I dunno. Quebec relies heavily on Federal dollars, though a large part of that is probably due to business leaving Quebec in the late 70s to mid 80s for Ontario because of the uncertainty of separation. On the other hand, Quebeckers generally don't like federal meddling. Finally, all the anglos really opposed to francification have likely left. The only remaining issue is whether a separate Quebec will enslave anglos -- Quebec has a history of fascism, and the plans for separation if the 1995 referendum supported it were truly frightening (and not indicative of "person on the street" views about separation, but radical politicos' ideas about securing a tax base "necessary" for the new country).
The most geographically logical thing to do would be to carve out western Montreal as a Canadian enclave, but the rub is that's where most of the tax revenue lies (well, used to -- I haven't lived there since 1997).
The bottom line is that Quebec will continue to be the squeaky wheel that Canada will continue to grease. The other provinces (Alberta excepted) need to "grow a pair" when dealing with the feds. A separation within Quebec might be realistic.
I can't see Quebec "taking over" the Maritimes. There is a significant concentration of francophones in New Brunswick, but that's about all. Perhaps a split there two, with political union with the French part, but I think the geographic distribution based on language there would make it difficult.
Finally, I can't see the Maritimes joining the U.S. if Canada splits up: they have no economic value, and I'm not sure if they have strategic value either.
Well, yes. Congress made promises it couldn't keep (paying pensions to revolutionary war veterans without the power to tax).
And you think further empowering such a lying body was a good idea?
When the States committed soldiers they should have also committed funding. However, that commitment should have died when the war was over.
It costs money to change things, like say go from chaos to agreement over what to do when something bad (like war) happens. But, once the agreement is reached, why keep paying those that reached it? If war, as defined by the agreement, starts, the signatories are compelled to act. There is no need for panicked reaction.
Federation serves to cement common policy, but once cemented, needs no further action on that policy.
Establishing a standing governing body, with the power to perpetuate itself (taxing authority), without reserving the means to tear it down, or at least bring it to heal, is a dangerous thing.
While the continental congress likely was too weak, present usurpations of constitutionally limited federal powers go too far.
Quebec is complex. I lived there for 36 years and enjoyed the company of a number of original "quiet revolutionaries" -- the first true separatists, all of them French speaking (my first language was Czech, I learned English before starting school, and learned enough French to not get beaten up in the east end of Montreal).
The original complaint wasn't so much that English should be eradicated, but rather, that French should be compulsory to function in society (70% French speaking), and that the federal government should stop overreaching its mandate (which it did, and does: income tax is the purview of the provinces in Canada and sales taxes the purview of the federal government. Federal taxation started as an "administrative convenience" to the provinces, with a cut for the service, of course. Quebec stood alone in raising its own income tax, until the feds, with all the other provinces in line, forced federal income taxation on them).
Now, add a history of the English defeating the French in Quebec (at the time France and England were at war and this spilled over to the new world -- the losses here were so balanced and devastating that the parties agreed to surrender to the first supply ship that arrived -- which was British), and it created the perfect storm for radical separatists (anyone remember the FLQ?), who gained political prominence where the original quiet revolutionaries had failed.
Quebec remains a province divided between separation with enslavement of the English, or federation with unwanted meddling. Many of the "concessions" made to Quebec to keep it in Confederation are simply things to which it is entitled to anyway, and the other provinces prostituted away in the interest of convenience to a central government.
That's of course and oversimplification, but reflects a specific case of the common principle, that legitimate grievances will give rise to those who claim to deliver redress while only seeking positions of power.
Sure, but smart people, who generally make more money, and could provide more for the local economy, leave.
Such badly run places generally wither and die, though they may hobble along for a while, and often survive on state or federal subsidies.
It's not that smaller governments are necessarily better, it's just that when they are worse, it is easier to not suffer them, either by replacing them, or leaving their control.
I was actually thinking in the context of Canada: Alberta and Ontario subsidize much of the rest of the country and don't like it.
Ontario is interesting in that it does have a strong left leaning population, but Alberta doesn't.
Quebec is interesting because, it is anti-government, AND does receive much in federal transfer payments, per your example.
I think what happens is that population density growth gives rise to liberalism, and a strong federal tax base, along with much of the redistribution occurring within the state's borders from state and not federal taxes. California has high state income tax, for example, but is taxed federally like any other state.
