This article was funny:

G20 security prepared for any threat, at any cost

Ottawa’s estimated $930-million security cost announced this spring outraged taxpayers, who never contemplated a bill of that magnitude when Mr. Harper’s government first won the right for Canada to host the 2010 G8 meeting.

Nice to see they are so free with my money. Can we vote our way out of the obligation to pay it?

It is said that one of the primary functions of government is to protect person and property.

Ask yourself a few questions:

– Would you, under any circumstances, voluntarily purchase the services of a group of men whose jobs it would be to kill or kidnap you when you refuse to continue providing for their armaments and training?

– Would you, under any circumstances, voluntarily purchase the services of an organization which states in no uncertain terms that in the event you decide to stop buying from them, you will forfeit your house?

– What if an organization like one of the above tried to assert a claim against you? Would you submit your dispute for arbitration to an organization owned or operated by the very same individuals?

In case you’re not following, the organizations alluded to above are the police, the government-in-general (i.e., planners, lawmakers, figureheads, etc.) and the courts.

We are witnessing the slogan “to serve and protect” in action. Do I really have to point out who they are serving and protecting? Hint: It isn’t you.

Well, I suggested they use Skype. No go.  After all, they have to move around like Caesar’s entourage to show us why they are fit to rule us, no?

But “I think it’s a bargain, quite frankly, and you can quote me on that,” said John Kirton, a University of Toronto professor and booster of such summits.

Really? So this professor is saying it is perfectly acceptable to use violence to solve social problems? Bet you he never encountered that in his stroll through the academic jungle.

Professor? Am I free to disagree with you?

If you think it is such a bargain and wish to pay, I would not initiate violence/force against you directly nor indirectly call for it via a third party – the State. Go right ahead. I support your right to have your beliefs and *ACT* on them accordingly.

Write them a big check if you agree with it.

Am I free to disagree with you? Will you accord me the same reciprocity I grant you?

If I disagree with you, am I free to withhold payment as a implementation of my beliefs?

If this is the case, and others feel the same as me, can others who share my belief withhold payment and let the lions share of the security costs accrue to you and those who agree with you?

And as the costs mount and you keep financially bleeding to support it, driving you and your family into destitution, how long would you continue to think it is a “bargain”? When you and your family are driven to eat dog food as a result of having the consequences of your beliefs on your shoulders, how long will you continue your support?

And yes, quite frankly, you can quote me on that.