Black Dog

RNC delgate respectfully kicks protester while they're down.

Somalia's wealth is almost completely due to the generosity of the Sonmalian disapora. presumably, these people were able to become successful enough unde rthe western taxpayer system that they are now able to prop up the entire system in their homeland. No, only that all it takes is one or more well-appointed, less-than-charitable sorts to upend the whole applecart. Why? What's to prevent the rich from doing as they please? The law? Wouldn't that make the citizen militia a de facto organ of the state? Furthermore, what's to guarantee that outcome? Unless the other rich people are similarily inclined. Certainly the spirit of sharing applies here. The rich would simply divy up the wealth amongst themselves. Ah the myth of the free market. There's no such thing. It's a construct. Indeed, aracho-capitalism sets down excellent preconditions developing monopolies and degnerating into statism. In a A/C system, there's no limits on the accumulation of private property outside of shadowy "market forces" (never mind the historical realities that show unchecked market forces tend to lead to monopolies). Thus, whosoever accumulates the most property could monopolise the means of production. This allows the monopolists to become a ruling elite by accumulating vastly more wealth than the workers. This elite then uses its wealth to control the coercive mechanisms of society (military, police, "private security forces," etc.), which it employs to protect its monopoly and thus its ability to accumulate ever more wealth and power. Thus, private property, far from increasing the freedom of the individual, has always been the necessary precondition for the rise of the state and rule by the rich. Medieval Iceland is a classic example of this process at work. But the state is not keeping you here. If you can't curently afford a ticket, why not rely on the charity you espouse? I grow weary of this game. Here's a couple of well-reasoned debunkings of libertarian ideas. Robert Nozick, Libertarianism, And Utopia A critique of liberetarianism Incidentally, that's also where I got the analysis of Iceland.

You know August, that's pretty thick of you. Unless you're a big fan of Perle's (mor eon him later) notion of decontextualizing terrorism, it should be patently obvious that looking at the events that lead up to acts of terror and motivate the perpatrators is not "blaming the victim" or justifying terror. What are those values? Is the destruction, slaughter and rape of the Chencyan people by the Russians consistent with these values? Or are you simply operating from the principle that western values are superior and moral, therefore all western actions are intrinsically consistent with said values, therefore all western actions are inherently "moral"? So instances where Russian troops have gang-raped Chechyan girls and slit their throats afterwards are okay because "our values are good ones"? That's moral relativism if I've ever seen it. That's the same kind of bullshit used by people who say anyone who questions Israel is anti-semetic. It's a red herring designed to throw the focus on the motives of the questioner and draw attention away from questions like "Why has the population ofChechnya declined from 2 million to 800,000 in five years?" A question: are you an unconcious or concious dupe? Because it's pretty clear the propaganda about Chechnya being another front in the war on terror has made it's mark on you. I guess that's what comes from a complete ignorance of historical context and a total reliance on Headline News. More moral relativism. And it's the "left" that's lost it's moral compass? I find that hard to believe, given how very selective some are in choosing which dead children are suitable to mourn. Even though educating people about Chechnya seems to be a Sisyphsian task, I'll keep trying. USians working for Chechyan independence The bungling Kremlin

Choosing between Bush and Kerry is very much a case of choosing the lesser of two evils (*coughKerrycough*). The best analogy is the U.S. is a corporation. Every four years, the shareholders vote to change C.E.O.s, but the direction and objectives of the company don't change significantly. Unfortunately, Bush is running the country the same way he ran his businesses: into the ground.