Taxation in Canada is different. For all the provinces EXCEPT Quebec, income is taxed at the federal level, with a percentage added on to that and directed immediately back to the province. Alberta's percentage is zero. So, all income tax collected in Alberta goes to the federal government. Further, Alberta must provide oil to the federal government at below-market rates. No wonder they're sore.
Quebec, however, raises its own income tax as well, and taxpayers get a federal income tax abatement of about 16% because of it.
Alberta has financial reasons to dislike the federal government, and Quebec has political ones.
So, perhaps the issue hinges on how much the feds financially rape a state or province. Most people are charitable... to a point.
But, if you examine Quebec more closely, in particular the economic plan post-separation, if the referendum on the matter was decided in its favor in 1995, what you will see would shock you: the plan was for ten economic zones, with different tax levels within each one, redistribution of tax revenue, the heaviest taxed zone being overwhelmingly the English-speaking population in western Montreal, with it being illegal to move from one zone to another.
So, I stand by my general assertion: historically, anti-federation sentiments go along with redistributive taxation. Perhaps I should have qualified it with "excessive".
You don't need a fed to oversee any of this: the value of voluntary cooperation between the states regarding no interstate tarrifs and standardization would encourage them to voluntarily fund a federal government, or establish one with limited taxing authority.
There may be a semblance of a tax, but that tax would have initially been voluntarily accepted as fair price for the service provided.
The idea here is that government should be small in terms of the relationship between the number of governed. The cities govern individuals, the states govern cities, and the federation governs the states. At each layer, the "government" functions are necessarily different, relatively "small", and whatever rights not explicitly granted the government are reserved for the governed.
I think people accept big government because they (a) think it can offer them what they want and need because of its power (this being a double-edged sword), (b) reduce complexity in life by offering widespread standardization, and (c) think nothing of taxes to support it because they are used to paying what they think are taxes at the local level for common services, despite these really being dues to cover community membership.
Dues are voluntary. One can stop paying them and leave the organization to which one belongs. Of course, leaving a city would require either physical movement, or political succession. The former is generally easier than the latter, though the latter is not unheard of when cities agree to let certain regions unincorporate.
No.California was an example in terms of federally unfriendly because of its marijuana policy. I suppose it is federally friendly in terms of its tax base.
If you want an example of a federally unfriendly province, look at Alberta, Canada: financially raped for decades because of its oil. Alberta, and Ontario essentially subsidize federal programs and transfer payments in the rest of the country. Quebec (particularly Montreal) used to be a center of business as well, until separation sentiments drive investment to Ontario (Particularly Toronto) in the mid to late 1970s.
Indeed. I am a diehard libertarian and therefore opposed to the notions of large (or even medium) sized government. Needless to say, I am opposed to involuntary taxes.
Yet, when I move to a new town, I implicitly accept the taxing structure there, whether sales, property, utility, etc. These taxes support local services (fire, sewer, emergency response, police, etc.) and the argument that they "benefit all" is a strong one. At least those that disagree enough have the general freedom to leave. Local taxation, in effect, is voluntary, and grow out of initial community-driven consensus. Later arrivals either had to accept the tax structure, or find somewhere else to live. With enough choices, competition arises for the best governance model.
Further, small town government actually makes community participation and control possible: bad city councils get ousted fairly quickly, or people just plain leave.
The role of a federal government, representing the common interests of a federation of states is to provide scalability, efficiency, and consistency, of interactions these states require among themselves, and foreigners. It is not to be heavy handed against the citizens of those states. The police and military forces this federal government has it can direct, but ultimate control should rest with the member states. What are the feds going to do? Order Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico police to "invade" California to arrest a pot-smoking "terrorist"? When California police have a duty and obligation to defend their citizen?
Yes, this can degrade to a full-blown civil war between states. But, I suspect a federation of a modest number of states could do well to challenge any internally directed force against them from the federal government they created in the same way that the people of a small town can reasonably overthrow their city council, whether by ballot, or force.
The only way a federal government can subdue the individual states, therefore, is to pit them against one another. Historically, this has been done via re-distributive taxation: subsidizing federally "friendly" states with funds taxed from the "unfriendly" ones. But, if the federal government is funded voluntarily by the states, and not directly by individuals, it can be reigned in. The other downside of redistributive taxation at the state level is that it makes it harder for individuals to "vote with their feet" and move from one state to another: the "better" states will be taxed more to prop up the "worse" ones. This can't happen if support of the federation is voluntary. For an example of how this plays out study the history of provincial transfer payments in Canada.
