ClearWest

I would expect a true libertarian to not show up to school as opposed to treating it as an obligation or a duty. It's worded to be humorous, and not necessarily to follow a strict libertarian creed. Also, many libertarians value their education more than their discontent for public services. (The school isn't necessarily public either).

Bump. I just re-read these recently and remembered what a disappointing response they got from the message board. So, I was hoping more of you would check them out and see what you think. Enjoy, they're quite funny.

B.C. school fee fight goes to court Link I'm wondering what they consider "core curriculum". Is only basic math and english included, or do we get free art supplies too? I'd love to hear your opinions.

People's view of the forum is the main question at hand. The reason why I asked how people viewed themselves is because I was hoping for some form of demographics in relation to the actual amount of lefties/righties (according to each person's opinion of themselves). If people describe themselves as centrists, let them. It's not up to you and me. I think it's more appropriate for people to lable themselves individually than it is for people to vote about what they think the general picture of the forum is (More left/ More right, for example). Most people who have a basic grasp of politics are able to distinguish whether their views are right/left/centrist. If they feel that they are none of those they can select 'none of the above'. I'm sorry if my poll isn't the political compass, but I hope it at least provides some insight about the state of the forums today.

Can you clarify the question? The question in your topic title is different than the one appearing above the poll. Sure no problem. The question on the poll is for statistical reference. Are you a righty or lefty or centrist or none? The question for posters is, do you think that the forums are one-sided, and in whose favour? The poll questions is to support the opinions presented in the posts.

I don't want to be kept in check by government officials. I agree that semi-automatics probably do much more bad than good. But then again, so do a lot of things. Why would one need alcohol? That statistically causes much more death and injury than semi-automatics do, at least in this part of the world. Should we consider banning that from the public? That may be a stretch, and of course I don't advocate prohibition. But it offers something to think about. It may be risky when semi-automatics are in public hands. But does that mean they should be banned? It's also risky to have alcohol in the hands of the public. Check out the statistics.

Some people seem to think that there are more right-wing viewpoints on this forum than there are left-wing viewpoints. I see a slight slant to the right, but it seems more balanced than some people make it out to be. So, I decided to conduct a poll. Hopefully this will shed some light on the issue. What do you consider yourself? What do your viewpoints most resemble on the forums. That of a right-winger, left-winger, centrist, or none of the above? Also, please add reply to this thread to let us know what you think. Do you think it's a little one-sided? Do you see more lefties or righties? Bytheway, I didn't add this to the poll (because I wanted to keep it simple to get the best scope of the data) but do you see more moderates or extremists? I'm interested in hearing your opinions.

I just recently got into John Stossel, a reporter who shares my political views. And I just had to check out the two books that he has published. Both of which are very good and highly recommended if you want to know more about small-government politics. They are titled: "Give me a break" and "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity". As for politically-driven fiction, of course "1984", "Animal Farm" are quite interesting. And the juvenille fiction novel "The Giver" also offers a lot to contemplate. And of course, for sheer fun, Harry Potter! (There's bound to be someone here that loves them) (And yeah, they've got a message. A struggle between good and evil) But if I could choose to own only one set of books they would be The Holy Scriptures.

Indeed! and I will fight your little government with as much fervor as I would fight any other tyranny! En garde! Lol, Fair enough. I am not sure I understand your question because my answer is obvious and simple: whoever a pregnant woman asks to perform the abortion has the authority. Is that what you are getting at??? Now that I look back at the question I realize that it is inapplicable in Anarchist terms--because I was asking "Should someone be sanctioned with the authority to perform an abortion", sanctioned by whom--the government. Perhaps I should have addressed the question to the general group rather than specifically to you. Well, assuming that there is a government which has the means to impose its will upon individuals, should someone be sanctioned with the authority to perform an abortion? The point I was making with that statement is that you're pretty much sanctioning someone to kill. If a pregnant woman can ask someone to perform an abortion, theoretically you could also ask someone to assassinate another person. Of course, I was thinking under the terms of law and legality--whereas in an anarchist system there would be no such thing. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I was thinking differently. In fact I totally see that you have a point. Maybe you just through this out as a fair compromise, but that opens up another can of worms. People might have different definitions for abuse or neglect. I might consider abortion to be neglectful, perhaps even abusive. Here's where I tend to disagree the most. I'm going to state my differing opinion, however I will keep an opened mind for your responses because I am interested in the philosophy of pure anarchism. Firstly, the woman's freedom to have an abortion does affect other people--the unborn child being the main one. Secondly, it seems to me that there should be an imposed consequence for violent behaviour. If someone steals from me, I should be able to demand to have it returned, even in a court of law. Like I say though, I'm quite interested in your non-government ideas concerning such matters. Maybe we can save it for another thread though because we would surely stray from the topic of abortion.

