Figleaf

[

DarkAngel, you may be right. If there is no coherence to how or why libertarians want to shrink government, then it really does just boil down to a way of framing pedestrian individual beefs in the guise of a political philosophy.

I'm concerned that the answer is yes. Modern media culture seems to have difficulty articulating meaning in a testably apprehensible way. No thought, proposition, or argument is ever followed through conclusively.

1. Canada will not prevent you from freely associating with the church, to the extent it doesn't conflict your requirements under the Canadian social contract. I trust you don't object to your counterparties holding you to the terms of the deal? 2. Part of the Canadian social contract is an assertion of territorial sovereignty, you cannot be outside the social contract and within the borders, by definition (i.e. the definition supplied by the asserted sovereign). Okay. Who are we talking about then? I was refering to non-territorial societies with 'conceptually leave'. By "leave" I'm going to assume you mean leave Canadian society but not necessarily physically depart. No, in the case of Canada, I mean physically depart and end reciprocal obligations. Okay, you would need somewhere to go in order to make your planned departure work. I am saying that difficulty does not change the fact that Canada is a consensual rather than coercive society. From the point of view of the Canadian social contract, the inherent difficulties attendant on your choice are not the test of whether you are free or not. You can't 'force' a contract on someone. Blacks in South Africa opposed, repudiated, and disproved the asserted-but-false social contract of the Aparthied regime. The choice to live or die is not at all uncommon in our world, or our cultural representations. To call it ludicrous is ... But anyway, the ethical issue is not whether you have a choice, but whether another party has any obligation to improve your choices. This seems to strip any of the relevant philosophical points away and leave an unchallengeable proposition in their place. Okay, I'll play along -- Yes. ... so...?

Bu!!sh!t. Well, maybe you can tell us how Canada became the country it is today, by trading beads with the Indians ans selling fridges to the Eskimos. Canadians built Canada. Who we traded with doesn't change that.

Bu!!sh!t.

What counts as U.S. bashing? If I say the George W. Bush is the worst president in American history, is that US bashing? Sure. Defence of our territory, sovereignty and people. And, by extension, mutual defence of the allies that help us protect ourselves. I'm sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence ... what does it mean?

piss off with the attacks honey. What attack? She was expressing appreciation for my post. A woman of obvious discernment. Like you just did??? BTW, BC Chick's contributions are generally well thought out and excellent (in contrast to some others that bob right to the top of the mind.) EDITED: I see you've editted your post whilst I was replying. Ah well.

I think the same answer above works for this one. You didn't answer the question. Please give it a go. I don't follow... just because government has the 'monopoly' on legal use of force, why should it then confine its activities only to those relating to force? But still, you reveal no means by which governments might choose according to Libertarian philosophy, which uses to put itself to. If one person takes another person's property they have violated the right to property. In an effort to protect that right, the gov't can interfere and restore the property back to the rightful owner. You're giving an example of a determination, not an explanation of how you make the determination. What about other situations ... I burn grass on my lawn and your afternoon hammock snooze is ruined. Also, your example opens another question: Who say's whose property is whose and how do they decide that? I can't think of anything to add here, but I stand by my prior answer in that I am more interested in the actual reduction of gov't. We can cut costs depending upon what is most wasteful/unnecessary. You could add the key item I'm seeking -- address: "Why or why not?"

Good. So, are there are there any available societies that you are aware of which I can join and form a social contract with (in lieu of Canadian society), but yet not have to change my place of residency? Well, it was you who broached the idea of non-territorial societies like religions or clubs... but by the context of your question, I think you are now again refering to territorial-based societies. In which case, the point of you question there eludes me. No I haven't ignored your comment. You comment was precluded upon residence ("any society in whcih you reside...") so I question why. Apparently now you concede that residency is not a criteria. I think there is some confusion in this exchange. In this exchange, originally I had suggested that free western countries are consensual societies. You replied: "That may be true if we had a variety of societies to chose from and accepted reciprocal obligations from the one which we accepted." We are now debating whether the freedom to leave is sufficient to make a society consensual, are we not? Conceptually, 'leaving' doesn't need to be physical departure from a given territory, so I don't need to 'concede' residency as a criterion or not. Hmmm. I'm not sure whether we're discussing the same thing completely or not. I'm not saying we choose which society to be born into, and obviously no-one presents you with a checklist of social contract terms to look over. I am saying that because you can leave Canada, by staying, Canadians can assert/assume that you are accepting the social contract as we provide it. There may be no alternatives, but the choice (to buy the figs or not) still exists. Certainly not. For years it appeared to be impossible to scale Mt. Everest. But it was not prohibited. Then someone did it, and no-one stopped them, or punished them. Difficulties are inherent factors, prohibitions are deliberately applied by external agencies. I don't think I brought up Canada once. I didn't say Canada wasn't free. (If I did, show me where.). Understand my message because you are misinterpreting it. Sorry, I was speaking allegorically. Substitute in "Country A", "Country B", and "Country C", respectively.

