Rio starts ID checks on US flyers

[KrazyHorse]

Cigarette smuggling (I'm assuming you mean the kind that involves boats at night on Indian reservations, not the kind that involves a pallet of ciggies under the rest of the cargo in a semi) is only a problem because of the special situation of crossborder reserves (not as much jurisdiction in the hands of federal authorities).

How many illegals go across from Canada to the US? How many from Mexico to the US?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker
O Boris -

You're a socialist (oh, "democratic socialist"?), so why on Earth would you think socialism is criminal? Tell me, O Boris, if government did not exist, could you go around plundering people's money to pay for your welfare without committing a crime? If it's a crime to steal from others, it's still a crime even if you make the theft "legal". Yes, socialism (democratic or not) is criminal by it's very nature...

Stop right here. Now if YOU owned land and had 1000 people plowing it, would I let you do this without a government? No. I would say give everyone his decent share. If there was no government, half of the world CEOs would be burned by the masses. I won't be debating in this thread about socialism. Because the kind of 'capitalism' America has been defending has nothing to do with free market anyway, and it IS plunder in another way. The American government is NOT libertarian; it is capitalist-oligarchic. At least, if it was libertarian, we could say it is holding a COHERENT point of view (with which I would disagree, but at least I could respect it).

Where did I advocate murdering social-democrats? And where did I say the US was altruistic in doing that? I want to see actual quotes and not another rambling post full of strawmen.

You are defending America's foreign policy, which means you are advocating mass murder of anything socialist/social-democrat (though only in the undeveloped world).

The absence of a law is not brute force, the existence of a law is brute force. It would be nice if you social democrats understood that every time you lament "there ought to be a law against that".

The absence of law is the state of nature, and about every political philosopher will make it about brute force. Any analyst of international relationships will tell you this: states are acting towards each other much like humans would in Hobbes' state of nature.

Don't change the subject, we were talking about the "robber barons" of the USA, not 3rd world dictatorships. Sheesh Boris, wasn't that debate in another thread.

You brought the topic of mass murder, and you said that the USA 'liberated tens of millions' while the commies killed tens of millions. I could only disagree with that, regardless of the context.

Well now, you think plunder is just fine when it's "legal" in a social democracy.

I'm not sure, to tell you the whole truth. But the radical positions held by the likes of you on social-democracy, even seeing the huge successes these governments had in reducing poverty and suffering, apals me. Look, even if you proved that SDs are the worst thing to ever happen to humanity (which is doubtful considering human history), then again I *could* (I'm young an unsure) just say: 'well, shut up, the poors won't be starving in MY country, regardless of alleged "plunders".

You said it, not me. I don't resort to calling people idiots or "dumbasses" (unless they start insulting me).

I apologize. As reparation, you can call me a 'dumbass' twice: once to repay me, and once again for the interest rates (aren't you a greedy libertarian?)

If a despot is in power and being bribed to do the bidding of a corporation, then it isn't a capitalist system. Capitalism requires
a free (or relatively free) market and that includes the freedom of association which is obviously violated by such practices. And a free market also requires the absence of political favoritism...Once politicians start picking winners and losers (via bribes, legislation or whatever) it's no longer a free market...

I definitely agree with you here. What I believe, however, is that the perfect free market is not any more possible than the perfect socialism regime. You seem to be as ideologically blinded as the worst commies on this one.

When were strikers murdered for refusing to work in America? No Boris, strikers were attacked by the police after the strikers attacked "scabs" or tried to shut down the business they were trying to coerce into making a new contract. Business owners didn't run around killing people who refused to work for them...

Read the American and Canadian laws prior to WWI; being member of an union was a sufficient reason to be sent in jail. Strikes were forbidden, anywhere, under the pretext that demos were disturbing public order. I suggest you read some more history books on that one. Mine are written in French, so it's my bad if I can't quote for you.

I don't think Spiffor called you stupid, he said comments made by me and Sava were stupid. Maybe you should quote him too...

In fact, I'm quite sure he did. But I won't be insulting you over this one!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hey Boris, where in the definition of democracy do you see rights or free speech?

All right. I'll be pasting the explanation I've been giving in the last days to anyone who has confronted me on this one.

1. There is the coherency thing. Since the premise behind 'democracy' is that everyone is equal, then everyone must have not only the same rights, but rights which are in concordance with 'equality'. Suffrage in itself is far from sufficient to be called democratic. Suffrage is the consequence of democratic reasoning, and not its 'incarnation'.

