PocketRocket

That is something I would never bet on. Nobody expected or could reasonably have forseen '9/11' either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I find I must agree with FLEABAG. It doesn't take exhorbitant amounts of money. All it takes is one bag of the proper grade fertilizer, a few other household ingredients, and a spark, and you have quite an explosion. Alternatively, while planes may be somewhat more difficult to hijack now that they were 5 years ago, think what one stolen gasoline tanker could do if detonated in the downtown area of any major city. If I can, in just a minute or so, think of two ways to cause major chaos , then these guys can think of many more. Judging from what's happening in London, it's only a matter of time before the USA takes more hits.

Attack who??? Last time around, Brit authorities said that from what they could tell, the attackers were Brit nationals. Well, who cares, huh??? Retaliation is the American Way, even if you're retaliating against someone who had nothing to do with whatever your grievance is. I'm not so sure about this. I think Canada is ripe for the plucking. Few, if any, plans in place to deal with such an attack, and a HUGE plum, ripe target right in the middle of Toronto. After all, these guys seem to like towers, and we've got the biggest. I'm just glad I live where I do. I think that if and when we take a hit, it's going to be either Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. Ottawa running a distant fourth, IMHO.

And your point is????

Sorry, DOG. Late in replying. I haven't had the time to spend on forums lately, at least not as much as I used to. Regarding the comment you addressed, a Justice'o'da'peace could refuse and claim that his grounds ARE religious. Simple as that. Religion is a very personal thing, and the interpretation of religion is also very personal. In this regard I don't think anyone will be forced to do anything that they REALLY don't want to. Which also strikes me as fair. It will become known soon enough who the marryin' ministers (J.P.'s, etc) are, and which aren't.

I hate to break into this discussion, but going back to what started this thread...... Has anyone else noticed that the links to the pictures no longer work??? Maybe the website has been torn down. Perhaps things are looking up a bit.

Some people will kick me for this, and some will pat me on the back. I don't really care either way. But I went to Ms Schlafly's website and looked around a bit more, and decided that a reply was needed to her off-the-cuff remarks about Canada, and about our corruption, our poverty, our "population" (whatever THAT was supposed to mean) etc etc etc. I am simply tired of some of these redneck horses' asses making dispraging comments about MY country whenever it suits their fancy, but completely bouncing off the walls if anyone so much as hints at criticizing the USA or any of it's policies. So, I wrote a letter to Ms Schlafly via her e-mail address posted at her website. I thought some of you may enjoy it, so, with no further ado...... (NOTE: I did use my real name in the letter, but for sake of internet anonymity, I will not disclose that here) So, for those of you who want to spank me, go ahead and get it off your chest. I'm a big boy and I can take it. Hell, I might even like it I suppose also that I should have given it a closer check for typos, of which I now see I made a few, but what the hell, we can't let them think that we're all COMPLETELY perfect up here

Likewise.

That's very honest and noble of you. Apology accepted. In turn I apologise if you perceive me as overly confrontational and competitive, it's nothing personal, but I'm passionate about my views (although not intransigent). Renowned debaters of history are never known for their conciliatory nature and willingness to compromise for the sake of niceness. Not that I'm comparing myself to Socrates or anything, but if you find me confrontational, aggressive and unrelenting, you should get a load of him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now I'm REALLY pi$$ed off. I can't find a smiley with a "thumbs up". Cool, and thanks for the acknowledgement. "Noble" I like that. Maybe next election, I'll run for king. You can keep me grounded, so I can understand the peons

