Remiel

Furthermore, as insulting as you mind find some counties membership on a Commission (and the Status of Women has nearly a quarter of all UN member states), do you think that the plight of women is Iran, for instance, can be worsened by their membership? If anything, the fact that they are free to voice their opinion in the Commission makes it all the more legitimate if that Commission decides to kick their asses. It would be far better, I think, to focus on how to minimize their ability to mouth off to those commissions rather than deny them outright. This does not change, however, that countries that are not in line with the goals of such commissions should not be chairing them.

If you cannot convince the countries that pay for the UN that something must be done about this, then how would you expect, in the course of ordinary diplomacy, to justify the headache you have caused them by pulling out? Canada gains nothing by unilaterally pulling out of the UN.

Sort of; I have may argued myself into a corner here. But imagine that the government decided to drop the idea of taxes entirely, and instead instituted a tithe that everyone was expected to pay of the value of goods they received, in whatever fashion they pleased. While this would suddenly make everything horrendously complex, I would not believe that anyone would think the tithe on goods was fundamentally different in any relevant way from taxes, and all of the arguments that supported the government's ability to tax would also support the government's ability to tithe. I cannot believe anyone of sound mind who thought taxes were not theft of their property would suddenly believe that tithes were theft of their property. At the end of the day they would still be receiving the same value, and that is what would matter to them.

That is excessively legalistic in a way that does not really constructively inform this debate. And even if it were, your point does not necessarily mean what you think it does, bambino. After all, modern money is explictly made so that the face value exceeds the material value. If money is the property of the Queen, it is the physical money, the material value. The face value, however, is the concern of the people using it at a medium for trade.

So what if he has a voter base in Ontario and Alberta? In case you had not noticed, voters in Ontario and Alberta do not vote in identical ways at the provincial and federal levels, and do not vote for identical reasons at those levels. Are you next going to argue that because Frank McKenna swept New Brunswick the Liberals were ever in a position to sweep Canada? And the notion that the federal politics of the next forty years is going to be anything like provincial politics of the last sixty is patently absurd. We live in a different world than the one that spawned PC dominance in Ontario and Alberta. Unless you are arguing that Canada is going to be a totalitarian fascist dictatorship, the advent of new technologies will increase the pressure on politicians so much that such long term success in anything but the most uniform states will be verifiably impossible.

August, I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. In the unlikely event that Conservatives made it eventwenty years, I think we would be looking at a two party state soon after. If not sooner, like it twelve.

It can also be said that you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the least unsuccesful UN programs, which is, by the way, necessary for you to establish that your ass does not do all your talking for you.

Thread drift ahead! This is not a drill! Is this not a misuse of language in some way? If you are able to divide your beliefs into premises you accept as true and premises you reject as false, how are you truly a skeptic of any kind? Given that skepticism is a suspension of belief, I mean.

I do not have the time to post any extensive opinion on this right now, but I thought it should be posted for discussion. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1023124--chief-s-grandson-5-shot-and-killed-on-alberta-reserve-rcmp?bn=1

This is the Ha'aretz description of the law: The second part of the law is questionable, but the real problem is obviously the first part. Allowing for people to be sued without actual harm having been done is dangerously outrageous. And if fact, Shady, given that your justification is that Israel is having economic hardship placed upon it, I would think you would agree that one ought to, at the very least, be able to show that economic hardship in order to take advantage of such a law.

This does not follow at all. You can perhaps argue that we do not in fact possess certain kinds of property, but that does not change the fact that one could establish rights to property that does belong to us. Family heirlooms from the Old Country, for instance, have nothing to do with native title. Imported goods obtained from other countries in exchange for services or intellectual property exported to other countries also result in property that have nothing to do with aboriginal title. I could perhaps just say that imported products bought with imported money in general have nothing to do with aboriginal title.

Well, Bob, it seems you are right for once. You have not said that you hate Jews. ...However, I am not so sure that you have not attributed hatred of Jews to people based on similar logic; that of disliking a certain contingents of Jews.

So you are saying you hate Jews?

I never said the Jewish people had no claim to Israel. That would be clearly absurd. I merely repudiate any argument that Jews have the only claim to Israel, and the relevant details are the relative strength of those claims. I am frankly shocked that you have such contempt for your socialist kibbutznik brethren.

Supposedly a lot of folks from around Nablus have Samaritan ancestry. How much of that is mixed in with Palestinian Arabs in general, who knows.

As a matter of historical interest, despite the name, the stock the average Englishman comes from is about 60% "native" to the Isles. They are, more or less, exactly where their ancestors belonged.

Yes, and settlement of Africa by Europeans was not colonialism, as they were just heading back to their homeland. Give me a break.

