Figleaf

Why does any other choice imply obligations? The only obligation I think is fair is NOT to force people to do something against their will. Live and let live. If two people share the same slice of wilderness, each will have to refrain from actions that impinge on the other, like not fouling their water source or not burning down the forest. You pick it everyday that you don't leave.That is not choice. That is force. What??? You could leave any time you wished. No-one would force you to stay. What theory is that? Communism? Not 'a' Theory. Rather, theoretical analysis. What theory is that?!? Communism? ??????? I said 'economic theory'. The method of economic analysis. You should read about it sometime; it can be very enlightening. Me alone, never. Me with my fellow citizens, every few years.You and your fellow citizens are not electing anything any more than you are electing the outcome of a lottery. Sure we are. (Did you have an argument you were going to make?)

Why do I suspect that you are a university student? I'm not. And I deliberately didn't specify university funding. The reason I think money should go to education is that knowledge and know-how are the surest source of growing wealth into the future. Why do I suspect that you have a low income? Maybe because you can't imagine anyone caring about anyone but themselves? BTW, raising the exemption benefits everyone, it just has more impact on the poor. The Feds can spend money in those areas without violating the constitution.

.

They may need them but nobody owes anybody anything other than mutually leaving eachother alone. If someone chooses to live alone in the wilderness, perhaps she can claim to owe nothing to anyone. Any other choice implies obligations. Merely reciting your postulate in the face of reasoned objections is not valid argumentation. You pick it everyday that you don't leave.

People need shoes, too. Why not add that to the tab? In terms of political theory, there's no reason why not. In terms of economic theory, because it is usually more efficient to have private goods provided thru the free market. When was the last time YOU could elect anything? Me alone, never. Me with my fellow citizens, every few years.

If that is truly the case, it is enough proof for me to say that nobody wants taxation. Therefore, taxation is wrong. If you want to be charitable, be honest about it. Pay it out of your own pocket. Nonsense. People do want police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it. These things require funds, and so, taxes are necessary. It is necessary to enforce them to redress the incentive to free-ride. If people didn't want government service they could elect different governments.

Taxation is no different, ethically, than any demand society imposes on those living within it. Any rule society imposes is coercive on would-be dissenters. The extreme libertarian stance, that society has no 'right' to impose laws, puts the cart before the horse -- if society were not able to establish rules, there would be no 'rights' at all. At a more micro level, tax coercion is necessary to keep it fair. Otherwise it would collapse under the strain of free-ridership.

Where it's an occasional lapse, that would be one thing. But often you'll see posts where all the regular practices of capitalization are carefully observed, except this one. That's confusing.

IMO someone in the Bushist administration should serve hard time for bringing about the deaths of U.S. military people in the Iraq fiasco. Let's look at a quick round-up of the justifications tendered for the exercise: 1. Connection to al queda. FALSE 2. Weapons of mass destuction. FALSE 3. Establishment of democracy. IMPRACTIBABLE 4. The 'flypaper' theory. IMPLAUSIBLE & DISPROVED In each case the administration was warned to expect exactly that outcome by virtually every credible external source. Yet they proceeded anyway. There should be limits on what stupidity can excuse, and the Bushist regime has exceeded them.

Not proposing to detract from Lee's advice there (which seems generally (pun intended) sound), I would add ... 'Duty' is word much loved by those who would seek more of us than our private consciences in its absence would require. 'Duty' is too often the rhetoritician's delight, but the mother's, wives, and children's despair. If someone proposes that you must do your duty, think, 'How is that my duty? Who makes it so? Have I other duties that should first be served?' Then, do your duty.

The fiscal imbalance really amounts to nothing but the province's unwillingness to tax their citizens at the level needed to cover the services they would like to deliver. Blaming Ottawa is an excuse for wanting it both ways, and the Federal gov. should tell them to bugger off. As for the 'surplus', it should be directed: -to reducing financial barriers to post-highschool education; -alleviating the tax burden at the lower income levels (I suggest raising the amount of the personal exemption); and -investing in key public-good infrastructure ('public goods' meaning valuable things for which market incentives don't operate sufficiently to produce private investment, and 'investing' meaning with the expectation of a measurable pay-off).

Tough luck for Saddam that his WMDs were totally imaginary. Wait! That's it. Saddam's chemical weapons were all in Bush's head -- i.e. Bush had chemicals on his brain! That explains a lot.

You wouldn't have to -- he's already stoned!