Actually, debate is supposed to be the pitting of two (or more) arguments against each other to find the truth. If I don't defend my argument to the best of my abilities I am doing you a disservice. "Find the truth". A good choice of words. But I have yet to EVER see you concede a single point at any time in any debate in these forums. Part of the quest for truth is opening your mind to the idea that your viewpoint may not be absolutely without flaw. Does the consent of perhaps a quarter of the electorate grant legitimacy? If a quarter of Canadians decided that PocketRocket must die, would you commit suicide? Heh heh. Good one. But to reply, no. I'd just change my pseudonym. And if you don't like that, then don't go into bars. Go to malls, where the guards are courteous and don't get in brawls. The free market has something for everyone, not the one-size-will-fit-all dogma of the State. Actually, I wasn't speaking of bars, although that is where I paid my dues. The worst brutality I have ever seen took place at a Who concert in Toronto circa 1981. The guards were responsible for the bulk of it, and a couple of them inflamed the situation when they could easily have quelled it. I was working on that show. Saw it close-up firsthand. It wasn't the only incident of that sort. As for malls, at a mall in my hometown, I was quite surprised to see recently an ex-bouncer of my acquaintance working security. He was not what I would describe as a gentle bouncer, and was swaggering around like he owned the place. I suspect he won't be there long. I hope. When you're done insulting me, could you answer my point? You may notice that I apologized for that a couple posts back. Nope, my mistake. The apology was for another crack later on. As for this one, which was not an insult so much as an observation..... As I said, I agree with this point. I said "It may", as it "It may attract the worst of people". In other words, government could well attract the worst of people. This is an agreement. Whay are you looking for an argument on a point with which I agree, at least in large part??? That was my question, and the cause for the "ego" reference. There's nothing to argue when someone agrees with you. Government may also attract the best of people for the best of reasons. But I didn't get into that because I didn't want to open yet another can of worms in an already cluttered discussion.

Which is a circular argument, as I've demonstrated. So what the law boils down to is "we do as we please'. Which is my whole argument - a double standard in law, one for the ruled, another for the rulers (or none for the rulers). HUGO, this started when you used the word "kidnapping" to describe police arrests. When asked to define kidnapping, you provided a definition which included the word "law". Unless you re-define "law", then the use of the word "kidnapping" is invalid as a supporting argument for this point. That's all. If you can't see that simple point, that's not my problem. As for the "double standard". As previously pointed out, if Harper shoots Martin, Harper goes to jail, same as you or I would. You spoke of splitting hairs. You are doing so yourself on points of policing, and taxation. That seems to be the sum total of your case. No, the original was backed by a commodity. The new note is a copy because it is not backed by anything. What if the new note is replacing an old, worn-out note??? Then it's not even producing new currency. Does this still fit your description of counterfeit??? As for what backs it, see the earlier entry on "economics". I don't recall who posted it, but his explanation was bang-on. Word substitution does not an argument make. By this standard, criminal counterfeiters are simply inflating the currency, which isn't a crime - sayest thou. No, I think you can see the fallacy of this argument on your own without me pointing it out. And again, don't try tell me what I sayest. I won't put words in your mouth, don't try put words in mine. Read the first sentence in your reply above, then try to take your own advice to heart.

HUGO Allow me to offer an apology. Publicly, since I bashed you for it publicly. I replied to the posts which I quoted, then moved on. Only then did I realize you HAVE responded to my request to expand on your law-enforcement idea. Again, I apologize for that. I simply hadn't gotten that far yet. I'm going back there to read it right now.

No, it's nonsense, unless you believe a person is guilty until proven innocent. I've provided logic to back my contention. All you've offered back is a utilitarian argument, which if taken to its logical conclusion, means that anything is permissible if done for the good of the majority, including murdering and robbing the minority, therefore my contention that your argument amounts to claiming that one can do anything one wants to a person accused of a crime, justly. Then your contention is wrong. Dead wrong. Simple arrest and detainment are a far cry from murder. What you see as a "logical conclusion" is simply an attempt to put words into my mouth, as you seem to enjoy doing with so many others. Sorry. I won't bite. As for the "logic" you've provided, it has consisted solely of "It's not a crime if the police do it, only because it's the police doing it". Hardly logic. This is wrong. The idea of a State as social contract is a myth, no Government was ever, ever created that way. The way all States came into being was the conquest and subversion of one group by another. Therefore, the system we have in place is not there because it seemed like it would be best but because some people are stronger than others and decided to make their lives easier by enslaving those others. Hmmm. This is also interesting. How many slaves are there in Canada??? How many were enslaved by the government of Canada??? Take your time. You may also have to look into a definition for "slavery". It seems great because it is logically consistent and I'm not tying myself up in knots and self-contradiction. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh for God's sake. I give you a compliment, and then ask you to elaborate on this "new" idea, and instead of doing so, you pat yourself on the back in a congratulatory manner, and in the same breath make a blatant insinuation that everyone else discussing this topic with you are "tying themselves in knots with self-contradiction". You really do have an ego problem, don't you??? Answer the damn questions in the manner in which they were posed, rather than introducing bad analogies, circular logic, and self-praise. I asked you to elaborate on an idea, which you have refused to do. You have carefully cherry-picked small portions of my posts, and tried to twist them out of context. You may have noticed that I have tried NOT to do this with your posts. That's because I'm trying to keep this a discussion, and not a pissing match. So again, in case you missed in the other two times, please expand on this new idea. I do find the thought interesting and would like to hear more details about how it would work. Thank you in advance for your co-operation in this request.