Ooh, here's where the line is drawn between anarchist and miniarchist. Just a practical (and smart-aleck) question: banned by whom? Who has the authority to ban an abortion? The same people who ban murder--if any. I know where you're coming from here--our ideologies are quite similar afterall. If your question is should someone have the authority to ban abortion--my answer is almost definitely no. Now, a rhetorical question for you along the same lines. Should someone have the authority to perform an abortion? Conflicting rights. Which one wins? Quite the contrary: the debate stops. The debate stops in front of a brick wall created by diversions: deliberately incompatible but equally "religious" definitions of human being or when life begins and the debate goes nowhere. What I meant was that I was leaving the topic open to further discussion rather than stating a conclusive opinion. Charles, may I ask you to please clarify your stance on the issue of abortion a little more clearly? You've asked a lot of rhetorical questions, and stated a lot of philosophy, but perhaps you could share your feelings on the policy aspect of abortion. Would you favour the rights of the mother over the rights of the child? Should the child's rights even be considered while it is inside the womb of the mother? In the earlier posts of this thread it appeared as though you were opposed to the idea of abortion--But it seems as though you're (like me) even moreso opposed to the banning of abortion.

It is a divisive issue even among Libertarians. Some would argue that the child has a right to life (as a part of life, liberty, and property). On the other hand, others would argue that the woman has a right to the property that is her body--the unborn child being part of it. (As you many of you on this thread have argued, very well too, I might add!) However, my Religious view is to not abort a child. Just as it is my religious view to want to help and give aide to 'unwanted children living in squalor and dying in the streets'. Should the state step in to prevent this abortion? I'm actually leaning towards no--due to the fact that the underground alternative would be much worse than such practices being done in a hospital. Politically in this thread though, I already had this to say: I'm sorry if earlier I sounded like I was presenting a double standard--saying that the state should allow one travesty and prevent another. Religiously, I feel that individuals should do their part to prevent or assist in any travesty. Politically, the state often makes situations worse when they attempt to do such damage repair/prevention. Example, I would rather discourage a person from getting an abortion, and suggest adoption--rather than imposing legislation which bans the practice. Still, if abortion is indeed killing a human being--should it be banned in the same manner as murder? The debate goes on...

A mother cannot kill a 1 year baby because it was the child of rape or incest. True, but I think that if the mother waited that long then they probably decided to keep the baby. Very interesting point. I certainly haven't changed my mind that a fetus is a human, but I think it is appropriate to make an exception in the case where the woman may have been victimized, and she should have the option of not having to live with the consequences of someone else's actions. But should there be a time frame in which the mother gets a chance to opt-out of the pregnancy in the circumstances of rape? It's such a touchy issue that I don't think we should ban abortion, but we should certainly discourage it, just as much as we discourage the slaughtering of helpless baby chicks, and the slaughtering of civillians in a war situation. Adoption is another option. (Hey, that rhymes) The same hypocrisy exists with people on the right who justify preemptive wars that kill thousands of innocents but claim that they are protecting the sanctity of life by opposing abortion. I agree with you here, and I do not support war.