Squandered? No, just rude. Anyone who pays more attention to those who are polite as opposed to better-reasoned won't be reached anyway: there will always be some fairy-tail to which they will happily listen. Ever notice how all presidents have such good speech-writers?
And frankly, I think socialists deserve rudeness. Should we hold a polite rapport with rapists, murderers, and thieves? Give them their dose of "innocent until proven guilty" of course, but let's not pull our punches when calling a spade a spade.
Socialists are thieves, and often result in death, when their policies are applied. Socialist health care? Well, the state ultimately decides who lives or dies, and while that might temporarily stay the ultimate fate of some, it will hasten the demise of others... particularly in single-tied state insurance places like Canada... and North Korea and Cuba, There it is illegal to pay your own money for "better" service because that would be unfair.
I have no reservations about expressing that I would like socialists dead, the deader the better. They're societal vermin, not even bottom-feeders, but worse. However, civilized that I am, I would be pleased to simply see them gone, away, out of sight, mind, and my wallet.
If all they wanted was their communes, along side the compounds of the religious fundies, that would be fine, but what both these groups want generally requires the economic sacrifice or moral subservience of those who would not otherwise agree with them, whereas their counterparts desire nothing from them.
It's a perverse doublespeak, almost Orwellian, that suggests the thief is the victim of the one who refuses to be robbed.
Let's examine your position. Any argument that you make that businesses that operate at a natural deficit but provide a "social benefit" could be applied to any business, including the newspaper business you seek to not support. Does not the newspaper business have employees? Does it not provide information to those who could not get it electronically because they can not afford the luxury of internet access? Of course. Historically, newspapers have been supported by advertising, and, well, there are many more outlets for that now. Might as well restrict advertisers on electronic devices to prop up newspapers by limiting where advertisers could advertise.
Here's a notion for you: No one is knowledgeable enough to determine where the greatest social benefit can be had. A tax or restriction to prop up one thing harms another. We haven't yet heard from the tree lobby who I suppose would rejoice at the decline in demand for newsprint. That is the basis of the argument for the free market: no one is smart enough to manage it for some definition of optimality, and trying to do so incurs overhead that would otherwise not be present. Welfare does not only put money into the hands of poor families. It also pays the salaries of those who administer the welfare system.
I would further posit that we do not, actually, have a very free market. Successful businesses can use their profits to lobby for legislation to exclude competition as much as dying businesses can. If there is one thing that money should not be able to purchase, it is law, particularly law beneficial to the provider of said money. How much would newspaper employees benefit from the proposed legislation, and how much do newspaper owners benefit?
Now, let's look at your "socially beneficial" businesses: public transportation, emergency services (fire and police), and public schools.
I really doubt the people of Rimouski, Quebec, like subsidizing the MUCTC (Montreal Urban Community Transit Commission -- providing public transportation to the residents of Montreal Quebec, and the surrounding area). What is the social benefit for them? But, the MUCTC is subsidized by the provincial government. If anything, the people of Montreal should pay for it.
Emergency services, particularly fire departments, serve a very important function. Even if a particular resident does not desire them, their neighbors have a legitimate right to (a) stop this resident's house fire from spreading, and (b) collecting compensation if it does. It's not hard to get members of a community to agree that a fire department is a good idea: it's relatively cheap insurance. Still, a rich resident should be free to post bond to indemnify his neighbors in case of fire if he does not want to support the fire department. (The same already holds for auto insurance: fleet operators can generally self-insure.)
Public roads have transportation value to the people who use them as well. Toll roads are possible but inconvenient (though, technology is changing this). It makes sense for small communities to collectively establish road (and water, and sewer, and garbage pickup) systems, and the means to fund them through agreement of the community founders. I suppose you could say the same about a community school -- more pupils per teacher (to a limit) offers efficiency that hoime schooling can not match (though one is starting to see collective home schools as well).
Lest you thing I am making the parent poster's point, here's the kicker: This does not scale geographically.
People are free to join and leave small communities and this serves as a control mechanism for their administration. But, (a) they can not easily leave large ones, and (b) the more remote the "social benefit", the more resented the local economic (and social) cost.