2. Then there is the problem of free speech. Obviously, for a vote to be valid, everyone must be able to share his opinion without hindrance. Suffrage without 'free speech' is not democratic. Think of Saddam, Ghadafy or Hitler, who all used elections. No one even dared to vote against them; they didn't even need to cheat the results.

3. Then there is Harry Tuttle's stupidity. Don't forget that what he said was an answer to an earlier statement, in which I said that I lost confidence in our democratic system the day my friends and I were brutalized by the police, and that the newspaper on the following morning gave the police's version of the facts. So, even if his definition of democracy had been true, he should have considered that by claiming to grant us these rights (as it is now), our democracies are breaking their word if they stop fulfilling their promises.

[Ramo]

When were strikers murdered for refusing to work in America?

There've been a number of such events through our history. The Ludlow Massacre, for instance, comes to mind.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How many illegals go across from Canada to the US? How many from Mexico to the US?

That's the point. It is undefended, now.

Let's hope we can improve things enough that it remains that way.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ramo


There've been a number of such events through our history. The Ludlow Massacre, for instance, comes to mind.

There have been many such instances in Canada too. They have been reported in detail in my history courses.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Zylka


Ohhh, great. I can tell this guy is gonna last long

The NY Time report his name as than possible criminal in the bio attack in America and his name is Dr Richard Hill of Virginia an he refuse to allow the FBI to question him. First he has the tech knowhow to make bioweapon and a motive to do so , he want to start than religious war between Christian and Islam.. He worked at than America Government BioWeapon Lab and some samples and equipment is missing.

[Berzerker]

[Berzerker]

The Ludlow massacre wasn't perpetrated by the police.

[Berzerker]

[Berzerker]

O Boris -

Stop right here. Now if YOU owned land and had 1000 people plowing it, would I let you do this without a government? No.

If we (1,001 people, me and the plowers) want to cooperate, it ain't none of your business regardless of whether or not government exists.

I would say give everyone his decent share. If there was no government, half of the world CEOs would be burned by the masses.

Decent as defined by you or defined by them and me?

I won't be debating in this thread about socialism. Because the kind of 'capitalism' America has been defending has nothing to do with free market anyway, and it IS plunder in another way.

I agree the US is not free market capitalism.

The American government is NOT libertarian; it is capitalist-oligarchic. At least, if it was libertarian, we could say it is holding a COHERENT point of view (with which I would disagree, but at least I could respect it).

You act like you're educating me, I know we don't have a libertarian government.

You are defending America's foreign policy, which means you are advocating mass murder of anything socialist/social-democrat (though only in the undeveloped world).

I ASKED FOR ACTUAL QUOTES! You accused me of advocating mass murder of social democrats and I asked you for quotes and now you're throwing around more BS to hide the fact there are no quotes because I never advocated mass murder. Sava and I were comparing the USA with Nazi Germany because he tried to ~equate the two and I pointed out how the USA had liberated dozens of countries over the last ~60 years. No where did I say US foreign policy has never done anything evil nor did I express approval of these evils, quite the opposite, I've acknowledged that it has, but not to the level of the Nazis. The fact I've pointed out some of the positive results of US foreign policy over the last 60 years does not mean I'm defending everything the US has done.

The absence of law is the state of nature, and about every political philosopher will make it about brute force. Any analyst of international relationships will tell you this: states are acting towards each other much like humans would in Hobbes' state of nature.

I don't care what political philosophers allegedly claim, only that the law is brute force, therefore the absence of law is not. That's like arguing the removal of a chain around your ankle = a chain around your ankle...

You brought the topic of mass murder, and you said that the USA 'liberated tens of millions' while the commies killed tens of millions. I could only disagree with that, regardless of the context.

Mass murder was a different issue being debated by Sava and me, when you and I were discussing strikers and your grandfather or father, we were discussing US history, not world history. Citing what has happened to strikers in 3rd world hellholes is irrelevant.

I'm not sure, to tell you the whole truth. But the radical positions held by the likes of you on social-democracy, even seeing the huge successes these governments had in reducing poverty and suffering, apals me.

