely the same. Maybe you should realize that many Germans feel an incredible amount of guilt about what happened during the war before you open your mouth you idiot. Why bring up such suffering needlessly? Before you engage in the usual stupid, verbal masturbation, you should know what you are talking about. Damn you are dumb. I understand when people refer to the lessons that should be learned from this era. I have no problem with that. But when stupid, inapproriate analogies are made to foods and nutrition classes, it makes me really angry. At one point, I think it was Argus who said that when someone makes an anaolgy to Hitler, they lose all credibility. Unfortunately, you have none to lose.

Beccaria himself was a little unsure of how to handle crimes of poverty in a free market society. In Essays on Crimes and Punishments (1804), he noted that when people steal because of poverty, classical punishment logically dictates that the criminal be deprived of his own property. Unfortunately, this exacerbates the problem of property crime because these kinds of criminals will be even further pressed to engage in property crimes. A system of classical justice can only be successful if property is distributed equally from the start. As this is not the case, our system of punishment is inadequate and possibly even perpetuates crime. This suggests that poverty should be considered a mitigating circumstance when punishing such acts. Just thought that some classical economists might enjoy this inherent tautology.

No argument here. I have been saying for some time that I think most media is crap and that the differences between Fox crap and CNN crap is pretty much the same as the difference between NBC crap and CBS crap. Same shit, different piles.

Albertan here. We are not going anywhere thanx. Albertans may be critical of the feds sometimes, but not willing to leave quite yet. Check out the votes to leave this country during the last election.

Funny, I was thinkin' just the opposite; that you two were making the massive self-contradiction. You are saying that we should establish free trade with a country that does not practice free trade? Seems a little lop-sided to me. They are a communist country after all. Argus has also made a valid point that human rights are something to be concerned about when considering trade with China. I have yet to see any sound logic to refute these claims with the exception of abstract teleological arguments that any trade is always good in the end for all parties. Too absolute for my liking. Hugo said: See you at the next commie BBQ Argus.

There is one other issue I would like to present. What if someone has endlessly debated an issue with another poster, spent significant time finding "credible" links and information, only to then have the issue resurface 6 months later and some of this information is either lost or the links are broken? Eureka, for example, has debated the legality of the war in Iraq a few times and is probably a little less than excited in offering the same links again and again. It does happen. Thus, I think that there are no real hard and fast rules but you should always supply as much info. as you can. In the end, it is just the other posters that you must convince. Check out the rules as there is some info. on this matter.

Cartman said: NC said: Perhaps because you have received "subliminal" and possibly even "supersubliminal" gay messages NC and do not even realize that you are being recruited? They may even have a chapter operating in NFLD! My mistake NC and Tawasakm. Most of the veteran posters on MLW who have read dozens of my posts know that I was not being serious in making the above statement. Eureka and Black Dog would have hammered me if this was the case. Unfortunately though, some fearful people do believe that this is the "gay agenda" and it seems rather silly to me. Banning books with gay characters for university students is highly discriminatory as far as I am concerned. Homosexuals are higly marginalized and excluded from society as it is, and banning books with gay characters so that adults cannot even approach the matter independently the matter is terrible IMO. It is analogous to textually eliminating any other group in society and that is very wrong. Please accept my apologies for not being clearer.

Caesar said: Choke said: As a vet. MLW poster, Caesar is well known for staying on topic so I don't think that is the "problem".

Argus logged off pretty quickly after this post was created Black Dog so, I don't know, maybe you misunderstood the uhhmm er uh ... offer as it were?

Do you not see a glaring contradiction here?

I am really tired of homosexuals trying to convert everyone to be gay.

Not so muccchhh

You know better what is in another person's interests? You really are incredible! Are you an advice columnist or something?

I am aware of the CAW and its tenuous relationship with the NDP. Buzz Hargrove cannot really be said to be an uncritical follower of the NDP. He has been well known to blast them when need be. I did not see anything in the link relevant to this discussion. Your initial assertion was that the NDP was legally tied to big unions. I want a link to the law that demonstrates as much. Is it a federal law or a provincial law? Many unions do not support the NDP, any relationships that may exist can be severed at any point in time and many unionized workers do not follow their leadership. Buzz is not going to follow his members into the voting booth. But, I would like to know what is wrong with union workers supporting their interests? I am sure that the Liberals take a few $$ from corporations. Just as it would be silly for me to stereotype and say that the Liberals are legally tied to corporations, it is silly for you to say as much about the NDP and unions. Such creative discourse used to describe the NDP. Do you mean just "extreme left" or "super-duper, radical fantastically, communist-like, demented left"? If they are so extreme, why have they formed government in the past and why are they competing against the Liberals now? Are the many British Columbians who will vote for them "extreme"? By definition, is this even possible? Do they only get support from extremists or are there a lot of fools who are brainwashed into voting for them? You are the first person I have ever heard say the BC Liberals are not right-wing. They are hardly Trudeau Liberals or Wilson Liberals or were they just extreme too?