I'd like to know what the anglo-sphere countries could hope to gain from hitching our wagons to Israel's territorial ambitions. For that matter, what would Canada gain from jumping aboard with the imperialist machinations of the U.S. or the imperialist pretences of the UK? China and India? Judeo-Christian ethics? C.R.A.P. Individual rights, and equality of the sexes are secular values that won out despite being heartily opposed by Judeo-Christian beliefs. They do share a mysterious pathology, don't they? Before you complain, show me anything that's 'objectively' anything, please. They would be worth fighting for, if necessary. But not because of the silly idea they are "objectively" good. What occasion(s) are you thinking of? True. Many Canadian right-wingers seem to really despise Canada and its values. Earlier you mentioned Israel. Is Israel a Common Law jurisdiction? Is English an official language there? How does the Patriot Act 'elevate freedom to the first rank'? How does illegal wiretapping uphold the rule of law? America's Bill of rights is not 'granted' or needed here. Oddly, the Canadians most likely to seek tighter ties with the Bushblairosphere seem to really hate our own Charter of Rights. Identified anglosphere countries: Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand (=5) A 'few outliers' near the top: Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Japan, Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (=10). Looks like the anglosphere has no monopoly on success. (But consider the Vikingsphere ... now that's impressive).

Before passing judgement on anyone, I would be interested to hear EXACTLY how the question was phrased. I mean, if people were asked "What factors do you feel contributed to the 9/11 attacks; choose 1 of the following..... 1) American foreign policy 2) The north American auto industry 3) The environment ......then it's pretty much a question loaded to lead to a specific end. Yes, I deliberately made the alternatives ludicrous, but that was simply to illustrate the point that a poll can be designed to deliberately come up with a specific result. Secondly, I would be interested to know who exactly hired the polling firm to conduct this so called "research". Until we know the answer to these questions, the poll itself is meaningless. Sorry to throw a damper on the more passionate arguments this thread has generated. So true. What gives with the media. Why are they totally incapable of playing straight? This headline was a complete distortion and some editor somewhere knew that and let it go. Journalism has become and industry of hysteria and fictional fabrication. If a CEO, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a financial planner, or an engineer were caught uttering such blatant BS she'd be cooked. Not so the media, the self-appointed 'fourth estate' guardians of "truth and the public interest". Scumbags. And polls! There oughta be a law ... any publication of poll results MUST include the actually text of the questions and the specific reponse data for each question. Penalty for breach should be a sound public flogging.

I suspect you'd be a little less blase about it if Iran was close to us and likely to aim its new missiles at you. I'd probably feel like I felt about Russia in the 1970's.

I hope the frivolous nature of this thread is not annoying.

Funny you can review my posts so assiduosly, and yet overlook the ones where I answer your questions. I have listed (q.v.) three major respects that Conservative philosophy, and therefore policy, is characteristically wrong-headed (int'l, economic, and social). As for remembering Harper's 5 proclaimed priorities, why should I bother to take note of such irrelevant spin-making? Simple. Voting Conservative is a mistake, so by definition no reason can qualify as a good reason. None of your business.

What on Earth are you babbling about? Am I aiming a bit over your head? Wide of the mark, more like. Religion of bully-pulpits and brow-beating, more like. BTW, over my life I'm proud to say, I've been called 'chink-lover', 'Jew-lover', and 'Indian-lover' by bigots of various stripes. Now you'v allowed me add 'Muslim-lover' to that list. Thanks!

Shouldn't 'scary' be on the list?

I cast my votes on a case by case basis. -Interest. -Pettiness and dissembling among the backroom boys. Please try to listen ... I'm talking about the choices, not the people. Further, I've explained my views quite fully already in the posts above. They are available for you to peruse. No. I asked you that. I didn't rant at you telling you it. Then you are mistaken.

What on Earth are you babbling about?

I worked with the Liberals many years ago, but quit in disgust. You don't appear willing to grasp the meaning of my comments, so the substance I've provided so far has been wasted. I prefer to rely on the strength of my arguments, without appealing to the authority of my education. 1. I was refered to a news report that mentioned it, but was unclear on specifics. 2. The fact they fled their posts tells us nothing about whether they had cause to. Are you twisting my words on purpose or because you can't grasp English? Child? If you can't debate without spewing personal attacks, I'm not likely to cater to your preferences.

It pains me slightly that you cannot perceive the merits of my views. I can scarcely fax you my diplomas, now can I? Neither am I inclined to. What you're doing there is called 'projecting'. Suggestion: Rather than petulant ranting, it might be more productive to simply provide the info I asked for. It's usually considered wise to seek confirmation before accepting the representations of such a special interest. Again, I urge you to refrain from personal attacks. Your abilities in creating fiction certainly exceed your abilities in grammar. "You're", not "your". Now, since I've already told you that I'm neither Liberal nor left wing, I wonder what you'd have me conclude from the above statement about your comprehension or intelligence. You err, I'm afraid. Not only have I come to grips with it, I've drawn lessons and conclusions from it. When they are wrong, I have views about how. In our discussion I've asked you to propose alternative possibilities, but you've offered none. It's rather that I can't see the relevance of yours. I don't read that any special way at all. I've never held public office, if that's what you mean. Why do you ask? Personal attacks ,projecting, and shouting now too. Surely you don't expect me to indulge you in such behavior? Our debate could have remained civilized, but your inability to tolerate my inability to agree with you has led you to commit several breaches of polite discourse. For example, just there you have blatantly mischaracterized my carefully stated position.

Liberal - 122 Conservative - 107 Bloc - 46 NDP - 32 Green - 1