Originally posted by Arwon

---

Private property uber alles? So you approve of "Whites only" signs then?

---

Originally posted by ||bass

---

It comes down to the fact that any pharmacy is a private buisness and private buisnesses don't have to do buisness with anyone they don't want to. It's their decision. Nobody should force them to sell you their medicine the same way nobody should force you to buy medicine should you not want it.

On that note, those pharmacists are a bunch of pricks and deserve to lose all their customers.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

The old "trade brings peace" argument, eh? You're aware that international trade among the European powers in 1914 was comparable to today's levels, right?


And really, I don't think you can separate the "trading and not fighting" thing from the supranational administration. Going right back to the European Coal and Steel Community, one of the main ideas at work was of economic prosperity and harmonisation creating a stable foundation on which to build political unity. The demise of the EFTA (anyone remember that?) in favour of EU I think illustrates that there's a desire for a more complete cooperation beyond just removing trade barriers.


And on the Yugoslavian disintegration, I don't think you can blame a reaction against centralisation for that. If anything, the problem with Yugoslavia was that it wasn't centralised enough... Tito held it together through force of personality, but he left in place separate replublics which could form the framework for disintegration, and more importantly, his policies actively encouraged identification as Serbian or Croatian - the parallel systems of education, administration and so forth didn't encourage people to identify as 'Yugoslavian' - it was a disadvatnage in day to day life, so even the significant proportion of the population that was of mixed ancestry mostly chose to identify as belonging to one group or another. Even so, on a census taken at some point, people were asked to identify their ethnicity, and over a million identified as "Yugoslavian" rather than Serbian or Croatian or such. There's a case to be made that the disintegration of Yugoslavia was due at least partly to incomplete centralisation.

That said, the bitterness and animosity from the WW2 period ran fairly deep (I don't buy the "500 years of antagonism" line... I mean, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians mostly manage to live in the same countries without massacring each other... the bitterness from WW2 and the partisans and so forth however was fresh and the wounds deep), but it didn't have to be insurmountable.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

Pharmacists have a duty of care much like doctors and are failing in that pretty spectacularly... to the point of negligence, really. They do take an oath afterall.

If someone has a prescription, then why should the pharmacists have the right to deny that medical treatment is beyond me. Especially since, in my understanding, there have been cases where pharmacists have refused to transfer the prescription elsewhere, basically withholding the damn thing in a very time critical situation.

I don't think this is a simple libertarian "someone else will do it" issue. Walmart has refused to stock these things, which given that it's driven other pharmacists out of business, is often the only easily available option, is a big problem. So does some poor Arkansas teen get to miss out on birth control because Walmart is exercising its private proprty rights?

Moreover, the pressure exerted by the Taliban Wing of Christianity through lobbying and boycotts and protests and stuff in some parts of the US can mean that phatmacists are under pressure and may decide it is less costly to lose the business than face that lobby. Again the situation of small Southern towns springs to mind.

What's more, in the US, in the absense of a universal single healthcover system, not all pharmacists might be on your health insurance... in a timecritical situation like these B drugs, people don't really wanna have to search round, or go to the next town 50 miles away, just because some jackass thinks he has the right to tell you you can't get a drug you have a prescription for.

There's a lot more flying around here than just "property rights".

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

I'm not saying everyone should be placed under big uniform governments, I'm not advocating any universal principles here and seldom do. I'm just, specifically to the post-war Titoist Yugoslavian context, saying that Yugoslavia *was* a viable multiethnic society for decades, and it didn't disintegrate due to excessive centralisation alone, but a generally poor structure that divided everything by ethnicities that were not pure or easily divided.

Really now, there's just as many examples of successful big multiethnic countries as there are dismal fKitten Yiffers. I do hope you're not going to try to take a universal position on "centralisation versus decentralisation" here. India used to be a patchwork of petty little entities and is now the largest democracy in the world. 200 years ago French was a minority language in France and now it's the very model of a centralised nationstate. Italy and Germany were a collection of tiny little entities dominated by other powers. Spain appears to be going to cope with its many regionalisms quite successfully. Russia is still a huge multiethnic nation under a very centralised and autocratic government as it has basically been for centuries.

Canada, the US and Australia are all successful federations of smaller components that once had quite divisive squabbles that, in the beginning, endandered their very inception.

I notice that you've sneakily inserted the word "uniform" there since your last post. It shouldn't be there, no-one's advocating complete assimilation into some big homogenising authoritarian European entity. Europe is not going to go all Francoist and there's a huge difference between enforcing cultural identity uniformity and merely establishing a supranational union.

"Also, what happened to people being able to establish their own identities and live in their own communities, rather than being forced into one big community?"

That's what federalism is

---

Originally posted by drjayphd

---

But the guy can't say that you "can't" get a birth control pill, or whatever you're talking about. He is saying that he will not provide it. It is the responsiblity of the patient to acquire the drugs which have been prescribed him by the doctor.