A Fetus is a Homo Sapien in the early stages of development. It doesn't matter whether it 'looks like a human'. It is a human, genetically speaking. And abortion kills it. Murder is only 'allowed' in our society when it is in self-defense. I think Abortion should be the same way. If the mother's life and/or mental/physical health is at risk, then abortion should be an option for the mother. Or in the case of rape where it was never the mother's decision to get pregnant. But it should not be an "On Demand" thing where you can make a stupid decision, conceive, and then have to kill a fetus. The funny thing is that the people on the left will defend the lives of baby chicks being slaughtered by McDonalds, but they won't stand up when their own species is killing itself.

If all media is biased then perhaps the government shouldn't be involved in media. Leftwing opinions won't be suppressed in a capitalist world. Michael Moore's documentaries are proof of that. In capitalism, people of all opinions are free to express their views and even market them to the world. Even though I disagree with much of Moore's views, I admit that I enjoy watching his movies and will even pay to see them. It isn't so in a socialism--the government can choose not to give grants to reporters whom they disagree with. Sure, Fox may do the same thing--but at least my money isn't going towards them. I can boycott Fox and never have anything to do with them. We could all choose to boycott CBC and they would still be running (mind you, with less advertisement money, but the gov't wouldn't care, they would run on more taxes). I suggest privatization.

The same way that groceries and other consumer goods get up to the out-of-the-way places in Canada. The prices have to be higher. That's how there will be incentive for the service provider. And of course, once it is opened up to competition, the service providers will come up with cheaper and more effective ways of delivering their services. Such innovation is almost non-existent in our current system. The Bureacrats in the gov't don't care that they're running at a loss because they're not using their own money. I think we should open the market up to competition. But like jdobbin mentioned, the Conservatives would never put this forward. I really wish we had a party that had principles and stuck to them, and didn't worry about sucking up to their supporters. But I guess that's how the system works. And so, the system which would benefit everyone in the longterm, Capitalism, will likely never be fully instituted. Every major party, even the Conservatives, are willing to abandon capitalism to give handouts and to suck up to their buddies. They're all the same, just in different ways.

Now tell me how someone exercising their free right to be offended limits another's speech. The right to be offended isn't the question. I don't think any of us want that right... unless you enjoy being offended. It's the right to NOT being offended. Or, as I think it should be more appropriately titled, the Right to Silence People Who Offend You--which I don't think is a fair right at all, because anyone could be offended at anything. And different people have different moral standards. Me, for instance, I find swearing offensive. Does that mean I should complain to parliament to have swearing banned from TV and newspapers? A profanity-free world sounds appealing to me, but the unintended consequences is militant censorship. Ultimately, Force. So, my friendly alternative is to choose not to watch/listen to such media content. People who enjoy the swearing are free to bask in their filthiness, while I am free to live without such vulgarity. Everybody wins!

"People who you want to ignore" is also subjective, depending on your likes and dislikes. I think it's a very clever idea, Charles! And I want to add my voice in support of getting something like this. Maybe it shouldn't be called a 'funny list' though. Maybe like a "Favourite Posters" list.

What do I think Canada is going to be like in a decade? A fascist socialist regime by the looks of some of attitudes on this thread. Different people hold different values. There are no 'Canadian' values. I bet my values different from yours, but that doesn't mean your values, nor mine, are more 'Canadian'. You may have your opinions about what is 'Canadian' and what is not. But what I find scary is what you think should be done about those who do not hold the same values as you. Would you bar them from entering the country? Would you insists on a melting pot type system where all who come here must share the same values and culture? I think we should be lenient with borders and immigration, and eventually get to the point where there are no countries. But people will be free to choose wherever in the world they wish to live, which values they wish to hold, what they wish to do with their time and money, and who they will or will not worship. That is the future I want for Canada, but sadly it is not a future that I expect will come about at the rate we're going right now. People, please let me know if you agree or disagree and explain why.

Sure, Right-wing extremists gain power by saying that they can solve issues like terrorism and drug-crimes. But Left-wing extremists do the same thing just using different issues. Saying that they can solve issues like social inequality and environmental damage. I see very little difference between the two. Either idealogy, if they had their way, would have excessive amounts of power over us. You say that extremists are the enemy of the people. Well, what would you define as extreme? I'd say that the fact that government officials can seize citizen's property with or without a majority is wrong and even extreme. Yet it is considered a 'moderate' position to tax people. Moderate vs Extreme is relative. I think instead of looking at left vs right, people should pay more attention to authoritarian vs libertarian. As we've seen in the past, both left and right idealogies have been oppressive, and will continue to be oppressive the more and more that people consider them to be moderate.

