Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 2:58:34 PM UTC-4, roland c.(?) wrote:

Not sure that pure libertarian anarchy would work for any country.

Anarchy hasn't even been suggested, so your statement is irrelevant.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:06:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Strangely enough, thieves would use the same sort of language that you just did, peterson.

Only in your bizarre reality.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:11:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:12:02 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
....then there is no fundamental reason why the
majority can't consider it so necessary to ensure that no child goes hungry
that it will ensure this result is achieved by compelling everyone to bear his
part of the burden of achieving this, rather than relying solely on voluntary
charity.

But what we get in the process is not just "free" school lunch, but federally-funded "poetry festivals" too.

Nothing wrong with federally-funded poetry festivals, if that's
something a society desires.

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:11:21 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:12:02 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
....then there is no fundamental reason why the
majority can't consider it so necessary to ensure that no child goes hungry
that it will ensure this result is achieved by compelling everyone to bear his
part of the burden of achieving this, rather than relying solely on voluntary
charity.

But what we get in the process is not just "free" school lunch, but federally-
funded "poetry festivals" too.

That, I suspect, can be corrected by the vigilance of the electorate.

John Savard

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 4:14:37 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:06:48 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Strangely enough, thieves would use the same sort of language that you just did, peterson.

Only in your bizarre reality.

Here's the part you edited out:

[I wrote]

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

[You wrote]

I disagree. Freedom is about participation and having a voice. What
you call "taking of property" I call "sharing".

As is plain to see, there is NOTHING bizarre about what I wrote.

YOUR statement sounds as if it could come from either a thief or a sleazy politician (indistinguishable, as a practical matter.)

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 4:15:21 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:11:18 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:12:02 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
....then there is no fundamental reason why the
majority can't consider it so necessary to ensure that no child goes hungry
that it will ensure this result is achieved by compelling everyone to bear his
part of the burden of achieving this, rather than relying solely on voluntary
charity.

But what we get in the process is not just "free" school lunch, but federally-funded "poetry festivals" too.

Nothing wrong with federally-funded poetry festivals, if that's
something a society desires.

Well, no, not everyone in a society wants to have tax money spent on such things. Those who wish to have "poetry festivals" should fund them themselves.

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 5:28:34 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:11:21 PM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:12:02 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
....then there is no fundamental reason why the
majority can't consider it so necessary to ensure that no child goes hungry
that it will ensure this result is achieved by compelling everyone to bear his
part of the burden of achieving this, rather than relying solely on voluntary
charity.

But what we get in the process is not just "free" school lunch, but federally-
funded "poetry festivals" too.

That, I suspect, can be corrected by the vigilance of the electorate.

We are only allowed to vote for ONE seat in the House. I do not recall that any candidate specifically mentioning his/her opposition to this specific example of government waste. What we need is smaller government, lower taxes, less borrowing and this waste will then tend to diminish.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:46:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 4:14:37 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:06:48 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Strangely enough, thieves would use the same sort of language that you just did, peterson.

Only in your bizarre reality.

Here's the part you edited out:

[I wrote]

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

[You wrote]

I disagree. Freedom is about participation and having a voice. What
you call "taking of property" I call "sharing".

As is plain to see, there is NOTHING bizarre about what I wrote.

YOUR statement sounds as if it could come from either a thief or a sleazy politician (indistinguishable, as a practical matter.)

What is bizarre is that you do not recognize humans as social animals.
Because you yourself are a sociopath, you assume the same for
everyone.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:51:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 4:15:21 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:11:18 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:12:02 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
....then there is no fundamental reason why the
majority can't consider it so necessary to ensure that no child goes hungry
that it will ensure this result is achieved by compelling everyone to bear his
part of the burden of achieving this, rather than relying solely on voluntary
charity.

But what we get in the process is not just "free" school lunch, but federally-funded "poetry festivals" too.

Nothing wrong with federally-funded poetry festivals, if that's
something a society desires.

Well, no, not everyone in a society wants to have tax money spent on such things. Those who wish to have "poetry festivals" should fund them themselves.

It doesn't matter if everyone in a society wants to spend money on
such things. These are the sort of decisions that a democratic society
takes by vote. If most people want that kind of support for the arts,
it's proper for the government to offer it.

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:47:35 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:46:58 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 4:14:37 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:06:48 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Strangely enough, thieves would use the same sort of language that you just did, peterson.

Only in your bizarre reality.

Here's the part you edited out:

[I wrote]

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

[You wrote]

I disagree. Freedom is about participation and having a voice. What
you call "taking of property" I call "sharing".

As is plain to see, there is NOTHING bizarre about what I wrote.

YOUR statement sounds as if it could come from either a thief or a sleazy politician (indistinguishable, as a practical matter.)

What is bizarre is that you do not recognize humans as social animals.

Assertion made without evidence or proof.

While humans are "social animals" they are also individuals with natural rights. We are not ants.

Because you yourself are a sociopath, you assume the same for
everyone.

That is a libelous statement, peterson. Try very hard not to make any more of them.