Well now, if I run around plundering my neighbors, I'll reduce my poverty too if I'm poor. So what? And you're assuming it was the welfare state that created this wealth. Welfare is a drag on economic production, not a catalyst. It was the industrial revolution and mass production - increased efficiency - that was the catalyst for wealth in the west. If welfare states were the catalyst, the USSR would not have collapsed, it and other communist nations would be the world's superpowers. China is fast becoming an economic powerhouse and it sure isn't because of communism, they too are adopting a more capitalistic approach.

Look, even if you proved that SDs are the worst thing to ever happen to humanity (which is doubtful considering human history), then again I *could* (I'm young an unsure) just say: 'well, shut up, the poors won't be starving in MY country, regardless of alleged "plunders".

Quit throwing around strawmen. I never said social democracies are the worst thing humanity has come up with.

I apologize. As reparation, you can call me a 'dumbass' twice: once to repay me, and once again for the interest rates (aren't you a greedy libertarian?)

Well, there's hope for you after all, but try apologising for falsely accusing me of supporting mass murder, that was the basis for your "dumbass" comment.

What I believe, however, is that the perfect free market is not any more possible than the perfect socialism regime. You seem to be as ideologically blinded as the worst commies on this one.

Perfection is not an option for any ideology, but to suggest that we should do away with the free market to create a welfare state based on the proposition welfare states are better than free markets ignores the engine that drives production and worse, ignores freedom. Capitalism expands the economic pie, the welfare state reduces it.

Read the American and Canadian laws prior to WWI; being member of an union was a sufficient reason to be sent in jail. Strikes were forbidden, anywhere, under the pretext that demos were disturbing public order. I suggest you read some more history books on that one. Mine are written in French, so it's my bad if I can't quote for you.

Jailed for joining a union or jailed for joining a union, then stiking, attacking "scabs" and using coercion to shut down non-compliant businesses? I'd be surprised as hell if workers were literally jailed for joining a union and nothing more.

In fact, I'm quite sure he did. But I won't be insulting you over this one!

I think Spiffor confused you with Sava, it was Sava who tried to ~equate Nazi Germany with the USA and I made a similar comparison between France and Kuwait and Spiffor jumped in to call both our comparisons stupid. For some reason Spiffor says he was calling your comment stupid, perhaps because you seem to be supporting Sava's proposition.

[Ramo]

The Ludlow massacre wasn't perpetrated by the police.

No, but it was perpretrated in part by other agents of the state - some militamen. And furthermore, the killings were done so with legal impunity (no one was charged with murdering any of the strikers or their families).

I'd be surprised as hell if workers were literally jailed for joining a union and nothing more.

It has happened many, many times. I'm not sure about Canadian labor laws (though I'd guess they were harsher in general than American labor laws), but workers were often jailed for being unionists, as well as nonviolently striking (the imprisonment of Debs during the Pullman Strike comes to mind). Typically they were slapped with some charge of conspiracy or the government placed an injunction on a strike.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ramo
It has happened many, many times. I'm not sure about Canadian labor laws (though I'd guess they were harsher in general than American labor laws), but workers were often jailed for being unionists...

Who, when and where?

...as well as nonviolently striking (the imprisonment of Debs during the Pullman Strike comes to mind). Typically they were slapped with some charge of conspiracy or the government placed an injunction on a strike.

Yep, striking was equated with sedition at one time, and even being peaceful was not good enough. But simply being in a union has never been a crime that I have heard of, especially since we have had a Trade Union Act since 1872 (5 years after Confederation and a year after Gladstone's similar Acts of 1871 in Britain).

[Ramo]

Who, when and where?

For instance, the Haymarket Martyrs. They lead the anarchist part of the unionist movement in Chicago in '86, so when the gov't was given the pretense, tbey were executed. That's probably one of the most extreme examples in US history, so there aren't many like it; but you can find a lot of examples of throwing unionists in jail.

Yep, striking was equated with sedition at one time, and even being peaceful was not good enough. But simply being in a union has never been a crime that I have heard of, especially since we have had a Trade Union Act since 1872 (6 years after Confederation and a year after Gladstone's similar Acts of 1871 in Britain).

Sedition, per se, has rarely been illegal in this country. Before the courts stopped the governments of the US (usually by the mid-nineteenth century, starting with Commonwealth v. Hunt in Massachussetts in '42), unionists were charged with conspiracy. After unions became legal, anti-trust legislation (for instance, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890) was used to prosecute unionists; in fact, that was the legal basis for the aforementioned Eugene Debs prosecution.

[notyoueither]

I misread you. I thought you were saying that unionists were locked up for being unionists in Canada.