Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. Have you even heard Harris' name mentioned since Stockwell Day made a run for the Alliance leadership ? Leaving the Harris question out of it - yes I think that there is something serious happening here. I have visited the area and the Ontario government doesn't seem to be acting to mitigate the absolute loss of faith the locals have in the system. This is a very bad thing. Whichever side you take on the actual conflict, the breakdown of the system in this respect is something that we all need to pay attention to. Vigilantism has already reared its head and the government's response has been to shut down, avoid, and sweep under the rug. The local newspaper constantly has coverage of this while in Toronto we hear nothing. Agreed. ( I wrote the previous paragraph before reading this. ) I don't really think the US/Canada situation is all that different, but other than that I agree that McGuinty is playing the situation politically. By the province's own account, this is a federal matter but the security matter is provincial and they need to be more up front about it, and respond to the concerns of the community.
  2. Hey Shwa, I have long been a devotee of McLuhan. In fact, I want to host an online chat on the topic in a few weeks. Let me know if you're interested in discussing that. McLuhan indicated that the education budgets should include advertising, since that was where children received a large part of their education. I believe he felt that television in the classrooms wasn't a great idea, but I don't remember why.
  3. Do you mean, before 9/11 ? I imagine they didn't think it was relevant then.
  4. I have nothing to support this, but my general feeling is that people are at least paying closer attention to what is happening in Pakistan.
  5. They're essentially the same, but they're not the same. The essence of the points is that media doesn't pay attention to similar crimes in the same way. Although the nature of these things dictates that it's almost impossible to determine if that's true, I can believe that it happens for a variety of reasons. Kimmy and I disagree on what some of the reasons might be. Lictor, on the other hand, articulates this point by pointing at a broad conspiracy of liberals, and uses language that is insulting to anyone with a mature and reasoned outlook. So, essentially they're saying the same thing but in actuality Lictor is proposing fantastic situations, and his justifications are poorly put together.
  6. There's an odd dichotomy at play there, I think. People "like" strong leaders, yet leaders like McGuinty and Chretien will continue in office for many terms while Harris doesn't appear to be allowed back into politics at all. Bob Rae is still around, on the national stage no less. But 'Google' Mike Harris in the news section and the only current personality with that name is a Welsh football star. I think it's likely more descriptive to say we have a 'love/hate' relationship with strong leaders. Even Trudeau was shown the door in 1979 and called arrogant. Thankfully, we haven't had a Mike Harris type prime minister mismanaging the country as he did the province. But that's for another thread.
  7. Fair enough. Harris didn't seem to care if somebody got killed either. And somebody was killed. And we don't have Harris anymore. Don't run for Premier, Argus.
  8. "Maximized freedom" is a meaningless phrase. It's as meaningless as "Maximized beauty". "We believe that the city needs MAXIMUM beauty." "Yes, we agree." "Therefore, I have commissioned people to clean up the graffiti !" "What ? But I commissioned people to create MORE grafitti !" So, again, this idea of maximum freedom is very abstract and therefore enjoyable to discuss, but when applied it's hard to see how it would be difficult from what we have today. My freedom to make noise versus your freedom to have quiet, for example. These things are balanced via laws. But please don't tear apart this example. If you've examined this question in your learning about libertarianism, then just give me the best examples you have. There was a project that the people of the area wanted to initiate. The project was framed around that objective. Very cynical. Society in general wants to help out the destitute, not just to have them starve to death behind closed doors. If that weren't the case, why would we have social programs ? So, smoking isn't allowed then ? This libertarian society sounds quite restrictive so far. Yes, why not start a new libertarian thread where we can ask you about it. It's been awhile since we had one. A bad approach for this is to have me build what I THINK a libertarian society would look like, then have you correct me. It's your utopia - you build it !
  9. I have sent a news tip to 680 News to let them know that it's been a year and a half since the government has let us know about a meeting...
  10. I am willing to give the governments (Canada is the chief negotiator according to this website: http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/negotiate/sixnations/faq.asp) the benefit of the doubt, at least to a point. But the Ontario government has actually stopped updating the website. I guess now that this is no longer in the news, we don't need to be updated as to the status. ) http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/negotiate/sixnations/events.asp
  11. Your response amounts to a statement that you don't trust government, and that you believe it will become more totalitarian. That's fine, but how do you frame your argument to persuade people that their lives will get better under libertarianism ? And how would it be adopted ? You might once have suggested a phased approach, by opting for conservatism and then moving forward from there. But our conservatives seem about as libertarian as the liberals lately.