One of the great advantages of the U.S. is that it is a republic. Different states can operate different social and economic models wit
The fucktards are so stupid: they sit on a ton of oil in the tar sands, and just because it takes tons of energy to extract it, they don't. That's what local nuclear reactors are for.
At least they don't tax me any more.
Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah.
THIS expat wants to see the place turned to glass, and yes, this is a troll.
Right. The evidence of premeditation was circumstantial. The burden is to prove the map was obtained with the crime in mind. But, if it were, *BAM*, premeditation.
So, we need to add premeditation as a qualifier to other crimes, or perhaps, more fitting would be the degree of premeditation.
Deciding to rob a house one happens to come across with little security is a bit different than spending some time casing a joint, researching the security system, and using mapping software to plan a getaway route.
My thoughts exactly. Shaky, though? No, I think the word you seek is circumstantial.
If I get caught with a map that shows the block where the house is that I robbed, it's not quite the same as if I have that, a less detailed map, with driving instructions on it, and a more detailed one with "X marks the spot" to be hit.
The "high tech" map doesn't make the crime worse. It just serves as circumstantial evidence that it was premeditated. The harsher sentence should be imposed because the crime was planned, not because high tech was used.
Here's why the proposed law is bad:
1. It's way too specific. Why internet-generated maps? What about instructions to make burglary tools or improvised weapons?
2. If the use of "high tech" makes the punishment worse, is that not a condemnation of "high tech" itself? That would be a bad thing.
No, the thing that makes the crime worse is the premeditation, and the use of high-tech just offers evidence of this.
That does not strike me as entirely unreasonable, since, by default, every work of art in the U.S. is copyright upon creation. Registration is not necessary for basic copyright rights.
I get the judge's REASON going against statute, but "in some store somewhere, a copy exists with a copyright notice", shouldn't be necessary in the U.S. If it is a work of art, in the U.S. it is, by default, copyright (even if not registered). Therefore, unless one knows (or believes) it to be in the public domain, or licensed to one, one should reasonably presume it is copyright, no? (Just your friendly neighborhood devil's advocate -- I hope the supreme court actually reverses on this one, or at least remands for review of the statute.)
IOW, I don't think "I didn't know it was copyright because there was no notice" would be an adequate defense because every work of art is copyright by default. The statute may offer ignorance of the copyright/non-copyright status as an affirmative defense, but I don't think that ignorance can be established unless one can show it was expressly purported to be in the public domain, or licensed to one.
Does the defendant merely have to be ignorant of the existence of a copy with a copyright notice, or also ignorant of the fact that what he has is covered by copyright?
The latter might be hard to prove in a land where every work of art is copyright upon creation (registration of copyright being a different thing, of course). Was it actually purported to him to be in the public domain, or licensed to him?
Did you return the merchandise with your receipt or credit card?
If the purchase was made with a credit card, store policy is usually to issue an offsetting credit on the same card (though I suppose some might issue other store credit or a corporate cheque when the card charge clears, which is somewhat inconvenient).
If you provided your credit card so the charge could be reversed, they could issue a query to the credit card company by number and amount -- no need to store your card for this (though they probably do for reconciliation in accordance with the credit card company's privacy policy). When you provide your card a second time, they see your name.
Not arguing that they didn't keep information longer than necessary, but they could have had the same interaction with you without necessarily doing so: the credit card company might have had it, and released it when you provided your card. Hence, my question about handling the return with your credit card or receipt. If you just provided your receipt, AND they did not need your credit card to reverse the transaction, THEN they kept information longer than necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Recall, that for a non-rotating, non-charged, black hole, r=2GM/c^2.
So, M=rc^2/2G, and, for a sphere, V=4pi*r^3/3, so density is given by:
D=M/V = rc^2/2G * 3/(4pi*r^3) = 3c^2/(8pi*Gr^2).
Thus, the density of the black hole falls off as the square of its radius.
A black hole of density 1000 kg/m^3 (that of water), would therefore have a radius given by:
3c^2 = 8pi*Gr^2 kg/m^3 , and r = sqrt(3c^2 m^3/kg /8pi*G), or r = sqrt(3 * (300*10^3)^2 km^2/s^2 * 10^6 m^2/km^2 m^3 / kg / (8*3.14*6.67*10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2)
)).