Exactly my point, and as you have admitted, there's really nothing to distinguish them from the State except success. Therefore, why is Fat Tony a criminal, and not the State? No, I did not admit there is nothing to distinguish Fat Tony et al from the state. There is one supremely important thing. Fat Tony was not voted into government. Fat Tony was not established as a governmental system in which his wishes need to be ratified by members of the house and senate. Big difference in everyone's mind but yours. I don't have to, because the State already has and in such a way that they are the biggest criminals of all - excused only by a logically indefensible circular argument that boils down to, "it's not illegal when I do it because I said so." No, actually you do have to because you are the one constantly making these accusations as though they are a given fact, and then asking everyone else to provide "proof" for any statement which contradicts you. Are private security guards inclined to get involved in biker brawls? That was the wrong answer. Having been in the entertainment industry for well over 25 years, I have met my share of security guards, and more than a few of them were more than eager to get involved an whatever physical confrontation they could find. IOW, some are, yes. Why would it not? ????? I agree with one of your points, and you question it???? You really DO need to "win", don't you??? Sorry, this isn't a contest to me, it's a discussion. But if your ego demands that you "win" something, so badly that you feel the need to even question when someone agrees with you, then hey man, whatever gets you through the night.

It's a circular argument. It's not kidnapping if the police did it. Why? Because it's not illegal. Why isn't it illegal? Because the police did it. I asked you to define kidnapping. Your reply was a dictionary quotation which said "To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom". The law in Canada currently is that police can arrest someone if they are suspected of a criminal activity. Period. Unless you want to re-define law, this "kidnapping"question is closed. Fortunately, you are not in a position to make law. No. Let's assume the 3rd party in all these cases is Don Corlione. Difficult for a fictional character to be the 3rd party. But stipulating he was the 3rd party, then the activities would be unlawful as he is not a representative of a duly-elected government. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge (American Heritage Dictionary). Canadian money is supposed to be backed by precious metals. However, the State creates money that is not backed by anything. This is therefore fraudulent, just as if I sold you something on the premise that it did something which it did not do. Since the fraudulent item is money, the State is a counterfeiter. The State copies existing banknotes but knows full well that, unlike the existing banknotes, there is no commodity to back the forgeries. "To make a copy of". Interesting. But stipulating this definition, the Royal Canadian Mint is not "making a copy" of anything. They are making the original. The fact that there is less precious metal in the treasury than should be accounted for by the amount of currency in circulation simply contributes to inflation. So, counterfeit is also an innacurate word for the purposes of this argument. Fine: if Legs forges currency (i.e. promisory notes with nothing to back them) at the behest of Fat Tony, who is the criminal: Legs, Tony, or both? *Sigh*. You really don't see a discussion as anything other than a contest that you must win, do you??? In this case, both are guilty of a criminal activity, which relates not at all to the issue to which you introduced it, other than to obfuscate further, which you do very well. No, I am sticking to the point and not introducing complete and utter irrelevancies in an attempt to "win" something that is not a contest.

Only if you believe people are guilty until proven innocent, because what you have told me is that you can do whatever you like to a person, and if he is found guilty it's justified, but if not, well, you'll just compensate him later. Is that what you are proposing - guilty until found innocent? Isn't that a rationale for imprisoning everybody in society? I don't recall saying we can do "whatever we like" to someone. But detaining someone who is being charged with a crime is simple common sense. Letting him run free to be able to possibly kill those who would testify against him, hide or destroy evidence, etc, would hardly help the case against him. But hey, since when does "common sense" matter in a debate about government??? Actually, as I said earlier, when proposing change, you must prove YOUR system would be better. The system we have in place is there because it seemed like the best of available ideas at the time it was instituted. Until someone, like yourself, is able to prove YOUR ideas are better, the rest of us see no reason to change. Sorry chum, I don't have to prove anything, the ball is in your court. Now we're getting somewhere. After three pages, you have actually put forth a NEW idea rather than simply cutting up everyone else's ideas with your admittedly great word-smithery. I am intrigued. I'm going to stop here rather than address the rest of this post, I can always come back later if it seems necessary. But rather than argue all these other points willy-nilly, which we could do for days to no end, I would like to hear you expand on this idea. 'Law and Policing Market". How would it work??? What would the laws be??? Who would enforce them??? Would "arrests" be considered "kidnapping"??? Lay it on me, friend. I want to hear ALL you have to offer on this idea. This may be a good idea. At the very least, it's something new.