Thou shalt not kill. Let's start with the government, is it okay for them to kill? My opnion: No. Scratch capital punishment. Scratch conscription. It shouldn't happen. Period. Now, does abortion count as killing? My opinion: Yes. I would personally never endorse abortion because I feel that it is murder, and I'll explain why. It doesn't matter whether the fetus is 'human', but it might as well be. It has the genetic makeup to become human. It's on its way to become human. It's a living, thriving pre-human. And if allowed to run its course it would eventually become like you or me. A fully formed, fully functional, fully capable, fully reasoning human being. Politically, should we 'ban' abortion? No. That would only send it underground like drugs and alcohol when they are prohibited. Should we encourage abortion? No. But the option should be allowed to be supplied if it is demanded. It's all about the supply and demand. By trying to stop supply and demand you only push the demanders and suppliers into a black market, which can be more dangerous than the actual act sometimes. But I will always discourage abortion the way I would discrouage smoking tobacco or drinking caffeine. I won't stop you from doing it, but I highly recommend that you don't.

I say yes. If one group benefits at the expense of all the others, then it's minority rules, isn't it? But if all groups benefit at their own expense--or better yet, all individuals--that's freedom.

These stories of bad parenting are surprisingly similar to the problems we see today with the government. Too much coddling and spoiling = too many social programs. Too much control over every aspect of the child's life = too many regulations. So I guess you could say the "Mommies Are Us" Brigade = The Government. I agree that these things are getting to be a problem. I wish everybody could see that--not only as parents, but as government leaders, and as voters.

An athiest school is no less biased than a protestant or muslim school. Let's eliminate the bias altogether and allow a wide array of opinions and ideas to flow freely throughout the school as a positive and enriching part of the teen's education. Especially if it's in a public school, which everybody pays for and nearly everybody attends.

Federalism is Feudalism. The nation's leaders are the Lords and Ladies, and here are the provinces, and the private citizens, down at the bottom of the pyramid--wanting to be free. The people have become dependent, and thus enslaved, by the government. Even the municipalities depend on handouts from the provinces, as do the provinces depend on handouts from the federal government. As do the federal government depend on handouts--FORCEFULLY TAKEN HANDOUTS--from the private citizens. Let's just cut out all the middle part and let people manage their own money. It can be done more efficiently, and with less beurocracy, and more freedom. Free the Maritimes, Free the West, Free Quebec, Free all People all together. If an individual wants to be a part of a social safety net, let him sign up for one--don't force 32 million into one big federal monstrocity, even if you're trying to "protect" them, economically or otherwise. I feel like you Maritimers feel; Count me out! I will certainly check out your party's website. Here's another one you may find interest in: LPC Hopefully you'll find some common ideals. As well as some people who may be interested in activism for your cause.

The state should stay out of religion, that's fine with me. However they should also stay out of a few other things. Like a girl's valedictorian speech. People give speeches and make reference to Benjamin Franklin or Martin Luther King or Oprah and that's just fine and dandy--but mention Jesus and suddenly it's preaching!? And they have the nerve to silence her when she is just speaking her mind and giving thanks to her God and giving credit to her role model!? If I was the valedictorian of my graduating class I would have thanked and given mention to all the people who have ever been a major source of inspiration and motivation in my life. It shouldn't matter whether it's a parent, a teacher, a friend, or a deity. I'm a Christian myself but I wouldn't be the least bit offended if a Muslim got up and thanked Allah, or a Hindu got up and thanked Vishnu--or explained how big of an influence Vishnu had in their life. If someone got up and started thanking Charles Manson, I would probably leave--and avoid further association with that person, but I wouldn't try to silence them in the manner in which this girl was silenced. This girl isn't "The State" so I don't see a breach in the so called 'separation of church and state'. It's not the girl who is ignoring constitutional rights here, it's the school board.