Scott Mayers

You're asking a question without attending to the one I posed. My point is that we cannot LOGICALLY assume one IS or IS NOT being discriminatory based on Argus' belief. It may be the case, but it is NOT sufficient to warrant an equally but most overt volatile accusation, especially when those claiming problems have not been proven biased on their claims. And to your 'question', "Nazi" means "Nationalist" or, depending on the original degree to one's intent on "socialism", "National Socialism". This is the belief that one's ethnicity is relevant to some political justification to have laws favoring that ethnicity. AND...by "ethnicity", this means ones' genetic AND cultural heritages are intrinsically 'linked'. That is, if you believe that you have some genetic ancestry has some contingent link to their presence in some unique place, their actions, behaviors, or religions are as 'linked' to yourself as is your genes such that you believe you have a 'god-granted' (Nature's decree) to some political FAVOR to your ingroup in distinct recognition IN LAW with exception to other people, or, especially to ANY specific non-group (as the Nazis targeting the Jew OR to the Jew targeting the Muslim), you are by DEFINITION a "National Socialist"....a "Nazi". The State of Israel, its political constitution, favors an assumed link of a Jewish identity as a precursor that defines their 'social' acceptance in law. This is a prerequisite factor that is sufficient to prove they are of the same political setup as Nazi Germany. Note that while Nazi Germany targeted Jews, their discrimination was more universal to discriminate against ANY non-supporting German Nationalist. That is, they too would have 'accepted' the Jews originally had they not been bound to their own Nationalistic threat, perceived real or not. This is the same with present day Israel. While token 'others' exist within Israel, only to the extent Israel perceives them recognizing the supreme authority and 'right' of Jewish Nationalism, do they accept such people to be allowed to persist as a function of their system. But for those they perceive as "Anti-Israel", they deem them as the Germans under Hitler interpreted Jews there to be "Anti-German". They cannot use such standard demarcation as the Germans did with respect to the ritual of circumcision to divide the population which makes it more difficult. But if one had some 'tattoo' of some unaccepted Muslim group, I assure you this would be sufficient to send them to the camps (the controlled and policed or occupied lands that make a pretense of being something other.) If and when this option runs out and Israel would be able to do so without the eyes of the world watching them, as they are continuously attempting to do, they too will resort to a 'final solution of the question of the Muslims'!

Logic question: If (one is discriminatory against X) AND (they desire to hide their accountability of their hatred), then (they will attack X's behaviors using strong rhetoric). However, if (one will attack X's behavior using strong rhetoric), is it logically 'true' that (one is discriminatory against X) AND (they desire to hide their accountability of their hatred)? "If A then B" is a conditional truth, and then B appears to be true, is A true?

I can't comment much about the EU and have only you brining it up here for which I've even thought of it one way or the other. But I don't believe most have thought of whether nationalism has or has not been a function of the EU from here in North America. Usually, nationalism would be thought of more limited to some specific culture and ethnicity as I'm referring to it here. So a 'union' of different countries (thus, many groups) would not necessarily apply unless it involved some specific group's interest. Maybe this is what you are thinking with regards to those 'kleptocrats'? If anything, the 'union' is more based on economics, not especially culture, and to what you may be worried about. I can't disagree without knowing enough details. Corruption is most inevitable to occur with regards to people's economic differences where those WITH the upper economic power attempts to conserve their power economically. On the surface of it, Britain's reason to think of separating from the union would be to conserve the potential losses since they are the one's with this upper-hand. I can see that Nationalism here would be the way those wanting to separate would use argumentatively in support of separation emotionally, though. This is my concern though. Nationalism is a device, as with religion being a sub-part of this, to arouse emotional justification that hides or diminishes the rationalizing of economic problems instead. If one cannot rationally defend why they should have some 'right' to their power when it is arbitrarily based on 'unfair' economic differences, seeking cultural, religious, or other similar non-economic justifications that I've collectively referred to as "nationalism" here is what gets used with more effectiveness to the masses. I get the strategy and see that it is being used 'intellectually' because it is the tendency of governments to compete expediently. But while effective in short terms, the nationalism that gets used this way often creates more problems long term for lack of patience. Nationalism favors less democratic ideals because of its specificity. The real causes based on economic factors are to extreme differences of wealth AND often where the larger part of the people are the ones on the poorer end. As such, since the larger populations lack the same cultural cohesion and so tend to be less Nationalistic as they cannot use common culture or ethnicity as a justification to demand more power. And so the 'democratic' (the majority) of those being on the poorer side of wealth argue with more realism to the economic factors while those of the minority wealthier sides will use Nationalism as the justification. I see that Nationalism still underscores most people regardless and this is just due to our inability to care for those less close to us that things like one's family connections, traditions, and their cultures in common have. It's normal but something we have to fight against when considering politics. Nationalism is always what gets the most power to cause problems since it is based on justifications that are immune to challenge: like how one could argue they might have a 'God-granted' right to their exceptional status of being unusually so fortunate. I understand the you in Britain have merely raised this upon recent or upcoming elections and believe this is based on the threat of the mass influx of immigration that is affecting many of the EU countries. Is this not what is underlying your fear?

