CANADIEN

Actually, US law (you know, what comes from big bad government) mandates since 1986 that hospital emergency departments treat emergency conditions of all patients regardless of their ability to pay. But it doesn't extend to private clinics, and to non-emergency departments in hospitals.

dup

I was under the impression that I was paying for our health care system was paid through our taxes. Not my definition of free. You claim that our health care system is not good enough. and indeed, it should be better, and could be better. But the key word is it: BETTER. Your dream system is actually less eficient, more costly overall, and results in far too many people dying prematurely because they had to choose between health care and food or rent.

I suppose you would prefer the American model, where an insurance company decides what helath treatment you receive based on how much money it gonna cost and the extent of your coverage. To that I will only quote a friend of mine who fought cancer and won: "Thank God I'm in Canada".

Downloading music without compensating the musicians, songwriters, producers etc. is taking away their capacity to benefit financially from their work, in other words the proceeds for their labour. As for the claim it's OK because the musician allegedly gets some free advertising... If it ever crosses my mind to go steal a car, I'll try the "But Your Honour, this is actually benefiting the owner and the manufacturer from th car because I am giving them free advertisement every time I drive the car I have taken". Let,s see how far that would lead me.

The need for a State owned public broadcaster was evident 75 years ago. The lack of need today is evident. I still think the PBS model is the way to go.

Education is far too important to be left at the sole mercy of the market. Case in point in yesterday's Toronto Star. Perfect example of the consequence of no government, or a government not doing its job.link

The person who steals another person's intellectual PROPERTY and redistribute it is a theft and a parasite. See, you're getting somewhere.

Err... my point is exactly that the market does not, and will not eliminate those social ills.

In your alternate universe where the saintly market magically eliminates violence, theft, fraud, coercion, etc. and where people can appropriate the fruits of other people works and efforts (the THEFT of intellectual PROPERTY), perhaps. In this universe, there is nothing wrong with having to pay for public services and programs of the ^people (that is all of us), by the people (all of us), for the people (all of us).

Indeed. And by the same token, there is nothing wrong in the Government using violence in defending citizens from violence.

Great idea. Let,s eliminate any form of Government. The market will solve everything. So, when someone rapes and kills your first daughter, you'll go to the punishment market place and purchase the services of a private judge and private police force who will hunt down and punish the rapist-murderer for you. Which would be violence in response to violence - in other words, violence. Unless you do it yourself, which would be violence as well. And that will work only if the rapist-murderer is not already a customer of a more powerful (read, better armed) judgeship or police force that offer him the "service" of having decided that rape and murder are not crimes. And your market society with no limitations will work just fine in keeping everyone happy and prices low. Until, of course, the service provider with the more weapons (or the money to buy the judgeship or police with the more weapons) decides that he will make more money through making false claims about his products (fraud), taking his competitors products (theft) or forcing them, physically, to work for him or close shop (coercion). By then, your association with the service providor will be voluntary only in theory because, well, there will be no place else to go. especially once the private police or judgeship decides that instead of selling protection to the service provider they might as well just take over and pocket all the profits. And the day will come when ten heavily armed men will show up at your door and say: "we have been sent by your friendly neighbourhod provider of everything. In compensation for being protected (from us), you will work for us, and we will be generous enough to let you have a cot, and three bowls of rice, two glass of water and maybe one piece of meat a day. Since it is a free market economy, we will allow you to trade part of your ration to buy some of the products we offer - at our price of course, since we are the only market place left in the neighbourhood. And btw, our CEO finds your younger daughter pretty attractive.

Not surprisingly, you don't even understand what intellectual PROPERTY is.Intellectual property is not synanymous with ideas, and in fact copyright laws, to take one example, go to a great lenght in making it clear that ideas is not what is being protected. The product of those ideas is what is being protected. And no, you cannot do whatever you want with my property - including making copies of a book I have written without my consent or marketing a drug I have developed and patented without compensating me. You'll also notice that the protection of intellectual property is usually limited in time. The goal is to allow the creator or inventor to benefit from the product he/she has made, while making sure this does not turn into a perpertual monopoly.

If the English language is the example you want to use to justify the theft of intellectual property, than we gonna have a lot of fun... at your expense, every time you bring it. Frankly.

Actually, I was talking about somebody who shows up in the middle of the night, breaks in, take a car and jsut use it until he has enough. You cannot have competition unless there are products offered. And what is the incentive for someone in producing something new if somebody else is gonna rip the benefits they could get from it. To push your "logic" to its extreme, there would be nothing wrong with me going to a car dealership in the middle of the night with a bunch of associates, get all the cars we want, and then the next day selling them in the open for half of the price. that would be competition and reducing costs.