IMO, we should be very watchful and maybe even a little suspicious of state actions b/c there is always the potential for oppression. But, in order to really solve a lot of problems in society, we require collective responses. Child obesity is a problem in society and it costs us. It costs us b/c people are using the health care system for preventable diseases caused by being too heavy and sedentary. Obesity and being very overweight are suspected to soon overtake smoking as the most common preventable disease. This is really sad because as I already said, kids are naturally active and want to climb the walls in school but we currently spend too much time making them sit still in front of computers. I am not saying brainwash them, but certainly make them realize the value of being in good phyisical shape and healthy nutrition. I do not understand why the government spends so much time and resources encouraging adults to stop smoking, but seem to do little to encourage kids to live healthy lives. I do think that if a small child is so fat that they are at a high risk of having a heart attack, then this is a form of neglect and a little bit of persuasion may be enough to alter the current trend. I suspect that any costs incurred would be saved in the long run by reduced health care expenditures.

Stoker Posted on Dec 1 2004, 11:47 PM The following, which I have already asserted, are not extreme measures Stoker. I have suggested that teachers be given minor "perks" in exchange for participating in the physical education of students. This is not exactly a radical idea. I have also stated that parents be given greater opportunities to participate in this endeavour. i.e. In extreme circumstances (i.e. where a small child is heavier than a much taller and older adult teacher and parents do not participate in their child's education), I have argued that parent(s) be asked to discuss their child's health with the principal of the school. i.e. There is nothing extreme, radical or left about this at all. This is pretty common-sense. How many parents would find this so communist and object? Teachers should pay attention to the physical characteristics of their students and ensure their well-being. This includes being too heavy (obese), too skinny (starving), having learning disorders, having many bruises (beaten) or suffering from frostbite. What is your suggestion? Just ignore it in the name of not being "left"? You know what Stoker? My grandfather (German) spent 9.5 years in a Soviet hard labour camp after the war and suffered greatly. It pisses me off when people like you compare life in Canada to that in Germany during or after the war so don't give me that bullshit buddy!! There is a difference between brainwashing children and caring for them.

What do you mean "in principle"? This sounds rather soft. Of course it should be protected, the question is how punishment should or might vary.

playfullfellow Posted on Nov 30 2004, 11:28 PM Stoker Posted: Dec 1 2004, 12:02 AM Stoker Posted on Dec 1 2004, 12:41 AM playfullfellow Posted on Dec 2 2004, 01:08 AM Can we please cut out the personal attacks on MS? Four of them in one thread in just two days? I can take a joke but these "jokes" occur on a daily basis and are so stupid. Since I have joined this forum, I quickly found that some people consider MS to be a dumb, crazy, drug using, lazy, unemployed, delusional, confusing, socialist freak who wears a tin foil hat etc etc. These posts have absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand. If you guys work so hard for a living, I would assume that you have more important things to do than marginalize someone on-line. Read the forum rules and stick with the issues. These posts are so useless.

I am kind of surprised that August is the only one replying to this thread since there seem to be all kinds of "experts" with answers as to why companies leave Canada. Apart from oil, coal etc, why do companies operate here?

My wife was a teacher and she complained that children were too restless! It seems to me that all we have to do is tap into this natural desire for activity. Exercise is fun and kids learn informal rules at the same time. It is the adults who need to change. Give teachers more incentive to engage in extra-curricular activities (i.e. a slight reduction in teaching load), make physical education a required component of passing and the positive results will pour in. Send out invites to parents to help out or at least watch their children play against/with others. Nag parents if need be and in extreme circumstances, principles should request meetings with parents who do not participate and have obese children. Education should be regarded as a priviledge, not a right to a baby sitting service for those who work. Just a slight measure of reintegrative shaming is in order for such neglectful parents. I can understand people suffering from a lack of food, but not from too much of it.

Who cares whether the discussions are futile (to the extent of completely changing peoples' minds)?! I am probably not going to change Hugo's beliefs in anarchy and I will likely not change August's beliefs in capitalism etc. All I can gain is a deeper appreciation for their perspectives. The idea is simply to exchange viewpoints and evaluate the logic used. The result is that we either amend our ideas or identify why they are valid. As a lefty, I would be pretty bored just talking to like-minded people. My point is just perfect your thought. Caterpillar has posed a relevant thought. Many people pirate and feel that pirating is acceptable. Some corporations are suing people (usually teens) for doing so. Is this appropriate? Should they be able to force internet companies to identify customers? Should music (dinosaur) companies modernize and move their businesses to the internet? These are important questions IMO.