"Consent" for all things? Sex, voting, drinking? I think ideally that age should NOT even be a qualifying factor for most significant things but that maturity be the guiding concept. We have this in part through things like licence requirements for driving (with a minimum age also) licences whereby we have to prove a minimum understanding. It is hard to actually put in place rules of 'maturity' though. Age is just an unfortunate expedient unless others could somehow figure out a way that most people would agree to as measures of 'maturity' for things like voting, procreation, or other freedoms.

I need some clarification. I don't know what you are asserting or implying. I agree with individual rights but if you are assuming collective members of a State as acting as ONE INDIVIDUAL, this means that for the E.U., the countries that have agreed to unionize, just as the American 'States', have likely unanimous agreements among them to require joining in the first place. For those contractual understandings, to accept the Union's constitution requires all members, including the individuals within each accepting this, to remain in accepting the conditions laid out in it. I can't speak for the exact contracts agreed to by countries of the E.U. but if their function was intended to unify out of a common need to strengthen all members equally, it must accept where different economies of its members are affected, requires ALL members to help each other when the cards are down and another member is doing better. It's like a marriage. Divorce has consequences where one is simply opting out because they've found something (someone) better elsewhere. That is the 'oaths' people supposedly make to be there for better or worse. I'm saying that if Britain is desiring to leave the Union of of fear of the realization they'd now have to distribute their 'better off' condition among those members having it 'worse', this is hypocritical to the agreement. Should Britain or other countries opt out of some such 'marriage' then, they have to also lose what common investments all countries collectively agreed to share for the benefit of the union in the first place.

The U.S. (= United States) was precisely a form of union similar to what is implied by the European Union. The American States however began relatively 'new' beyond the 13 colonies and so each 'State' DID represent a type of country within its own. This is the conflict that derived the Civil War when the Federal 'Union' government began presuming more power when it decreed an end to things like Slavery as some universal law imposed on the interests of other sovereignties. It is the same for the E.U. and relates to your issue. But to this thread, this shows where Nationalisms too can potentially arise where those who HAD some prior relative freedom given some relative fortune have been requested to distribute the wealth to those countries (states) that now need them. The problem is that you cannot accept simply the 'good' things without accepting the 'bad' too. This is why I think Nationalism is troublesome. It derives from some set of distinct interest to preserve ( or conserve) what the in-group's desire (='good') stereotypes while aborting the negative ones without realizing they are both just arbitrary distinctions that require either both accepting or both rejecting. I would prefer to see some form of unification in Europe and would think it rather 'convenient' should one country step out post agreement just because they've found themselves independently better off without the liabilities that have arisen. I'm guessing much of this concern lately is due to the vast increased demand for immigration from refugees and Greece's latest save that places a burden on the more fortunate British countries they'd rather not be liable to.

From Wikipedia, (See the footnotes from there for those sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) Also, from there, I share the view of Noam Chomsky (et al) here and have argued my concern for "Nationalism" with more depth as a more generalized concern for all people here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25623-nationalism-is-the-doom-of-all-politics/. I broaden the meaning of "Nationalism" to include any concern by some set of people to favor an in-group identity with the demand for POLITICAL preservation that is based on an assumption that they have some intrinsic right to 'own' a behavior or set of behaviors (culture) based on some extra belief that their genetic link to others (ancestors) who have had such culture are definitely connected with necessity, as if Nature itself or some God has decreed them uniquely privileged to distinct rights apart from all others. Such divisive politics to those believing in a State of those of this nationalistic belief (Zionism, here), makes those supporting it to have an intrinsic belief in some significant right of Jews, in particular, to have a distinct recognition of all others in the world to recognize them as a type of deserving people who 'own' a "holy"(God-divined) special place politically that, unlike all others, treats its genetic and cultural heritage as the primary sovereignty of anyone else within their domain. It is exclusive to others who do NOT accept this primitive constitutional cult and so while it could possibly BE 'fair' to other Zionists respecting the Jew with distinct authority, it is non-democratic with respect to ALL others who are at least non-Jew or non-Zionist. The language you may opt to demand others NOT associate with the discrimination here clearly is begging of others to default to an exception of any Jewish or Zionist connection to a remotely derogatory term, regardless of its factual relevance. It's also hypocritical since it significantly takes center-stage on assuming this same behavior by others elsewhere is not permissible, which PROVES those supporting such a belief think that they have some 'superior' justification (likely a God or Nature) that makes them exceptional to this requirement. If you want to address the logic of this, go to the linked thread where I discuss this as it demonstrates that 'if' I have ANY bias at all, it is to Nationalism as I define it inclusively and to those particular ones who especially have the actual power to reverse the problems as they have the actual dominant position with respect to those they oppose with equal forms of Nationalism. Those you consider 'terrorists' certainly have Nationalism as their reflective cause to this extreme. To stop it requires recognizing the logical problem that creates the division and attack that, not to foster MORE Nationalism. Edit: Added the 'et al' (and company) in anticipation of some likely presumption I didn't include the others who may be Jewish and thus make those like Rue interpret this as 'evidence' of me being somehow anti-Semetic.

The Palestinians don't have the ability to even HAVE a normal government to even set up appropriate courts or other good infrastructure DUE to Israel's capacity to keep them scattered and isolated. So there is not comparison. The Israelis are doing what we might think of when we brush our teeth: you can't actually destroy all the bacteria but the process of brushing keeps the bacteria from organizing long enough to do concentrated damage. But this is precisely what shows Israel as in the wrong here....they are treating the Palestinians like bacteria!