Posters with nics ending in "gs" don't exist. They're just a scam. So, frogs, now that I've written that, it must be true. Just like your comment, right? I certainly agree that a state has no 'rights' separate from its people. People create states. Who's to say they have no 'right' to do that? Logic and honesty. Have you met them? You run from them. Save the blther, please, and stick to the issues. If you can define 'steal' in a way that allows your comment to make any sense, I'll be surprised. No, You can't. ?We've exchanged two posts. How do you know what I'm interested in? Anyway, I actually agree with Jefferson on that. So what?

Such inaccuracy is unhelpful. Status Indians' benefits arise from pre-existing agreements, not their "DNA". Complaining about that would be like complaining that WestJet pays dividends to its stockholders but not to me.

Ricki, you're having trouble keeping your rightwing jingoism in order! "Sense of entitlement" is the hackneyed phrase for bitching about social programs. For kneejerk defence of Israel it's customary to use phrases like "you support terrorists".

Fortunately, no-one suggested exclusively condemning Israel.

There's that assumption again. The teachers are not proposing to instill any bias.

If teachers or the union steps out of line as far as their mandate, then the school management can raise that point. It's clear, though, that Israel apologists are not concerned with proper labor/mgmt. relations; they are beefing about the idea of teaching students the truth about the Middle East.

So what is Jesus' point? Does he approve the idea or not?

Why do you impose the constraint that I must "reside" in a society? I don't. You've ignored my comment and simply restated your opinion. The issue is not whether you can successfully find a society that you prefer, it's whether the society you start in is unfree. Canada is not unfree because it allows for you to leave at will. It's not Canada's business to worry out where you want to go instead. Whether you like the available choices out there is beside the point. So? ... At least you acknowledge that there are risks and costs associated to the person departing. As with anything. The fact there are inherent difficulties in a course of action is not the same thing as someone prohibiting the action. You seem to be trying to arguing that Canada is not free because Russia sucks and France has tight standards.

Posters with nics ending in "gs" don't exist. They're just a scam. So, frogs, now that I've written that, it must be true. Just like your comment, right? I certainly agree that a state has no 'rights' separate from its people. People create states. Who's to say they have no 'right' to do that?

Don't mistake what you call a "common interest" to what in effect is the individual interest of the two parties to the contract. Each benefits, and they probably benefit in different amounts. Each has an interest in the existence and completion of the contract. This is common to each of them. Well, that makes sense, but is it the Libertarian position, or August1991's position? Correct. Different economic decisions should arise depending on the environment, technology, etc. But again, how much collectivism would Libertarianism accept for efficiency-sake (in proper circumstances) and how does it decide that? This seems like a key question to you: what are the limits to government? My key question is what, if anything, are the core mechanics of Libertarianism as a supposedly applicable political philosophy?

There is no such assumption implicit or otherwise. The conflict could be discussed during the appropriate subject, but both sides have to be presented in a fair and balanced manner. If there is no concern that the teachers won't be fair and balanced, then what is the Post whinging on about?

The problem is not that I can't find a state of my preference, it is that there are huge barriers to being able to coming to agreement between me and the state on accepting reciprocal obligations. Here are but a few examples: 1. I have to be physically present and reside in that state. It would be great if I can just delcare myself a citizen of Cayman Islands but not have to physically move there. Obviously any society in whcih you reside will require you to conform to the structures people there live by. If you wish to live in Burmuda, why would you expect Bermudans to let you live there but by the rules of Cayman instead of Bermuda. For this reason your objection 1 appears unreasonable. That's between you and your target state. The state you're leaving has no reason to concern itself with your destination or how you fare there. It doesn't make the theory moot, it simply imposes the risks/costs on the departing dissenter. People unhappy in Canada can go. It matters not at all where they go.

It looks more like an editorial than an article, since it uses 'we think'. Hmmm. There appears to be one or another implict assumption at work there: First, that the middle east ought never to be discussed. Or at least that teachers would be incapable of discussing the middle east conflict in a 'respectful' (whatever that may mean) and balanced way. Of course what is really at work in the hearts and minds at the National Post is the former, not the latter.

Yes.

Well, here is a list of the questions I've possed on this thread which have so far not been satisfactorily answered. Pick any you like to start with...