  12. jbg - edit the the post, then click 'use full editor' and there's a preview option.
  13. Yes, you did, you said: "Freedom Balanced? Not at all. It is like saying that the right to think for yourself should be balanced. " Balancing freedom means working out whose freedoms preside over others'. The question should be phrased as: should a person ultimately be allowed to decide what their own best interest is ? The answer clearly is: not in all cases. "Free society" is not a tangible goal, though. "To build 100 km of road going north from Kingston on highway 3" is a tangible goal. You can achieve a free society by basing your laws on human rights, but we can't even agree with bjre on an idea of 'freedom'. Well, they're not required if you're ok with having the poor broken and dying in the street. Ok, that makes sense to a degree. But how much right do you have to impact the environment ? Are there any other marked differences between such a society and ours, other than nanny government protecting you from being ripped off by telemarketers, and cocaine dealers ?
  14. On a basic level, though, freedoms conflict with each other and need to be arbitrated - or worked out outside the legal system. Emphasizing an ideal is good when you're talking about abstract issues, but government today is more about practical issues: payments, disbursement, planning projects and so forth. You wouldn't talk about ideals all the time when you were making a sandwich, and although I appreciate the urge to discuss and abstract ideas I think that government/democracy should be doing less of this in general. We should be focusing more on services and management. His own choices in what ? How about the environment ? The outcome of the debate, I believe, was that it stalled around these very questions.
  15. I abide by the moderators, and if they deem him worthy of being here then I reserve the right to respond. Besides, I don't like the idea of unresponded threads of that kind being out there. It leads people to think, sometimes, that there is something to the charges contained therein.
  16. Good for you for out-Googling Morris. He's a master Googler so that's saying something. Koch's numbers though, aren't correct. He's taking 2001 numbers only. If you look at the statistics since 1976, the year that the death penalty was restored, then it's a different picture. Depending on how you define the races (which is a separate problem, of course, ignored by those who base all rationales on race) then 2001 was a year in which white executions were over represented. Still, there's something to be learned from what he says. There used to be a bias in which accused received the death penalty, but that appears to have been dealt with as now the focus is on the fact that white victims elicit death penalty convictions at a greater rate.
  17. If that's the case, then he is simply a troll and should be taken off the board.
  18. It seems that we both believe that censorship needs to be considered in context of the situation. I do think China is ready for more openness however.
  19. ...as it appears to be. The rules speak about trolling, and un-researched posts. I think that's what we're talking about here.
  20. Also, Greg, the link to Rules in this announcement doesn't work: "Announcement: Posting Rules - New Members Please Read this!!!"
  21. Lictor has already expressed his disdain for Christianity, with all its attendant love and mercy. There should be a rule against continually casting your line into the water. It's against the spirit of the board, and maybe even the letter of the rules....
  22. Actually, that seems to be another lame post on another forum. Who knows if Koch even said that ? As to the implication that white supremacists share Lictor's value system, such that it is, I'm interested in finding out what the basis is for his beliefs no matter what they are. I've long suspected that people who believe in theories of racial superiority (not saying this is Lictor here) do so out of emotional need, and likely an irrational paranoia of sorts. I still haven't seen a solid factual basis for those theories, and Lictor hasn't been very good at providing one yet. In fact, he seems to be a new breed of 'politically correct' racial theorist, who doesn't believe that the races are largely equal, yet is too shy or polite to admit it.
  23. Thanks for answering. Now I'll answer you one: Sometimes there are programs in which they're treated better, which make up for the many areas where they're treated unfairly. That's your answer. Now my turn again: Do you believe that they have more propensity to violence in their culture, which you believe derives from race ? I think diversity is for all races, and indeed the stated goal of diversity is encouraging tolerance for people of different backgrounds. Answer my question now please.
  24. The only examples of naughty songs I can remember were two from black people, and they both seemed to get in trouble with their record company/legal groups. As I said, you need to finish off the discussion on the 'Black Coworker' thread, and stop running away and posting new issues. If you're interested in discussing your points then do so and stop being evasive.
  • Create New...