NOW Metis ARE First Nations (== 'Indian' by the old term). I'm not sure what you are thinking I don't understand? AND this was in part to assure they can directly appeal to the Federal government without being handed off back and forth as they had before between federal and provincial governments trying to pass the buck. Critical Edit: An end quote closed the portion of the last quote above from that site making it look as if this was my quote, not the site of reference. Corrected. I bolded the words this Native community defined and interprets the meanings equivalently.

You're telling me I'm the one wrong by this? You're the one misinterpreting me. I said that "First Nations" IS a legal term to which the Metis want established so that they can be considered with clear distinction as a Nation along with other aboriginals. I don't care what the terms are in context to the specifics. What matters is to understand the issues consistent to whichever definitions you use. The legal definitions have to be clarified from the colloquial uses. I think everyone here is defaulted to assume the colloquial unless we specify the term legal. "First Nations" is a formally legal defined term. I already agree that words like "Indian" or "aboriginal" or "indigenous" are equally useful and pose no concern to use. But if one uses the term "First Nations", this is to refer to the fact they are a set of sets of Nations within Canada, that are NOT Canadian Nationals, but DISTINCT set, like foreign political representatives having immunity to laws of a guest political country,....with the AGREEMENT by the Canadian Nation to have negotiated contract to this land upon which our politics reside (the Treaties). The First Nations are like diplomatic immune foreigners except that this is in the understanding that the First Nations don't confine their Nationalism to land-based concepts as they were tribal wanderers. So their "National" place (land-wise) is not bound to Canadian borders but to WHERE they are anywhere in the Americas.

I already recognized the North American original peoples as diverse. But, at least for North America, they were still in a phase of civilization that has NOT reached the level of organization dealing with the advances earned through intellectual advances (technology infrastructure stages, like "Stone" to "Industrial" to "Information", for instances). These are NOT arbitrary cultural factors. But the cultures associated with religion and ethnicity ARE irrelevant but are also the ones that are being focused on. The actual 'culture' of the Europeans with respect to 'civilization' is NOT Christian nor any religiously connected inheritances. In this respect, North American Indians are no more nor less superior or inferior. But this IS the damn distraction that I'm pointing to. By treating culture as the 'cause' of civil advancement, as in the preamble to the Charter is "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" The actual cause of advancement is tied up with an evolution towards more advanced technology and stages of these that require large infrastructure and time to evolve. The New World American Indians everywhere had just passed the phase of evolution as ancient ancient Egypt (when the Pyramids were built)...and they had not adapted fully to settlements. This was also not even caught up by all of the New world either. And while you admit all cultures of even North America were diverse, what you don't recognize is that with respect most, and especially North American Indians, is that they had not yet had the time nor infrastructure to catch up to the inevitable technological stage that ALL intellectual beings like humans would go through. That is, even Aboriginals naturally are inclined to FAVOR technology, and the advances of civilization. If this wasn't the case, than our Natives would limit their existence to the same exact means they had before Europeans came. They'd only prove they are a culture of the past if they live WITH the constraints defined of that past, which includes reverting back to living in tepees, cyclic hunting, using non-modern tools or devices, etc. Note that things like alcohol wasn't used but while tobacco is considered 'native' to North America, that the Europeans brought horses which were extinct here, etc. My point is that the Aboriginal has the technological disadvantage part of civilization which defaulted them to be disadvantaged of the same degree of concern to the concept of "land/resource" ownership that comes with SETTLEMENT lifestyles, not hunting and gathering. So to assert they 'own' some right to revere the culture associated with this is naive because these stages are in high contrast and cannot coexist together. Another reason I choose the word, Nationalism, is to distinguish this from mere 'culture'. People all have culture. But you are WRONG when you assume all of us are most conservative and loyal to some Nationalistic viewpoint. This is true of about half the population who does always favor strict allegiance to their genetic heritage and why the combination of culture to ones' genetic inheritance are inappropriate to accept; instead, the 'culture' of progress through non-ethnic, not religious forms of behaviors that often reflect our intellectual/industrial stages, are what matters. You are right that we are all at fault for wanting to preserve our cultures or traditions where existent. But such CONSERVATION is in direct violation against those who either don't fit into some static culture OR they opt to PROGRESS, such as having intermarriage of different people from different ethnicities, or to create NEW ones where privileged. Conserving Nationality IS what always defines the extremes, like those religious factions who believe their direct ancestors require having leaders of specific families (Saudis, Israelis, strict Christian+someRace group.)

This decision WAS to clearly define where Metis should go to for concerns, Provincial or Federal government. They decided Metis were considered an official "First Nation" and so belong to the jurisdiction of the federal government. This conflict was based on the fact that each level of government would keep passing their concerns back and forth as neither level wants to own up to the responsibility to respond. This is an example of our government staging an appearance of being 'multicultural' (in the minds to mean all cultures welcome) but mean 'Multicultural' (meaning only specifically indicated cultures). The Metis had been defended as historical to Canadian origins and so technically have to be granted the same privileged status as other groups to maintain being non-hypocritical.