Simplifying:
r = sqrt(2.43*10^18 m^2/s^2 / (1.68*10^-9 m^3/(kg*s^2)) m^3/kg) = sqrt(2.43*10^18 / 1.68*10^-9 m^2) = sqrt(1.45*10^27 m^2) = sqrt(1.45*10^21 km^2) = 3.81*10^10 km = 254 AU.
Assuming I did the math right, that's much bigger than our solar system.
Of course, if you did have that much water in one place, it would collapse gravitationally and wouldn't have a uniform density throughout.
I dunno. Quebec relies heavily on Federal dollars, though a large part of that is probably due to business leaving Quebec in the late 70s to mid 80s for Ontario because of the uncertainty of separation. On the other hand, Quebeckers generally don't like federal meddling. Finally, all the anglos really opposed to francification have likely left. The only remaining issue is whether a separate Quebec will enslave anglos -- Quebec has a history of fascism, and the plans for separation if the 1995 referendum supported it were truly frightening (and not indicative of "person on the street" views about separation, but radical politicos' ideas about securing a tax base "necessary" for the new country).
The most geographically logical thing to do would be to carve out western Montreal as a Canadian enclave, but the rub is that's where most of the tax revenue lies (well, used to -- I haven't lived there since 1997).
The bottom line is that Quebec will continue to be the squeaky wheel that Canada will continue to grease. The other provinces (Alberta excepted) need to "grow a pair" when dealing with the feds. A separation within Quebec might be realistic.
I can't see Quebec "taking over" the Maritimes. There is a significant concentration of francophones in New Brunswick, but that's about all. Perhaps a split there two, with political union with the French part, but I think the geographic distribution based on language there would make it difficult.
Finally, I can't see the Maritimes joining the U.S. if Canada splits up: they have no economic value, and I'm not sure if they have strategic value either.
Well, yes. Congress made promises it couldn't keep (paying pensions to revolutionary war veterans without the power to tax).
And you think further empowering such a lying body was a good idea?
When the States committed soldiers they should have also committed funding. However, that commitment should have died when the war was over.
It costs money to change things, like say go from chaos to agreement over what to do when something bad (like war) happens. But, once the agreement is reached, why keep paying those that reached it? If war, as defined by the agreement, starts, the signatories are compelled to act. There is no need for panicked reaction.
Federation serves to cement common policy, but once cemented, needs no further action on that policy.
Establishing a standing governing body, with the power to perpetuate itself (taxing authority), without reserving the means to tear it down, or at least bring it to heal, is a dangerous thing.
While the continental congress likely was too weak, present usurpations of constitutionally limited federal powers go too far.
Quebec is complex. I lived there for 36 years and enjoyed the company of a number of original "quiet revolutionaries" -- the first true separatists, all of them French speaking (my first language was Czech, I learned English before starting school, and learned enough French to not get beaten up in the east end of Montreal).
The original complaint wasn't so much that English should be eradicated, but rather, that French should be compulsory to function in society (70% French speaking), and that the federal government should stop overreaching its mandate (which it did, and does: income tax is the purview of the provinces in Canada and sales taxes the purview of the federal government. Federal taxation started as an "administrative convenience" to the provinces, with a cut for the service, of course. Quebec stood alone in raising its own income tax, until the feds, with all the other provinces in line, forced federal income taxation on them).
Now, add a history of the English defeating the French in Quebec (at the time France and England were at war and this spilled over to the new world -- the losses here were so balanced and devastating that the parties agreed to surrender to the first supply ship that arrived -- which was British), and it created the perfect storm for radical separatists (anyone remember the FLQ?), who gained political prominence where the original quiet revolutionaries had failed.
Quebec remains a province divided between separation with enslavement of the English, or federation with unwanted meddling. Many of the "concessions" made to Quebec to keep it in Confederation are simply things to which it is entitled to anyway, and the other provinces prostituted away in the interest of convenience to a central government.
That's of course and oversimplification, but reflects a specific case of the common principle, that legitimate grievances will give rise to those who claim to deliver redress while only seeking positions of power.
Sure, but smart people, who generally make more money, and could provide more for the local economy, leave.
Such badly run places generally wither and die, though they may hobble along for a while, and often survive on state or federal subsidies.