On the contrary. I do not know on what planet you leave, but on the one I live on there is a mode of governance called a democracy. Not a perfect one, and i am not naive to the point of thinking that we have fits the model, but here how it goes. Citizens (i know, a word you probalby abhor, but a great concept nonetheless) choose people to manage things that they consider should be run by the public and for the public (from schools and transportation to the police and court system). Those same people puts laws in place. This costs money, and taxation is the way those things are payed for. Now, you can argue what you want that too many things are owned by the Government for the public. That some of the laws are unfair, or unnecessary. That some things should be privately owned. That some of the money coming from taxes is wasted. That the tax system is unfair. Go ahead. But keep arguing that taxatuion, period, is a form of theft, and don't be surprised if you are treated the way people with non-sense ideas are treated. BTW, in your ideal world where there is no government, and law enforcing is private and where there is no government, the "laws" will first be dicted by those with the most money, then by those with the more weapons. You think that those private judgeships and polices will simply abide by what ever rules and enforce whatever laws they can their clients will want. It will work that way... until they realize they can make a lot more money and have a lot more power if they set the rules and the laws and force their former "clients" to abide by them before they're the ones with the guns. When (or rather if) that happens, taxation will looks like a garden party compared to what you'll be forced to endure unless you're the one with the most weapons.

Taxation is not theft, no matter how you put it. And with intellectual property THEFT, the results of someone's (an individual or a corporation) works is being stolen. It belongs to them as much as a car, or a house, or their money. They produced it, and they are entitled to make as much money out of it as the market and the law will allow. A records company doesn't have the right to force you to buy their product. But a car dealer doesn't have a right to force you to buy its cars either. Yet, noone, including you, would argue that I can just go to a car dealership and take one of their cars for a ride.

What I find particularly fascinating is that taxation is a form of theft, but that the theft of private intellectual property is OK.

And you are an economist? You brought Bill Gates in the discussion. sorry, but you don't get to dismiss him now that you have realized h doesn't agree with you.

Private courts, Knee-jerk (also known as viglante nowadays), justice. Armed groups not accountable to anyone "enforcing the law". Europe once had that... In the Middle Ages. And guess what, Zachary... It worked very well, for those with the most weapons and soldiers. You complain that a cop stopped you for violating a law that was passed by YOUR elected representative. Don't like the law? Lobby to have it changed. Elect people who will change the law. encourage to do so. In your utopian "free" society, the private "cop" will not stop you for violating a law voted by an Parliament you elected. He will stop you because his boss has decided that what you?re doing is against HIS law. You think that a world of private polices and courts will be better? You're naive.

Put cops on minimum wages. Quite the incentive for them to be corrupt.

Thank you for reminding us that we do not need courts, the police, the army... I would have added shcools and roads (for starters) but i suspect you think that there is no justification for those being in public hands.

i stand corrected as to the authorship. Proving a negative... Indeed. That being said, what we have here is one verse in a larger text. Hebrews was likely aimed at a Greek-speaking community, familiar with judaic religious practices. It's main themes are the divinity of Jesus, His prietshood, and holding fast in the face of persecuion. I do not see how an unspoken reference to the atomism theory (the idea, developped in India 6 centuries before Hebrews, then in Greece by Leucippus 5 centuries before Hebrews, that the universe is composed of indivisible particles and empty void) would fit with the rest of the message.

Actually, St. Paul was not talking about atoms, but it's interesting that at least one scientist/philosopher came with the idea.

Want to talk about your new Prophet, Ashby Camp, and his ahem rebuttal of Dr. tehobald writings about macroevolution and common descent, betsy? Let,s start with an admission on my part. The vocabulary the two of them use is beyond my understanding of biology, and their writings is not what i base my understanding of evolution on. In other words, I'll take Evolution 101, thank you very much. You, on the other hand, seem ready to take Dr. Camp argument as conclusive proof. If so, you have an understanding of science, namely biology, far above that of most people. So, let me ask, where did you get your PH.D. in biology? And surely, you must be able to bring the level of discourse use by Theobald and Camp done to a level most people can understand. Or is your understanding of what they say limited to "Theobald believes in macro-evolution, Camp opposes Theobald. therefore Camp is right and Theobald is wrong". If you or anyone wants to convince me, based on their texts, that either one of them is right, better come with an explanation of the scientific arguments the two of them are supposedly presenting. Because that's what their exchange is supposed to be, and is presented as.In which case, it is interesting to notice the credentials (as in academic training and experience) of the protagonists. Dr. Theobald holds a PH.D. in biology from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and is an Assitant Professor at Brandeis University. Mr. Camp holds a Law Degree from the Duke University School of Law and a Master of Divinity from harding University School of Divinity. His fellow adversary of Dr. Theobald. casey Luskin, seem to have abetter knowledge of science, with an M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and a law Degree from the University of San Diego. Not that I would disparage theological studies (some of my best friends hold a master of Divinity, abnd yes they understand evolution), or Law degrees. But frankly, someone who wants to debates biology (including evolution) at a PH.D. level is usually more credible when he or she actually has a corresponding academic background and experience. Don't you agree, betsy?