There is no need to be sensitive of the choice of words. "First Nations" was the legal word required to use, not the colloquial ones we use. Just like the word, "Multiculturalism" has both the legal proprietary meaning and the assumed connection of the generic idea that confuses, it should be noted that "First Nations" is to imply the set of people who have been accepted in LAW as a distinct set of Nations that don't actually relate to the Nation we call Canada. Its based on the fact too that all Natives are NOT of the same opinion but at least agree they are NOT bound to the Nation of Canada as an entity. Unfortunately, even this term is insulting and politically biased to say we all accept this distinction as we accept our own sovereign authority as subjects to the Queen and associated cultures and ethnicity related to religion.

[Warning...an essay again. This is in context with the discussion here but I generalize the problem in line with what I believe others (maybe everyone?) could probably agree to.] The whole problem deals with how the original Canadian/British government(s) made the agreements in the first place. I think that all the Treaties, Reserves, and our Constitution which defines these people as distinct Nationals are all illegitimate and should be undone. The intention of Reserves is to treat these people like the wild untamed animals many of the original settlers thought of them as by placing them in wild-life refuge expecting them to opt to live on those lands independent of the rest of the 'civilized' society. Some realized this but then opted to try getting them to 'catch up' to the Old World adaption to the more 'evolved' form of civilization through "assimilation" concepts. But the governments (and people) falsely interpreted this to mean that the North American Indian just had to adapt to the religious ideology as many today STILL think or treat as the actual cause of all problems. I DO think that religious differences ARE a problem and why I tackle Nationalism including all ethnic definitions associating religion to one's genetics. The problem originates with economy and so when attempting to help others by merely ALTERING their culture, they mistake that it IS cultural Nationalistic ideals that hides the actual means to repair the problems. To our Western idea of capitalism, we emphasize it normal to COMPETE by leaving our hands off of interventions, like social welfare systems, in which those paying taxes resist actual means to solve problems using money. Instead, the Native assimilation was tackled not to repair their actual economic conditions to match with others but to expediently attempt to alter their cultures. The 'cultural' assimilation was also preferred to be done with the Christian churches as it saves money to tax payers by transferring the onus onto relatively 'voluntary' organs to help. If 'culture' is the problem though, it is missed that 'culture' in general, not specific, that is the problem. To expect that either these Natives opt to actually live on the land like wild animals OR to adapt to the religious-focused culture (generally "christian") as exclusive options was the problem again with the problem with those schools set up for them. They were RELIGIOUS-arrogant schools. Attempting to repair this requires recognizing that: (1) Multiculturalism/Monoculturalism must be redressed. Ours system set this up to conserve the established interests of most Christian groups, especially of the Catholic Anglican and French/Roman versions with most concern as these two main cultures represent those of our most powerful establishment. Christianity in all forms agree in common that their cult/religion IS what granted all of us the prosperity and to those economically stable. In reality, religion is just an institute most functioning to deceive the masses by the established to KEEP (conserve) their own power as without it, they can't defend why they should or should not create laws of inheritance to posterity (their own children) in the perpetuity they'd like of themselves. This conflict means that for the Natives, while they KNOW the real problem lies with the fact they are DEFAULTED to being on the bottom of the economic ladder because they had no universal acceptance of land-ownership based on the Tribal phase of evolution they were in. The European/(Old World) idea was to OPTIMIZE the difference of this major factor and attempt to literally take advantage of this against the interests of the North American Indian as they would against each other of the Old World. So focusing on 'culture' is intended to hide the sincere problem of the Natives AND to also ENHANCE those related to the original Canadian establishments who have also gained the wealth they have based on this discrimination against the Natives. While not 'personal' against their people necessarily, focusing on culture is what is deemed necessary to keep people from realizing we need to also take away those culturally-based laws that gave the establishment the power they have and still maintain through it. (2) Isolation. This is clearly understood as a mechanism to abuse whether one directly isolates others (like reserves or prisons) or by positing spaces as one's own that act to isolate those who simply don't have spaces left to claim except for the remaining waste lands (ghettos). Thus it should be CLEAR that the first step is to retry a form of assimilation. But it CAN'T be based on culture in any way as it is being done today because this still only keeps people isolated when you enhance their own rather than to teach them how to succeed universally in an economically dependent society that we ALL have in common. We need to abandon these isolated non-economically derived reserves because they are culturally/ethnically defined (Nationalistic). (3) Cost to All by established cultural-arrogance to distribute fault to the rest of society rather than give up their own unjust inheritances. To me, I see our Liberal federal party as the ones most interested in conserving their Catholic roots and privileged power based on their own cultural arrogance. This is mostly of the Ontario/Quebec-based interests especially among those who have gained their power from their own ancestral inheritances. But in a clever misdirection, they have had the advantage to create our Constitution legally to preserve the 'rights' to lock in their own cultures and cannot be validated UNLESS they appear to foster other cultures with the same privilege. The trick is to appear as though they ARE accepting of all cultures when they aren't. As long as they are the ones kept in inherent power, they can command WHICH groups they entitle to be certified, "official" cultures. Then, by also rhetorically appearing to FAVOR the Natives as one of these accepted official groups, they preserve their own at the same time as make the rest of ALL other people in Canada adapt an accepted guilt. This is then the justification to pass the established cultures of Ontario/Quebec to the WHOLE of society rather than to take on this cost themselves. Thus through appearing to support the Natives, they are just intending to preserve their own cultural biases which caused the problems as if an 'ideal' that WE ALL SHARE and to distribute the COSTS of their own particular abuse to the rest of us. So, to solve, for instance, we have to redress the Residential School problems that the whole of society has been taxed to pay back on by targeting those who ACTUALLY abused the Natives. The SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS institutes AND the PARTICULAR abusers, both of which has been successfully buried. And then we've been distracted by a fog of obscurity unable to actually determine what or where the abuses occurred using 'conspiratorial' innuendo that WE ALL supposedly caused by our own faults. (4)Reparations. I believe since it is about economics, we need to repair this with distributed social welfare ideas but treat it WITHOUT consideration of culture. Poor people are poor people. It is false and only feeding the very problem of discrimination to treat Poverty as a function of BEING NATIVE. If cultural discrimination is considered the reason one is poor, then cultural discrimination has to be considered why those are rich or even middle-class too. So how the hell can you repair cultural discrimination by using discrimination unless you destroy both poverty and wealth based on this cultural assumption? It is deluded to think that people will give up their wealth no matter how trivial it is to distribute among everyone but leave people's personal 'cultures' untouched. The costs of reparations should come from the wealth of those who benefit on the forms of things most associated with Culture. In particular, the Catholic Anglican foundation through the Church of England, the sovereignty associations of having a Royalty, of which the Queen is considered the conduit of the Anglican god, should be held accountable; the Protestant non-catholic (non-priestly formed, that is) institutes that supported or contributed to their own abuses, the Separate School System (if people should have a right to alternatively spend taxes to the Catholic institutes, they should require also being liable to the debts of their onus to the problems associated with this major contributing causal factor), and to all those inheriting fortunes based on the cultural biases that created the cultural discrimination against the Natives in the first place. Money should NOT be given to Culturally designated groups, like the Nation of X, Y or Z, as this is like having everybody's taxes again being used to pay for ANY privileged Cult in power. Also, the Natives should BE Canadian citizens, not Nations within Canada, but separate. If NOT, then Canadians should NOT be liable to non-Canadians and justifies why anyone should demand NOT paying taxes. Conclusion. Stop feeding the particular concept of "Multiculturalism" because it is rhetorically designed to appear as "multicultural" with universality when it is NOT. Technically, this concept is NOT progressive and is intrinsically conservative to those supporting segregation, isolation, and intolerance under a fog intended to make the rest of us 'interpret' this rhetoric according to our own feelings when they are actually very PROPRIETARY. (It's like how businesses might say, "Buy one, get one free*" where the word 'free' here is just a rhetorical device meant to distract us from thinking they mean the same as the regular meaning of 'free'. This example actually means the cost is half-price, STILL A COST, not FREE!) Dismantle the Reserves and/or make them actual economic communities where feasible without forcing its members to require being culturally Aboriginal-only (including those who are Aboriginal). Use money to entice people to move to economically more competent environments AND NOT in ghettos....distribute means to enable mixed communities, not enclaves of culture and their associated wealth. Require institutes of those culturally favored, to be penalized in the taxes towards the repairs, including offshoot entities or businesses that took advantage of this. Have these too be dismantled if they are constitutionally privileged (like the Separate/Catholic School system). Bring