If we were to pull out of the United Nations, what implications might have have for all the United Nations treaties we have signed?

I do realize that a war was not fought over this land. This point comes up a lot in these debates. But what is utterly perplexing is the implication that the settlers were worse people for not waging war. What kind of perverse system suggests that it is less moral to not kill people before taking their stuff?

False, and a contradiction to boot. It would be absurd to argue at the same time that there is no such thing as property rights and that aboriginals have property rights.

This really confuses me. I do not think money and property are essentially different in a way that is relevant to this argument Money is merely deferred property. What is sovereignty of a territory if not a relationship of owner and owned? I am not saying that it says in the Declaration of Independence that it says that property is pooled in this was. I am arguing that pooling in this was is exactly what the Declaration of Independence was, in itself. Then you are suffering from a lack of imagination, Bonam. Slavery is worse. Indefinite imprisonment is worse. Having your family taken away and hidden from you is worse. And I would argue that taking away all freedom of speech is in fact worse, because without freedom of speech, and freedom of association, how does one come to a justifiable conclusion that one has been wronged in this matter? How does one correct it? It was just an example. Sentiment would prevent such drastic measures in real life. Yes, and my example is wanting insofar that it is most strongly tied to land, but the fact is that when in need the state can and does expropriate other kinds of property as suits their needs, such as the cop pulling over a car when he needs one to pursue a criminal. I do not think this analogy holds. The things that are necessary for deliberation are always going to be of utmost importance in any sort of society, otherwise there is no society.

You should have noticed that I left myself plenty of weasel room in the original statement. It would be dishonest I think to say I was anticipating your exact argument, but it is along the idea of what I was thinking. You see, my problem with broad property rights has very much to do with the fact that a lot of property is not particularly worked for long and hard, at least not in proper proportion to what was received. Obviously it is very difficult to make exact judgements about what is deserved, but I do not think I am asking so much for you to concede that this is a problematic aspect of private property. Also, I should perhaps qualify what I think of the "right to private property" a little more, though not necessarily enough to satisfy you: If one were approaching the business of creating a new state, it is obviously true that the state must be in some sense the sum of the property of those creating it. However, once the state has been created, the "right" to that property has been pooled. And if afterwards, especially given a few generations of more or less untraceable change, that society decides that they best use of this property pooled under the sovereignty of their state is to make all property public property, then I do not think anything fundamentally wrong has occured. As I said before, such a move may lead to bad things happening, but it is not in itself a bad thing per se.

Are you so very sure that you are correctly grasping the nuance? I do not think I would be mistaken to suggest that the word "savage" when used to describe Native Canadians and Americans is subtlely different than many other ordinary uses of the word. That is, for instance, how we came to have such concepts as "noble savage" , which would pretty much be an oxymoron paired with many dictionary definitions of "savage" , yet it has distinct meaning in certain contexts. It should be obvious to anyone that my comparison of the use of "peasant" and "savage" was a comparison of the way in which the have historically been used to condescendingly label classes of people thought of as being socially and mentally inferior. For the sake of argument, let us run with this possible interpretation. The question becomes "What evidence is their supporting the claim that it specifically meant farmers from the social class once referred to as "peasants?" The main evidence for this argument is the "giving away" could clearly refer to settlement of the West, in particularly the Prairies. However, the language of the post did not seem limited to farmland. He said "resources", which I think was meant broadly to include lumber, minerals, and that sort of thing; stuff that was not the purview of the sort of peasants you think he was referring to. And given the general tone, even if he was referring to actually peasants, there is nothing preventing it from being a sort of elitist insult.

Broad, entrenched property rights of this sort are worse than useless: they are a make work project for lawyers. There is nothing about most private property that is intrinsically worth protecting, say, in the same way that the right to life, free speech, association, belief and that sort of thing are. While it appears that widespread private property is beneficial for society, this does not entail any intrinsic right to extensive private property. The only real exceptions to this are going to be essentials. You can probably say that you have a right not to be arbitrarily deprived of your food and shelter, but that is about it, in my opinion.

Not true. It also has to do with democracy. The list of countries where a smaller ethnic group ruled over larger ones does not inspire confidence: Syria (Alawites), Iraq (Sunnis), Rwanda (Tutsis); and I am sure with some effort the list could be greatly expanded. There are plenty of urban areas in Canada that are claimed by various native groups (if not all of them, possibly). It is impossible to "give back" control of these areas without either massive, unjustified displacement from built up areas (which would lead to fighting and possible war) or massive, unjustified disenfranchisement of everyone who is not the right kind of native (which would also lead to fighting and possibly war). You do not correct the suffering inflicted on millions of people by inflicting more suffering on tens of millions of people.