This basically says that Mafia stooges are not criminals. If Legs (the stooge of Fat Tony on The Simpsons) beats somebody up on behalf of Fat Tony, Legs has not done anything wrong. How does an assault-and-battery analogy apply to the "lawful" production of currency??? Many of your arguments seem to take this form; "Well, if "A" is this, then "B" must be as well". This works some of the time, but not always. First, Fat Tony et al are NOT agents of the state. Second, since you seem to be whingeing on about everything the government does being criminal, define crime. Why would there be nothing at all to keep them in check? This is the old Polish Housewife fallacy. If we don't have a State, who will provide police, you ask? If we don't have a State, who will provide bread, she asked. Who provides our bread? The bakery. But the baker is disinclined to get involved in biker brawls. Actually, I did answer this point, and I agreed that government MAY attract those with lust for power. I also agreed that no government, in ANY form, is perfect. But some are less perfect. But you, sir, are the one proposing a radical change away from a system which has government. It's not up to me to prove that the current system is better. It's up to YOU to prove that your proposal for a new, non-system would be an improvement. Show me how.

To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (American Heritage Dictionary) Ah, there's the word. "Unlawfully". But the police are doing so "lawfully". Just because your personal thing seems to be to disagree with ALL government institutions, that doesn't make it unlawful. Unless you can find a definition better suited to your arguments, this single issue is closed. So if I were to kidnap somebody on behalf of a third party, that would not be a crime? That depends. Is the 3rd party a "lawful" government agency??? See reply above. So if I robbed somebody and gave my ill-gotten gains to a third party, that would not be a crime? That depends. Is the 3rd party a "lawful" government agency??? See reply above. (Sorry, but the definition you chose doesn't fit your argument very well) So, again, if I counterfeit money and give it to somebody else, it is no longer a crime? Well, the "kidnapping" definition worked out so well, why don't you define "counterfeit" for me now???

How is it not? If a man is innocent until proven guilty, then if you arrest and detain a man before his conviction then you have forcibly abducted and detained an innocent person, which is kidnapping. But if that man is proven guilty, then would that not justify the so called "kidnapping"??? If the man is found innocent, other measures can be taken to compensate the man. Your argument is circular. The same as in civil cases. Basically, you receive notice that a suit or charge has been brought against you and an invitation to attend along with your legal counsel, if you have one. Of course, if you don't show up, then you get tried in absentia, and if convicted then you are no longer an innocent man and your arrest and detainment would no longer be kidnapping. So, going back to my Paul Barnardo reference, would you suggest that the police had simply issued him a ticket, much like a traffic ticket, and allowed him to remain in his own home, with plenty of liesure time to erase the tapes which were ultimately the most damning evidence against him??? This is not an answer to my question. I asked for an alternative, not for another criticism of a system which you seem to enjoy cutting down, but don't seem to be able to offer any alternatives to. Bail was not brought into the issue. Introducing it now as a means of skipping out of a direct question is hardly a reply worthy of your intelligence. If this is true, then the State has no right to govern us (or only enjoys the right until someone blows up Parliament). Therefore, the State is merely a band of thugs exerting their will over us by force and relying upon force to perpetuate this state of affairs. Therefore, I see no reason to respect the State or acknowledge its alleged right to rule anymore than I see a need to acknowledge the Mafia as right and legitimate. After all, by your logic, the State is basically a more successful Mafia. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, you don't need my words to justify your lack of respect for the state. You seem to be doing fine on that front all by your lonesome. But, to address the issues you've raised, which I am willing to do without offering distraction or obfuscation as a response, then yes. Just that. Yes. The state is a band of thugs excerting their will. The difference is the band of thugs must at least APPEAR to be acting in our best interest, because if they don't APPEAR to be doing so, they get booted out come the next election. The difference is that every few years you and I get to vote for whoever we think will act in our best interest. The Mafia acts in the Mafia's own interest. You don't need to respect the state. You and I must also APPEAR to respect the laws of the land, thereby not giving the police et al any reason to suspect we are doing as we please behind closed doors. Hell, it's no secret in this forum that I enjoy smoking the occasional joint. Do I broadcast it in the street??? Hell no. Is it legal??? Not quite, yet. Is that stopping me??? No. But I am doing what I want, in my own home, without hurting or bothering anyone else, IOH, following the golden rule. On the street I act in a respectable manner, and give authorities no reason to believe I am anything bu a tame approaching-middle-age man. It's called the pragmatic approach. But I'll still take government as the lesser evil.