There's a lot of weird interpretations on what money is here. "Cash" is just the paper form of money that we hold trust in on its face value. All money represents 'energy' owed (debt) as a storage or buffer (a delay) so that one can trade the debts as value in common. Cash now is still based on the accounting of these debts which act no different than non-cash transactions. The government IS the negotiating mechanism to supply the cash as notes that promise one must owe something of accepted equal value on its face. They don't take cash because they play a role in creating it. As such, when they accept this form of money, it is destroyed or canceled, since it has no meaning anymore. It's like this: Assume I own a house completely outright. This represents REAL energy in the form of matter that I can either keep to myself or lease/rent out, or, in general, trade for something else through negotiated barter. Because barter is not easy to do since it requires a physical market place to bring such values to in order to trade, we need some means to make some trades 'liquid' or stand in as a promise for such property. You cannot just drag your house to some downtown farmers market and so require some officially and recognized note to represent this. This note I can create myself with my signature to promise that whomever holds it bears the right to my house or some part of it. I may not be able to find one who would want my house outright but would be willing to take a partial LEAN of such ownership. This can be done if I split up the promise of the bearer to my house in parts, or 'shares'. I could be very specific, like creating a note to the bearer that represents my living room; one for my main bathroom; etc. But while this has been done, it is hard to determine how one should split up such property rights among different people. If I 'own' the right to all of the house except for some room in the center, I might opt to destroy all my rightful rooms and create a very real problem for the one 'owning' the center room as it would be destroyed in my own freedom. So what has occurred instead is that you set up a government-recognized authority that can act as the formal writer of such contracts (Notaries) who also can have assessors that determine value based on guidelines held in common from the government (represented by the people). So instead of the possible situation above, we create middle-people who act to 'monetize' real value. This could be labor energy, literal real energy from other resources, property energy, etc, etc. The shares as notes representing these values cost its own energy: the notaries, the making of the paper contracts themselves, and the assessors, etcetera. That is, the paper money being created actually costs energy too that needs to be accounted for. The banks are initially collective 'owners' of the actual properties they hold outright, NOT created out of thin air. Initially they acted as storage businesses for commodity money and other contracts. And though the original form of money by many such banks 'borrowed' their stored property of its clientele to lend it, like entrusting a friend to hold on to some property of yours that they have opted to pawn without your notice, this evolved into requiring the banks to pay interest should they be allowed to do this just as the client must pay for storage. The bank thus evolved to have their own notaries and assessors among all other factors to create paper money AS DEBTS from either what they OWN outright, OR to require paying those who are storing value with them to pay them a fee or share of the activity of lending their stuff out. Money is thus 'debt' and represents stored potential energy. It must abide by the laws of physics too in that what goes in can only be used for what goes out. Thus these paper promises are just checks that get canceled when the ones using it as cash return it to the bank and 'pay' them some interest for that loan. But how does the person 'borrowing' the promises to trade for other things pay the bank? With 'other' promises from elsewhere? This would initially be done by demanding the lender to grant the bank another promise directly tied to some real asset, like the house. So I could use my house, or part of it, like a room's value, to act as collateral to the bank in which they now 'own' a part of your real property. This "mortgage" can be canceled in some other way that you could either barter with the bank or promise in some other way that cancels the mortgage or lean the bank has against your house. Of course this evolved to cause more trouble when many people tried to pay debts with debts in a form of Ponzi scheming, or the pay-Peter-to-pay-Paul loop. Eventually when these types do this, the interest gets rapidly too high to actually keep going without somebody noticing somewhere in the system. But this is precisely what happened and still is hard to stop. When these schemes get rampant, the increased money supply makes the dollar less valuable and people inflate the costs of their goods & services to catch up. Since these have got to the point that people all of a sudden lose faith in the rapidly decreasing value of their promises (money), they take it to the bank in a rush to cancel such debts out and get their stored real properties etcetera out (like Gold, as a commodity, or one's lean against their house as a mortgage). This run on the bank is why governments had opted to step in, demand the banks to have a centralized place they must also 'store' a percentage of their ownership in (as insurance) AND to allow the government a means to create a universal control of making dollars. The amount the banks save in percentage in this central bank is what gives them the privilege to have bills promised by the government in the form of CASH that is backed by that reserve. Since the money costs to make is now with the government, the government needs to find a means to pay for this through taxation in some way. The only way most universal is to create a stock that represents the actual paper money being created in which they promise those holding these a 'future' money, called "Treasury Bonds". It is a catch up kind of thing with the literal costs of making money for the people. The government making the bills has no actual value in them when their Treasury departments handle it. Sorry for the unasked for lesson here. I think it should be helpful to understand to answer the OP here. Cash is NOT anymore 'secure' regardless of whether we use it or accounting balance trades trusted over the internet, etc. It's literal value may be less easy to possess in your own 'trust' for holding it, but both virtual forms of money AND cash risk being stolen and counterfeited regardless. The paper contract is at least easier to feel confident in when the virtual forms seem as easy to counterfeit with only ones and zeros these data debts are made of. A simple power out or surge can potentially destroy the money in those forms too. So this is BACKED up in paper still, even if not in our 'cash' form through accountants who must keep multiple copies in various trusted hands to later refer to should something like this happen. But paper money too can be literally burned up and create as much problems. There is not perfect solution. However, encrypted data techniques can often be even MORE secure than paper money, don't have the same costs associated with it that contribute to government debt (for those Treasury bonds) and can likely outlast the lifetime of any paper bill. So does this help?

