On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times. However, it remains up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up.

Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't. You've never let your ignorance prevent you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual.

Mike

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should believe you because

I don't bull**** the way you do.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

KMAN rightfully observes:
==============
LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach. No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone
living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect
them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where
people
might care about each other.
===============

KMAN, as I type, I'm listening to an interesting CBC radio documentary
about Karl Polanyi. Polanyi's work is witnessing a resurgence as, for
example, "The Great Transformation" (1944) examined free market systems
and natural social reactions against such systems.

An interesting summary from
http://keithrankin.co.nz/nzpr1998_4Polanyi.html

"The social anthropologist understood that humans are fundamentally
cooperative beings, and that human societies naturally seek to form
institutions that confer social and economic protection. Protection
means supporting producers who are a part of one's own society. And
protection means security, including social security.

Unlike protection which is a natural human impulse, the market system
is an artificial construct of the human intellect.

The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.

Primitive humans banded together for mutual protection and survival of the
species. This institution conferred social protection and structure, as well
as a necessary component of the strong defending the weak. But the "market
system" was inherent even then, because infants and children were only
protected because of their potential to become strong and thus of utility to
the group. In primitive societies, defective children were often killed or
exposed because the society knew that they would never be an asset to the
society. Likewise, a member who became crippled would often be ejected
because he could not contribute to the safety and security of the society.
Thus, the disabled and infirm became "consumers" of resources, not
"producers." In marginal survival situations, non-producing consumers cannot
be permitted because the line between societal success and death is quite
fine.

In times of plenty, the society can afford to grant more of the excess to
the non-producing consumer, and produce more non-producing consumers, thus
increasing the overall strength of the clan. It's an energy-based society.
Energy in must equal or exceed energy out, otherwise the least productive
members must suffer through deprivation. They have less "value" to the clan,
and thus they can be denied resources.

So, even in very early primitive societies we see the market system at work.
To be part of the society, you must produce if you are to consume. And you
must produce something more than you consume if the society is to advance
and be prepared for times of privation. Thus, your "value" to the society is
directly related to how much you do, or potentially may, produce. Those who
produce more consume more because of the energy required to produce. The
clan's finest hunter is entitled to a larger share of the kill because it is
in the best interests of the clan to keep the hunter in prime physical
condition, so that he can provide much more than he consumes, for the
benefit of the whole clan. So, it may be than in times of privation, lesser
producers, and consumers (children) may be deliberately denied some, most or
all of their "share" of the kill so that the hunters can remain healthy and
support the more important and valuable members of the society.

Thus, the statement, "It eschews protection and emphasises discipline" Is
simply not true. Discipline is part and parcel of protection. No discipline
in the allocation of energy, no protection for anyone.

The statement, "Competition is about discipline and conformity, not freedom"
is patently false. The very term "competition" implies freedom to compete
for resources against others. This only occurs when a society has either
sufficient excess resources or is in a state of anarchy where the social
bonds created for societal protection have failed.

The statement, "The tyranny of the self-regulating market can only become
the central organising mechanism if it is intentionally imposed on society
by a government with dubious democratic credentials, and can only survive
for any length of time if such a government resists the spontaneous human
impulse towards protection" is blatant anti-capitalist, socialistic claptrap
that defies simple logic.

"Self-regulating markets" are a fundamental and natural outgrowth of our
natural societal instincts combined with an excess of resources. As
resources begin to exceed basic needs, those who produce the resources, once
sated, will naturally begin to question the altruistic requirements of
energy-margin societal pressures and will seek to gain societal or economic
advantage by taking advantage of their superior abilities in energy
gathering.

Once the society has an adequate amount of energy reserves so that basic
energy needs are met, competition for the excess energy naturally follows,
just as competition for scarce energy resources occurs. Humans are
forward-looking creatures, and their intellect causes them to learn from
past privation and save against future privation. Thus, stockpiling of
energy reserves is an inevitable part of human nature.

The concept of "market" implies a concept of individual ownership of energy
resources. Ownership of the fruits of one's labor is a natural instinct as
well. If you expend energy to secure an energy resource, then it is fully
natural to expect to be rewarded for the energy you expended, in excess of
that energy required to secure the resource. This is a natural offshoot of
the necessity of unequal allocation of energy resources to keep prime
producers healthy.

So, we have a natural instinct and special ability to obtain and stockpile
energy resources, and we have a group of consumers who need or desire access
to those stockpiles. That defines a "market system" quite precisely, and
it's all perfectly natural and occurs without any intervention of "central
government" at all.

Economic liberals, contrary to the way they portray themselves, are not
believers in small government. They are not akin to anarchists, as Marx
saw them. Rather they adopt a view of government that differs
fundamentally from that of social democrats. Economic liberals believe,
following Jeremy Bentham, that government means the "ministry of
police" (read Treasury in today's parlance) and not the "ministry of
welfare"

I'd have to have a better idea of how he comes up with his definitions
before I can respond to this, but it sounds suspiciously socialistic to me.


I doubt whether Scott Weiser has ever given thought to "The tyranny of
the self-regulating market can only become the central organising
mechanism if it is intentionally imposed on society by a
government...."?

Oh, I've thought about it. Moreover, I've commented upon it and debunked it.
How about you? Can you provide any cogent argument?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come
across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other
nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly
increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

My example was throwing someone a life preserver.

Which you're entitled to do. But be careful about using the law to mandate
that anyone else do so.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

Really? How so?

If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about
that?

Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed
you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your
needs"?

You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or
be branded a liar.


If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because
they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?

If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?

Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other
adults.


I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as
fundamental
human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that
comes
with it.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that
burden
on others without their consent.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?

No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.

And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns,
wouldn't they?


None of which has anything to do with education and health care as
fundamental rights.

Sure it does. You're just incapable understanding the link.


You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other
people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and
healthcare
- as a burden.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.

Sure you can. Charity begins at home.


I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a
chance
to learn how to read.

Then give them that chance.

But, you have yet to produce any rational argument as to why others should
be required to do so.

Because children will die without medicine and if they can't read their
ability to participate in society will be severely limited. Sorry if that's
not rational enough for you.

That states a couple of not-very-accurate presumptions, it does not comprise
a rational argument.

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.

Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.

Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate"
so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does.

What ever made you think that?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If you disagree,
feel free to refute it.


This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times.

Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be
somewhat less accommodating to you.

However, it remains up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up.

Nah. It's up to you to refute them. I've got the AP on my side, which will
do just fine till you come up with some credible refutation.


Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't.

Do you? I'm not so sure. Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying.

You've never let your ignorance prevent you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual.

So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should believe you because

I don't bull**** the way you do.

Heh. For once we agree. You bull**** in a most ignorant, pedantic and
childish manner.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should believe you because

I don't bull**** the way you do.

Mike

Mike it is obvious that you are dealing with an individual who has multiple
personalities, "And *we* should believe you because," so it would be
impossible for them to deal with reality.

One can only wonder what a Troll with multiple personalities is like in
person?

Mark --next thing ya know, Stevie will be claimin' to have a Hobbit in
every pocket!--

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

Mark --next thing ya know, Stevie will be claimin' to have a Hobbit in
every pocket!--

Sorry, got my trolls mixed-up. The above should have read "Scottie."

Mark

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

frtzw906