and, who's gonna pay for the wall?

i don't want to tell people they can't smoke, i want them to realize it's a shitty habit and quit - which is what i did.

i run into this in a lot of situations. people don't get this subtlety. they can't differentiate between wanting to force a group to do something, and wanting to convince them to.

and, i don't like proselytizing either; in fact, that's another example: i don't want to force people into atheism, i want to convince them that it's the obvious answer and that all religion is complete insanity that should be immediately halted.

so, i mean, this isn't about smokers' rights. i mean, it's kind of a dumb idea, really - not a lot different than "religious freedom". what does it mean to say that a smoker has the right to pollute the air wherever it wants because it's a slave to a dangerous chemical? that's really crazy talk, isn't it? the better idea is smokers' responsibilities. an even better one is smokers' emancipation.

but, even so, i have only approached the smokers twice: once to ask them what the problem with the coal was (i did not get an answer), and once to assure them that i'm not trying to tell them where to smoke.

the goal of the litigation is to build a wall to prevent their habit from affecting me, not to force them to change to my liking.

i just think the argument on rent control ought to be less about markets - whatever you think of them - and more about locking the contract into place. the price you agree to should only be subject to negotiation upon the consent of both parties. this idea that a landlord can unilaterally change the price at their pleasure is not liberalism, it's feudalism. liberalism is about the sanctity of the contract.

that said, i'm not much into contract theory, either. it's just that you usually see these things packaged together: markets, contracts and liberalism. you don't need to get into deep regulation to uphold the fucking contract; to the contrary, the contract is meant to get the state out of it. what the law currently does is negate the contract in favour of the landlord unilaterally doing whatever the fuck it wants, and then pretends that this is about "free markets". it's not. it's just about property owners placing themselves above the law, and above the market.

what i'm into is not contracts but co-ops so i think these things should mostly be set in law, and largely be non-negotiable. the one thing that is negotiable is the price, which i think ought to be the sole purpose of a contract. but, once it's set, it's set, and should not be alterable except under dissolution.

the fact is that the socialists and liberals agree, here: the contract should set the price and it should not be unilaterally altered by anybody. that's contract theory. that's liberalism. it's the conservatives that then step in and say they shouldn't be regulated by contracts, and should have the ability to do whatever they want, because they're property owners and therefore superior.

the press will endlessly attempt to confuse you on this, trying to argue that free markets mean there shouldn't be regulation. but, the market needs some regulation in order to even be a market and not be either anarchy (no rules, no property) or feudalism (those who own the property write the rules for their own benefit), and the contract is the most liberal way to do that.

don't fall for their bullshit.

ok. good.

there's some people waving around the standard "free market" bullshit, and arguing that abolishing controls will lead to decreased prices. right. they're probably not as stupid as they sound, but you're a fucking idiot if you believe them.

rent control should apply equally to all buildings and be strictly indexed to inflation.

i hope they get this through before the next election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/wynne-rent-control-1.4054781

the way to read this is that turnout was down (obviously. byelection.) and the conservative totals were consequently inflated. but, the tory press never fails to disappoint.

it's too bad that there wasn't more pushback in markham.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-byelections-2017-1.4054337

this is absurd.

it's no different than asking for a prescription for vodka. that'll help you sleep, too.

it's a recreational drug with health hazards. it's not a medicine. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/health-canada-urged-to-clear-way-for-medical-pot-insurance-1.4053888