You've mentioned you've been on a 'journey' of discovery regarding religion before. I am not sure how far you've gone nor what your underlying thoughts are going in and fear that it might require a lot of work to unwrap. So I'll refrain from adding more on this other than to say that since you are 'religious' (believe in some god, spirit, etc.), your belief to require robots be religiously indoctrinated is 'fair' but I don't see it happening. If we got to that capacity in AI technology, I have a feeling that it'll not likely be of people who would care to create something that could voluntarily doubt humanity and challenge them with concern. Religious robots would be scary.

I responded a few days ago to taxme by asserting that I don't support the "Patriot" philosophy as it is a form of Nationalism. Michael felt it should be removed but archived if I wanted to use it in separate threads as it was long and diverged into multiple ideas that could be whole different threads of their own. But basically, I was explaining how reflective Nationalism doesn't solve another's Nationalism. So "White Supremacy" isn't a solution to "Jewish Supremacy" if this is the perceived threat [whether true or not]. It's like feeding trolls by trolling. It just escalates.

WHEN AI operates, if it uses the same type of thinking modeled on living things, it would also likely develop religion. This would only occur though if it is designed to have 'struggle' issues with regards to its survival programmed in AND with including a set of 'destructive' tech embedded in it. (like 'forgetting', for instance) I don't think that actually modeling computers as such though would be an advantage if they are intended to serve us in some way. Our consciousness evolved only to act as conduits for all our relatively 'less' conscious cells. As such, our 'values' are only a combination of value-assigning programs AND arbitrary 'values' taken from the environment in early development. These 'values', by the way, are not just moral concepts but to things like the sensation of pain, pleasure, and even non-emotional assignments like differentiating between red and green colors. Religion is an accidental oversimplified set of behaviors that have lost some more original secular and often scientifically complex realizations that have been too summarized for simpler people who end up passing the intended metaphors as the literal thing when the connections/links between what these 'models' represented were lost. "Adam" for instance, was a word from Egyptian, "Atum", which referenced the objective specific shapes modeled off the perfect shape of the sun, as "Aten", the circle defining the most perfect subjective shape. Thus, "Adam" meant that which is shaped from Earth, as in the clay described as creating the entity, we as mankind, are referred to. So "Adam" is a metaphor for MANKIND. This is like how we might use "The Simpsons" as an entertaining medium to both entice us to watch while providing some connection to the society we exist in. For the Bible, this may have been intended to cartoon common science, history and politics, etc, in some common way to help understand the real world. But in time, we don't know the original word connections they had applied to. AI could have some means to design such similar programs so that it can learn from its environment on its own. But often our pleasure/pain mechanisms act as the most powerful motivational type of programs that require setting up moral programs as well. It's hard to say if we'd create such strongly motivating programs since such robots wouldn't require competing to survive. BUT it IS easily (but complexly) able to make purposely. Religion would then be a potential accidental function such robots could evolve too if left on their own to evolve.