But they are not. A police officer can kidnap a person and it will not be considered a crime. Define "kidnap". See my previous post for more on this. Unless the cop is truly kidnapping, for his own devious purposes, then I disagree with this. Perhaps, but the taxman is not taking the money to put in his own pocket. He is collecting it as an agent of the government. He is not committing a crime. Your beef is with the government that created the taxes in the first place. But I agree that it sometimes seems like theft. As with the taxman, the mint is not printing money for the benefit of the mint, except in terms of the cost said mint levies to print the dough. The money leaves the mint and goes into circulation. By what means exactly, I readily admit I don't know. If you had the capital needed to acquire all the proper machinery, you could build a mint of your own, and contract your services to the government. But you would NOT own the money that you print, and that is where this analogy falls down. In your case, crime, like beauty, seems to be in the eye of the beholder. But not ALL the people have to be too violent or greedy etc. It takes only one enemy to start a fight, not two. In the case of violent crimes, would you have us revert to an old-time-western-movie society where lawless gangs ran roughshod over the countryside and terrorized innocents??? Would you perhaps have the Hell's Angels running free with nothing at all to keep them in check?? It's tough enough keeping them under some slight semblance of control as it is. With no government, and no law, well, do you know where your daughter is tonight??? Are you armed to the teeth in case they break down your door??? Given the choice, I'll take government, thank you. It may be evil, but it's the lesser of several alternative evils. Can't say as I disagree with your assessment of those attracted to power. But I am not familiar with Hayek. I am not, and have never claimed to be a student of political or societal sciences, simply one man who tries to use common sense. Sometimes more successfully than others. And, merrily on to the next post. Gotta admit, HUGO, you get 'em out quick.........

Hmmm. I almost missed this one. Interesting. Fortunately, we have in our legal system something called "probable cause". If a man IS arrested, police need to show that there was a high probability that he was doing something wrong or illegal. If the man questions his arrest, they need to prove that there was a reason for hauling him in. On many occasions, police have been charged with improper arrest or illegal detainment. A few people have collected quite a healthy settlement for being wronged in this fashion. But your suggestion that it is "kidnapping" takes it to an extreme. Let's look at a scenario. Take Paul Bernardo for example. He was arrested, with VERY GOOD probable cause. He was, in time, found guilty of horrendous crimes. In light of your contention, it logically follows that he was kidnapped by police simply because he had not already been proven guilty BEFORE he was taken in. this being the case, what would you suggest as an alternative??? Perhaps the honor system??? "Well Mr Bernardo, we strongly believe you brutally raped and murdered a couple young girls. Please stay in touch with us while we investigate." Yes, I am being facetious, but with no intent to belittle. I am simply curious as to what alternative you would suggest to arresting someone and holding them for trial. It's very easy to criticize an institution, but much more difficult to improve one. As for your comment about "rights"; I would contend that rights are a legal fiction. Rights are whatever a society accepts as being "rights". I have the right to breath until I die. I have the right for my heart to beat until it stops. These are the rights I was born with. All others are artificial and man made, and will come and go at the convenience of government, as accepted by the voting populace. In other times and other countries, they came and went at the whims of kings, dictators, etc, and in some cases at the hands of angry, revolutionary mobs. After the French Revolution, many members of the royalty were given the right to enjoy the hospitality of the guillotine. But i'd best finish before I lose my head I certainly enjoy the extended "rights" given to me under our constitution, and would not endeavour to rob anyone else of theirs, but unlike some, I recognize the fact that these are not "God given". They are creations of man, subject to mankind's perfidies.