Unless they will not fill it knowing there is nowhere else to get it filled, and/or refuse to return the prescription, meaning you've gotta go back to your doctor for another one.

If you object to birth control, don't become a pharmacist. Period. End of fucking discussion.

---

Originally posted by Ziff

---

That act can be overpowered by the courts, as it contravenes the charter. In addition Section. 33 of the Canadian Charter, the Notwithstanding Clause, would allow that to be restricted. It's simply procedural showboating. At the time there was a majority parliament, and it was the Liberals under Chretien trying tos ay to the Bloc Quebecois "Look, we're in charge here. Be quiet". It failed...of course.

Like I said, Quebec can leave whenever it wants. Assuming the population votes in favour.

edit:: The Basque's have ALWAYS been oppressed. Not just because of "centralization"

---

Originally posted by Ziff

---

Okay.

Learn about Parliamentary proceedings before you make blanket statements and useless analogies.

---

Originally posted by drjayphd

---

Originally posted by beneficii

---

The fact that you didn't see my point, which I already posted, regarding the pharmacist taking the slip away, I think, shows how little you understand the concept of private property and the rights of people to their own things.

---

Or maybe it's that there's less to the discussion than that. The pharmacIST does not own the pharmacY. The drugs belong to the pharmacY, ergo, no one cares about private property rights.

Besides, once you provide a public service, you lose the right to interject your beliefs into your work. A doctor prescribed birth control pills, you don't get to say no.

Originally posted by beneficii

---

You keep bringing up these scenarios where no pharmacist would fill a birth control pill prescription. I don't buy those scenarios; I believe that if there is a market for birth control pills (and there is a very large market), then there will be people willing to satisfy this market.

---

But what if there's not much of a market for ANYTHING, due to a depressed economy? Many of the anecdotal examples that I've seen involve areas where there are few pharmacies, meaning one person can, in effect, deny birth control or other medications to a locality. Pharmacies willing to fill the prescription may be prohibitively far away. This discussion isn't taking place in a vacuum.

---

Which is what's happened, and now the ex-pharmacists are crying persecution and getting laws passed to protect their dickheaded philosophies on their jobs.

Originally posted by drjayphd

---

No one's blaming the pharmacies.

Everyone's blaming the pharmacists who take matters into their own hands, and the evangeocrats who'll wrap themselves in the clothes of martyrdom at ANY chance.

Besides, what the hell does any of this have to do with Terri Schiavo?

---

Originally posted by drjayphd

---

Originally posted by beneficii

---

Originally posted by drjayphd

---

No one's blaming the pharmacies.

Everyone's blaming the pharmacists who take matters into their own hands, and the evangeocrats who'll wrap themselves in the clothes of martyrdom at ANY chance.

Besides, what the hell does any of this have to do with Terri Schiavo?

---

Well then, don't you see the problem of advocating government intervention into the matter? It was the government that caused the problem in the first place, by requiring pharmacies to retain such pharmacists? You see the issue?

Government forcing pharmacies to retain pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills and government forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control pills.

Why don't we just get rid of the government's right to force pharmacies to retain such pharmacists, instead of also giving it the right to force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills?

---

My head would be bouncing off my desk if my comp wasn't on the floor.

First off, I haven't voted, nor have I advocated government intervention. Rather, the opposite, that the government should NOT protect these morons. Besides, you pairing forced retention and dispensal of BC makes ABSOLUTELY. NO. SENSE. Tell me where I said they should retain the pharmacists. I think you're getting your opposition (read: everyone else in the thread) mixed together. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but THEY ARE NOT JOINED. This isn't an all-or-nothing affair. I'm sure you noticed there's more than two choices on the poll (oh, I haven't even VOTED in the poll yet).

---

Originally posted by Ziff

---

Originally posted by Ziff

---

Okay.

Learn about Parliamentary proceedings before you make blanket statements and useless analogies.

---

Read up on the FLQ crisis too!

And then read up on the Red River Rebellion.

And then read up on ALL THE OTHER REBELLIONS IN HISTORY

We know how it ends.

Unfortunately, those were open and bloody conflicts with more than just a government. I'd like to make mention though that if this does occur, if the parties in Parliament refuse to accept this and somehow put it down, Quebec has reached seccessionary rights. It can make a case utilizing the Supreme Court of Canada, which would rule in favour...Thus striking down your touted Clarity Act. Thus, it would seperate. Failing a Supreme Court ruling in its favour, it can declare itself seperate and withold its obligations that are set forward by the BNA of 1867, and its subsequent revisions. Plus, it can argue in favour using the Windsor Amendment and appeal to the British Crown and the Governor General to see for its case. If such a thing happens, and is denied it can use S. 33 of the Canadian Charter. It would therefore be a permanently succeeded state under Canadian law, and could build its own law that would make it permanent under international law due to self-recognition.

---

Originally posted by neotransotaku

---

if i'm not mistaken, we get 50 a week here in california so yeah--people in KY might get irked but they have nothing on the people who live on plate borders...

i wonder when was the last earthquake in that region?

---