Argus, The problems exists within any political spectrum. That's why I think it is Nationalisms of any group that create the problems. For 'progressives' it is the 'conservatives' that would prefer BEING THE Conservative power among those supporters of left-wing parties who represent the types of problems you think is intrinsic to progressives. It attracts those SET of Nationalisms that are too weak to stand alone who collectively align themselves and target, in opposition, the main 'conservative' Nationality who is generally the contemporary traditionalists in power. Your example of unwed mothers being supported by 'progressives' is more about progressing beyond the prior discrimination being targeted against them. Those most passionate to their concern may possibly represent a feminist group who may be acting in more strength for their cause and may tend to thus reactively pass on an inverse extreme against any criticism of unwed mothers to the point that if such laws get put in place they may disallow criticism even where valid. It is like how one from a strict corporal punishing family might go to the extreme by NEVER remotely punishing their children creating spoiled brats who end up becoming the next generation of terrorists (like when they realize they can 't get what they want outside of their privileged homes). But notice that these problems only occur anywhere and are caused by those most extreme. They are then 'progressing' only to a NEW type of tradition that becomes the next 'conservative' extreme (and vice versa). So I think it is not the 'progressives' as intended by its liberal social philosophy that is the problem, only those among them who might try to reinstate a renewed form of conservatism that is in strong fear of the old ways of returning again. It is 'conservatism' through preservation of some Nationalistic ideal that is the problem of which political conservatives most embrace by default that is the problem.

taxme, I can't say I agree or not to other issues of your own beyond the present argument and so wonder what you mean by "Patriots" here? I think of the term, "patriot", as a border-bound kind of nationalism with some political constitution in mind and NOT something I necessarily think may be troublesome depending on that constitution's inclusiveness to all people within it equally. So you can have 'pride' in some ideal and its practice where distributed justice is shared by all its members. What I'm not sure though is to whether you are referring to some particular group defending some philosophy? (I may have missed something you've mentioned earlier or elsewhere. If so, can you point me to this?)

Argus responded to me asking him why he doesn't consider stepping back to Islamic origins and to the fact that their own people have received abuses all around since their own inception: Then you admit that their whole existence as a culture, religion, or nationality, have no justification? ....that while you think it alright for Judaism or Christianity to be 'legit', you have issue with Islam as a whole, to its people? ...that you have unequal concern to WHICH Nationalities should or should not exist? I don't find ANY justice to ANY Nationalism as it necessarily implies INTOLERANCE of anyone external to their in-groups. As to your innuendo ["..some OTHER agenda..." you imply], this question could be equally said of you, Rue, or others treating anyone raising question of the status quo beliefs in Judaism's Nationalist Zionism as somehow MORE righteous by DEFAULT!! My sincere 'agenda' here is to show how those like yourself are being insincere and hypocritical as you hold biased belief in some specific CULTs over others with some belief in a GENETIC inherent 'right' to claims within politics. Bush_Cheney2004 mentioned that she doesn't think 'hypocricy' is a crime, to which I and others highly disagree. In fact, I would say that hypocrisy SHOULD be the most significant factor to determine whether ANY culture should even be respected, including those Muslims who should hold this as well. AND, it has to be considered 'criminal' since it represents some hierarchical belief in Superiors and Inferiors of people based on inheritances. We do NOT have a significant Muslim representation in the West such as this forum to give them the same defense of those like yourself to easily OFFEND and while you may declare some of us are here with our own hypocrisy, you lack substance to assume any argument AGAINST Israel or Christian intolerance as necessarily implying hatred of Jews or other groups. In fact, at best, all you could infer INTELLECTUALLY has to include the possibility that I'm an equal opportunity anti-Nationalist of ANY cults equally AND thus non-hypocritical. You mean the millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions who refused to be converted and so were beheaded as an example for others? Yes, what a hardship for the Muslims, having to swing their swords so often! No doubt it was most tiring! And your declarations are EASY to assert with most discrimination considering it is as equally true of any dominant religious culture in all times to point to atrocities of the other as a means to distract attention away from their own and to the argument at hand. It is irrelevant for my own view on this to defend either 'sides' of Nationalism but that you and Rue here are intent to keep drawing such significance to how the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslim-Nationalists are somehow deserving to be penalized by some OTHER extremes. If the offence against the Isrealis by me or others are NOT given equal notice of their own intrinsic hating-type Nationalism which is THE CAUSE of all abuses by any sides here, no solutions could ever be discovered nor addressed with fairness. The Israeli NOR the Palestinians have a right to act in specific ways against others inhumanely. You have to accept an OBJECTIVE perspective of those without ANY concern for either extremists. You are just one extreme and find it in your interest to demand that EVERYONE must think in such black-and-white terms as you do. So if I'm against your view, I MUST be for your enemy, right?!! And HOW is that intelligent? And WHO is the United Nations if it also should ignore the Palestinians in such negotiations when this state was set up? Where were the Palestinians in this supposedly 'just' decision? The United Nations itself is just another set of distinct biased groups collectively using the power of themselves collectively for each of their own selfish motives. While it is 'better' than some one Nation's unilateral power to dictate over others, it too is still biased as it serves only members. How does this body have the right to impose acts against non-members? Even given some member country can be intolerant Nations themselves, how does this body not simply represent something illegitimate when imposing its rule of some others? AND, if you assert the Palestinians as a non-State at the time, how did the non-existing "State" of Israel at the time even GET exceptional status in the U.N. to even have such privilege either? In fact, this more than anything PROVES that a deceptive conspiratorial purpose resides with any creation or approval of some 'State of Israel' or to some phony pretense of creating another one for the Palestinians along side of it, as if this is somehow remotely considerate. Even for the 'members' of the UN, if the representatives there to some Nation are intolerant, how can we determine if they aren't equally non-representative of the interests of those they could also claim to represent? (like the Saudis, for example)