It's not that smaller governments are necessarily better, it's just that when they are worse, it is easier to not suffer them, either by replacing them, or leaving their control.
I was actually thinking in the context of Canada: Alberta and Ontario subsidize much of the rest of the country and don't like it.
Ontario is interesting in that it does have a strong left leaning population, but Alberta doesn't.
Quebec is interesting because, it is anti-government, AND does receive much in federal transfer payments, per your example.
I think what happens is that population density growth gives rise to liberalism, and a strong federal tax base, along with much of the redistribution occurring within the state's borders from state and not federal taxes. California has high state income tax, for example, but is taxed federally like any other state.
Taxation in Canada is different. For all the provinces EXCEPT Quebec, income is taxed at the federal level, with a percentage added on to that and directed immediately back to the province. Alberta's percentage is zero. So, all income tax collected in Alberta goes to the federal government. Further, Alberta must provide oil to the federal government at below-market rates. No wonder they're sore.
Quebec, however, raises its own income tax as well, and taxpayers get a federal income tax abatement of about 16% because of it.
Alberta has financial reasons to dislike the federal government, and Quebec has political ones.
So, perhaps the issue hinges on how much the feds financially rape a state or province. Most people are charitable... to a point.
But, if you examine Quebec more closely, in particular the economic plan post-separation, if the referendum on the matter was decided in its favor in 1995, what you will see would shock you: the plan was for ten economic zones, with different tax levels within each one, redistribution of tax revenue, the heaviest taxed zone being overwhelmingly the English-speaking population in western Montreal, with it being illegal to move from one zone to another.
So, I stand by my general assertion: historically, anti-federation sentiments go along with redistributive taxation. Perhaps I should have qualified it with "excessive".
You don't need a fed to oversee any of this: the value of voluntary cooperation between the states regarding no interstate tarrifs and standardization would encourage them to voluntarily fund a federal government, or establish one with limited taxing authority.
There may be a semblance of a tax, but that tax would have initially been voluntarily accepted as fair price for the service provided.
The idea here is that government should be small in terms of the relationship between the number of governed. The cities govern individuals, the states govern cities, and the federation governs the states. At each layer, the "government" functions are necessarily different, relatively "small", and whatever rights not explicitly granted the government are reserved for the governed.
I think people accept big government because they (a) think it can offer them what they want and need because of its power (this being a double-edged sword), (b) reduce complexity in life by offering widespread standardization, and (c) think nothing of taxes to support it because they are used to paying what they think are taxes at the local level for common services, despite these really being dues to cover community membership.
Dues are voluntary. One can stop paying them and leave the organization to which one belongs. Of course, leaving a city would require either physical movement, or political succession. The former is generally easier than the latter, though the latter is not unheard of when cities agree to let certain regions unincorporate.
No.California was an example in terms of federally unfriendly because of its marijuana policy. I suppose it is federally friendly in terms of its tax base.
If you want an example of a federally unfriendly province, look at Alberta, Canada: financially raped for decades because of its oil. Alberta, and Ontario essentially subsidize federal programs and transfer payments in the rest of the country. Quebec (particularly Montreal) used to be a center of business as well, until separation sentiments drive investment to Ontario (Particularly Toronto) in the mid to late 1970s.
Indeed. I am a diehard libertarian and therefore opposed to the notions of large (or even medium) sized government. Needless to say, I am opposed to involuntary taxes.
Yet, when I move to a new town, I implicitly accept the taxing structure there, whether sales, property, utility, etc. These taxes support local services (fire, sewer, emergency response, police, etc.) and the argument that they "benefit all" is a strong one. At least those that disagree enough have the general freedom to leave. Local taxation, in effect, is voluntary, and grow out of initial community-driven consensus. Later arrivals either had to accept the tax structure, or find somewhere else to live. With enough choices, competition arises for the best governance model.
Further, small town government actually makes community participation and control possible: bad city councils get ousted fairly quickly, or people just plain leave.
The role of a federal government, representing the common interests of a federation of states is to provide scalability, efficiency, and consistency, of interactions these states require among themselves, and foreigners. It is not to be heavy handed against the citizens of those states. The police and military forces this federal government has it can direct, but ultimate control should rest with the member states. What are the feds going to do? Order Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico police to "invade" California to arrest a pot-smoking "terrorist"? When California police have a duty and obligation to defend their citizen?