That is impossible. To govern others means that you need to be able to do to them what they cannot do to you (e.g. you must be able to imprison them if they don't do as you say, but you must be invulnerable to imprisonment for not doing what they say), therefore, to have Government, you need to have a double standard in law. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know if "double standard" would be the right phrase. You or I cannot make law as we are not part of the government. But we are both free to run for any governmental (emphasis on "mental", it is, after all, government) position. If we can convince the general populace that we can do a better job, we will get elected, and then enjoy all the same privileges as those who are currently in power. But your comment about "double standard" in law doesn't really hold up when you consider that members of our government are, in theory at least, subject to the same laws we are. Most laws have been on the books for years, and so were not "made" by any current member of the government. If Paul Martin were caught red-handed shooting someone, he would stand trial for murder, just as you or I would. If found guilty, he would be put behind bars, just as you or I would. Even as we speak, at least a couple MP's are subject of investigations into their allegedly illegal activities. Activities ranging from theft to embezzlement etc etc. If found guilty, they too will pay a price. I find your viewpoint, which seems to lean toward approval of an anarchic system, to be quite intriguing, but I don't believe it would be practical, human nature being what it is. In a world of fair-minded people, it would be wonderful to have no laws other than the golden rule. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world.

So you believe that sewer, water, garbage and fire services are free? Do you think that the road in front of your place was built by magic elves? You could try to make an argument that privatizing some of these services might save you money, however, it is unlikely that you would save much in the end. If I am going to hand over a monopoly over some basic service like water and sewer to a third party, I would rather give it to a municipal gov't that I can vote for than some greedy corporation with no interest in anything other than squeezing a much money out of me as possible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Um, well, no, I don't think what you are suggesting. With all due respects, SPAR, I thought I made it clear that I was joking when I opened the post with....... .....and then ended it all with a jolly sort of........ ....along with a smiley. I would have thought that it was clear that this was all a joke. But, as an aside and to address a couple of your questions...... A friend of mine bought a couple hundred acres of land in the bush. The nearest road came no closer than 3 miles from that land. My friend spent tens of thousands of dollars, along with several months of work in his spare time, building a dirt road so he could access his land. He was paying property tax on this land all along, but at a very low rate. He built a septic sytem and installed a field bed. He had a well dug, built a windmill to generate power (and bought a generator to keep the batteries topped up on windless days-his house all runs on 12 volts), and built a small house/cottage. A simple retreat from the city, that's all he wanted. The assessors came and had a look one day, and suddenly he found his property taxes had more than quadrupled. For what??? He's getting none of the services you mentioned, not even a road. He had to build his own. He even has to plow the road himself if he wants access in the winter. What exactly is HE getting for the increased taxes which are being levied??? So, to address your question; yes, sewer, water, roads etc all have to be paid for. But why is it that if I spend my hard-earned money to increase the size of my house, then my property taxes go up??? Bigger house does not mean I'll be using the road any more. Doesn't mean I'll be flushing the toilet more often. I have no problem with paying taxes for the services I receive. But I do resent when some button sorter, whose wages are paid by my taxes, decides that I should pay more because I have deigned to improve my home.

To lighten things up a bit, let's look again at the original question....... Land ownership is the right to pay even MORE taxes. Sure you can. And not only do you pay sales tax when you buy it, you get to CONTINUE paying taxes on it until you decide to get rid of it. And the beauty of it is that if you decide to "improve" it by upgrading the buildings on it, not only do you pay MORE sales tax for the building materials, and/or labour involved in the upgrade, you also get to pay MORE property tax because said property is now more valuable. Isn't ownership wonderful???

No question that we are rich in various natural resources and they fuel our economy, as they have for decades. But I have to agree with those who have denied that the current goverment is directly responsible for the current economic boom. At least in large part. If a goverment could control the economic booms or busts of a nation, then recessions or depressions would not happen. No, government, like the rest of us, can merely ride the economic wave driven by world markets, and take advantage of opportunities that come our way. Government CAN, however, do major damage to an economy through over-meddling with the laws of supply and demand which are the natural forces that drive any marketplace, regional or global.

It has become quite in vogue to suggest that smokers be forced to cover the cost of related cancer-care, etc, through buying their own medical insurance. But I would suggest that when you consider the fact that every pack of cigarettes is taxed to the tune of about $3.00-$4.00, and that if all that money was diverted by the government into health care instead of pissed away elsewhere, then the smokers would have already covered their butts. The beauty of this consideration is that the more you smoke, the more you are contributing to the system through your taxes. So, in essence, as your risk rises, so does your contribution. Consider also that a 1-pack/day smoker will be putting between $1,095-$1,460/year into the system. (Figure based on tax rates at $3/pack and $4/pack, figures from 2002. Apparently, the tax rate has gone up again, but I'm too lazy to research it right now) This is in addition to whatever contribution to health care that smoker is already making through paying income tax, etc. A fairly substancial contribution.