I can't figure out WHICH system is ideal and why I thus support social democratic concepts. They are still fluid enough and at least for now, all we can hope for. I also share the same arguments you do on this issue for what this is about and with similar 'ideals'. If they are or are not possible is a different question. But the extremes ARE even more divisive and too hard to reconcile.

I'm FOR people having the right voluntarily to use whichever bathroom and yet agree with you on the religious question. I don't support religion but agree that IF we are to accept people to freedoms of their beliefs, even while in disagreement, one has the right to decide even to BE intolerant in this way. I think that even with your example of being concerned of women in the same room while you urinate is not something I share though. In fact, I remember finding it odd that we even place urinals out in the open in men's bathrooms in some places where privacy is completely the opposite. (I prefer no one being around when I go for the simple fact of security.....the thought of being attacked while peeing for anyone makes it hard to imagine you can stop to protect yourself in any way). As a better means, I'd prefer that if we DO have bathrooms most universal, they should have NO sexual divisions. I even thought it should be as equally 'fair' to place urinals outside in the open, for instance. And to convenience everyone, then also have private stalls where people can choose their own privacy also, regardless of gender distinctions. So, have one bathroom called, "open" for ALL people without a concern for privacy, and "private" for ALL people finding this more comfortable, regardless of sex.

I don't know enough about the depths of the union even though naively it seemed to me something 'sounding' good from afar. I don't believe in borders and so like what Eyeball says. It's hard to say which if any ideal is or is not best. The only thing I fear is that if we allow the Nationalistic ideal to continue taking root, it doesn't take much of them in any and all political persuasions to be forced to back into some reactive Nationalism if only to feel defeated for NOT taking some strict side. I supported our NDP (a Social Democratic party) here but believe that even the Nationalism exists in there and why many are afraid to support some party that will only act to offend themselves regardless of the positives it contains. Since the vast majority of our NDP has an intrinsic support by ALL groups most in offence of the conservative 'white' stereotypes, to be 'white' and still vote for this party is like a Jew voting for Hitler. It's not the actual political ideals exceptional to ethnicity that cause trouble, it is that the extremes of those most compassionate to some specific ethnicity who will by default hold the most strongest front in them all. Conservative-side politics tend to favor whichever Nationality or set of them which have the most predominant representation of them. And since wealth necessarily requires fewer people on top than on the bottom (as the base of a pyramid requires the majority on the bottom), these politics will favor more MONO-cultural ethnocentric extremes; On Progressive-side politics, all the 'rest' of those Nationalities that prefer to BE the MONO-culture if they were in the wealthiest position, would dominate there because while 'conservative' in their beliefs, they can't compete in their lack of wealth. So they steal the interests there as "MULTI-cultural" but not actually "INTER-cultural" and are never actually accepting of ALL cultures, especially the individual. I am certain that our recent loses in NDP are due to this concern. And I can see the EU having a similar problem in that the independent countries that make it up will still have those most Nationalistic within each of them who demand to take the most virtue of it for the stereotypes of the extremes and not to the interests of all the individuals within them nor to the whole, independent of some clearly distinct or defined ethnicity among them.

Rue, You're sad Rue. You're an icon who lacks substance to ANY position here with accountability as you continue to insult me by doing whatever you think it takes to disrupt any dissent of your absolute You-Must-Be-All-for-Israel-OR-You-Are-An-Anti-Semite stance. As I can see, there is no use going past you're continued insistence to try dictating that I am some Neo Nazi intent on defeating Jews everywhere. You are appalling if you even assert yourself Canadian here when your first alliance is to Israel. So unless you have anything constructive to contribute, I'm through with trying with you. Bush_cheney2004, I'm sorry on the 'Christian' accusation. I thought of this later offline and think I remember you actually telling me before that you weren't Christian. I don't share your right-wing view though, and while 'understanding' this in light of my own logical nihilism (that no actual morality exists to Nature itself), I find that unless we tackle the issue of Nationalism in all parties, no political idea works and so the default will always favor the EXTREMES of those WITH Nationalist tendencies fostering MORE and not LESS hatred.