Yes, this can degrade to a full-blown civil war between states. But, I suspect a federation of a modest number of states could do well to challenge any internally directed force against them from the federal government they created in the same way that the people of a small town can reasonably overthrow their city council, whether by ballot, or force.
The only way a federal government can subdue the individual states, therefore, is to pit them against one another. Historically, this has been done via re-distributive taxation: subsidizing federally "friendly" states with funds taxed from the "unfriendly" ones. But, if the federal government is funded voluntarily by the states, and not directly by individuals, it can be reigned in. The other downside of redistributive taxation at the state level is that it makes it harder for individuals to "vote with their feet" and move from one state to another: the "better" states will be taxed more to prop up the "worse" ones. This can't happen if support of the federation is voluntary. For an example of how this plays out study the history of provincial transfer payments in Canada.
Squandered? No, just rude. Anyone who pays more attention to those who are polite as opposed to better-reasoned won't be reached anyway: there will always be some fairy-tail to which they will happily listen. Ever notice how all presidents have such good speech-writers?
And frankly, I think socialists deserve rudeness. Should we hold a polite rapport with rapists, murderers, and thieves? Give them their dose of "innocent until proven guilty" of course, but let's not pull our punches when calling a spade a spade.
Socialists are thieves, and often result in death, when their policies are applied. Socialist health care? Well, the state ultimately decides who lives or dies, and while that might temporarily stay the ultimate fate of some, it will hasten the demise of others... particularly in single-tied state insurance places like Canada... and North Korea and Cuba, There it is illegal to pay your own money for "better" service because that would be unfair.
I have no reservations about expressing that I would like socialists dead, the deader the better. They're societal vermin, not even bottom-feeders, but worse. However, civilized that I am, I would be pleased to simply see them gone, away, out of sight, mind, and my wallet.
If all they wanted was their communes, along side the compounds of the religious fundies, that would be fine, but what both these groups want generally requires the economic sacrifice or moral subservience of those who would not otherwise agree with them, whereas their counterparts desire nothing from them.
It's a perverse doublespeak, almost Orwellian, that suggests the thief is the victim of the one who refuses to be robbed.
Disclaimer: I am a diehard libertarian.
Let's examine your position. Any argument that you make that businesses that operate at a natural deficit but provide a "social benefit" could be applied to any business, including the newspaper business you seek to not support. Does not the newspaper business have employees? Does it not provide information to those who could not get it electronically because they can not afford the luxury of internet access? Of course. Historically, newspapers have been supported by advertising, and, well, there are many more outlets for that now. Might as well restrict advertisers on electronic devices to prop up newspapers by limiting where advertisers could advertise.
Here's a notion for you: No one is knowledgeable enough to determine where the greatest social benefit can be had. A tax or restriction to prop up one thing harms another. We haven't yet heard from the tree lobby who I suppose would rejoice at the decline in demand for newsprint. That is the basis of the argument for the free market: no one is smart enough to manage it for some definition of optimality, and trying to do so incurs overhead that would otherwise not be present. Welfare does not only put money into the hands of poor families. It also pays the salaries of those who administer the welfare system.
I would further posit that we do not, actually, have a very free market. Successful businesses can use their profits to lobby for legislation to exclude competition as much as dying businesses can. If there is one thing that money should not be able to purchase, it is law, particularly law beneficial to the provider of said money. How much would newspaper employees benefit from the proposed legislation, and how much do newspaper owners benefit?
Now, let's look at your "socially beneficial" businesses: public transportation, emergency services (fire and police), and public schools.
I really doubt the people of Rimouski, Quebec, like subsidizing the MUCTC (Montreal Urban Community Transit Commission -- providing public transportation to the residents of Montreal Quebec, and the surrounding area). What is the social benefit for them? But, the MUCTC is subsidized by the provincial government. If anything, the people of Montreal should pay for it.
Emergency services, particularly fire departments, serve a very important function. Even if a particular resident does not desire them, their neighbors have a legitimate right to (a) stop this resident's house fire from spreading, and (b) collecting compensation if it does. It's not hard to get members of a community to agree that a fire department is a good idea: it's relatively cheap insurance. Still, a rich resident should be free to post bond to indemnify his neighbors in case of fire if he does not want to support the fire department. (The same already holds for auto insurance: fleet operators can generally self-insure.)
Public roads have transportation value to the people who use them as well. Toll roads are possible but inconvenient (though, technology is changing this). It makes sense for small communities to collectively establish road (and water, and sewer, and garbage pickup) systems, and the means to fund them through agreement of the community founders. I suppose you could say the same about a community school -- more pupils per teacher (to a limit) offers efficiency that hoime schooling can not match (though one is starting to see collective home schools as well).
Lest you thing I am making the parent poster's point, here's the kicker: This does not scale geographically.
People are free to join and leave small communities and this serves as a control mechanism for their administration. But, (a) they can not easily leave large ones, and (b) the more remote the "social benefit", the more resented the local economic (and social) cost.
One of the great advantages of the U.S. is that it is a republic. Different states can operate different social and economic models wit
EXACTLY! Build out some to extract the oil.
Any half-intelligent Canuck has already left.
The fucktards are so stupid: they sit on a ton of oil in the tar sands, and just because it takes tons of energy to extract it, they don't. That's what local nuclear reactors are for.
At least they don't tax me any more.
Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah.
THIS expat wants to see the place turned to glass, and yes, this is a troll.
Right. The evidence of premeditation was circumstantial. The burden is to prove the map was obtained with the crime in mind. But, if it were, *BAM*, premeditation.
Deciding to rob a house one happens to come across with little security is a bit different than spending some time casing a joint, researching the security system, and using mapping software to plan a getaway route.
Up to no good Teen #2: "Yeah! Lets!"
If I get caught with a map that shows the block where the house is that I robbed, it's not quite the same as if I have that, a less detailed map, with driving instructions on it, and a more detailed one with "X marks the spot" to be hit.
Here's why the proposed law is bad:
1. It's way too specific. Why internet-generated maps? What about instructions to make burglary tools or improvised weapons?
2. If the use of "high tech" makes the punishment worse, is that not a condemnation of "high tech" itself? That would be a bad thing.
No, the thing that makes the crime worse is the premeditation, and the use of high-tech just offers evidence of this.
Clearly I meant Copyright in the context of when it is created while the Copyright Act is in force.
Well, unless the statute defines what constitutes ignorance, case law would have to establish that.
At least, some diligence should be demonstrated.
Not quite. You've done due diligence.
That does not strike me as entirely unreasonable, since, by default, every work of art in the U.S. is copyright upon creation. Registration is not necessary for basic copyright rights.
I get the judge's REASON going against statute, but "in some store somewhere, a copy exists with a copyright notice", shouldn't be necessary in the U.S. If it is a work of art, in the U.S. it is, by default, copyright (even if not registered). Therefore, unless one knows (or believes) it to be in the public domain, or licensed to one, one should reasonably presume it is copyright, no? (Just your friendly neighborhood devil's advocate -- I hope the supreme court actually reverses on this one, or at least remands for review of the statute.)
IOW, I don't think "I didn't know it was copyright because there was no notice" would be an adequate defense because every work of art is copyright by default. The statute may offer ignorance of the copyright/non-copyright status as an affirmative defense, but I don't think that ignorance can be established unless one can show it was expressly purported to be in the public domain, or licensed to one.
Does the defendant merely have to be ignorant of the existence of a copy with a copyright notice, or also ignorant of the fact that what he has is covered by copyright?
The latter might be hard to prove in a land where every work of art is copyright upon creation (registration of copyright being a different thing, of course). Was it actually purported to him to be in the public domain, or licensed to him?
Did you return the merchandise with your receipt or credit card?
If the purchase was made with a credit card, store policy is usually to issue an offsetting credit on the same card (though I suppose some might issue other store credit or a corporate cheque when the card charge clears, which is somewhat inconvenient).
If you provided your credit card so the charge could be reversed, they could issue a query to the credit card company by number and amount -- no need to store your card for this (though they probably do for reconciliation in accordance with the credit card company's privacy policy). When you provide your card a second time, they see your name.
Not arguing that they didn't keep information longer than necessary, but they could have had the same interaction with you without necessarily doing so: the credit card company might have had it, and released it when you provided your card. Hence, my question about handling the return with your credit card or receipt. If you just provided your receipt, AND they did not need your credit card to reverse the transaction, THEN they kept information longer than necessary.