I can't say I buy any of the options. In this instance, you operate from the example that taxes are theft. I don't believe that, as the fruits of our labours are never soley the product of our own labour or initiative. Society, through the state, provides us with the means to make something of ourselves. Does that meant the actions of the state are intrinsicaly ethical and mora? No. But, as Locke said, "it is fit everyone who enjoys a share of protection should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it." In your vision such protection would be provided by the private sector operating under a undefined code (who would have the authority to enact "liberetarian law" in the first place?). This highly regressive, as it doesn't account for people's ability to access or afford such services. It's safe to say (and medieval Iceland is a good example of this) that such a society would quickly degenerate into rule by the rich, as only those with sufficient wealth would be able to afford the few protections availablea nd would almost certainly be able to afford to circumvent what few laws would exist in Hugo's utopia. Really, what I find most roubling is the failure to distinguish between paying taxes and bona fide slavery. You are not a prisoner, nor are you being held for ransom. You are a guest in a hotel, taxes are your rent and you are free to check out anytime you so desire. Somalia is waiting.

But that's not what you said. You said: "under our current laws innocents are suffering more than criminals". Now, as I understand it, a criminal, under our current laws, is someone who has broken those laws. Collecting taxes, under our current laws, are not against the law. You weren't talking about taxes, but the current criminal justice system. So prove it. You're not wiggling out on this one. To be perfectly frank, arguing the virtues of anarcho-capitalist society is a lot like debating how many angels can dance on a pin head. It's not going to happen, most people probably wouldn't want it to happen, and if it did happen, it probably wouldn't work like you think it would.

Your statement was: Nothing to do with taxes or bear attacks. Show me something (maybe some evidence on how great it is in prison, or how people with criminal records have a higher average income than anyone else) to back it up. Simple. And yet Somalia is moving towards a central government. By your link's own admission: Meaningless, brutal death? Hey, at least there's no taxes. Got your plane ticket yet?

Not good enough. First, Canadians are allowed to own firearms (with restrictions) and can use them in self-defence. They just have to convince a jury that they acted in such a way. Furthermore, none of your anecdotes back up your claim that "innocents are suffering more than criminals". I would hardly consider Somalia a "modern" state. Nor is it particularily peaceful, but stricken with tribal warfare and civil unrest. But hey, if you want to move ther and sample the government free life, you hav emy blessing. Common sense. Good judgement. An understanding of human nature. History. That's great. Until someone accumulates enough wealth or power to place themselve above that principle. Or until a group of individuals decide to annoint themselves the central authority. And you're back to the same problems you face with government. Details aside, though, the biggest problem with an anrachic system is that it requires a complete dismantling of the curent social order. My gut tells me that it just can't happen.

I just about spewed my coffee opn my keyboard when I saw Hugo of all people being accused of calling for a socialist utopia. Frankly though, the anarcho-liberetarian utopia is just as out of reach and idealistic as anything ever penned by Marx. The realities of the world we live in and human nature itself have rendered it an impossibility. The example of agarian Massachusetts doesn't really apply today. In the end, state monopoly on violence would be replaced by some other form of institutionalized violence, possibly even less accountable and more arbitrary. Furthermore, since the only laws concern the protection of private propert, what's to prevent such property from being aquired through coercion or outright force? Proof, please?

Gee, maybe that's a indication that the policies we currently have in place aren't working. I find it odd you'd resist new approaches when the old one's are so clearly inadequate. It's pretty obvious you don't know what a safe injection site is or what purpose they serve. You seem to think it's a place where "criminals" can go and get free drugs. Safe injection rooms provide sterile injection equipment, information about drugs and health care, treatment referrals, and access to medical staff. Some offer counseling, hygienic and other services of use to itinerant and impoverished individuals. Most prohibit the sale or purchase of illegal drugs. Many programs require identification cards. Some restrict access to local residents and apply other admission criteria. What's more is, unlike your draconian approach, they work. Evaluations of safe injection sites in Europe have found them to be successful in reducing injection-related risks and harms, including vein damage, overdose and transmission of disease. They also appear to be successful in reducing public order problems associated with illicit drug use, including improper syringe disposal and public drug use. And your argument from authority is pretty bogus , given that we have no way of knowing whether you're tellling the truth, or even remptely qualified to make any judgements on criminal justic or drug policy. The indisputable facts are that the hard-line approach, both to drug use and in incarceration, doesn't work. The proof is in the pudding. That's why we have the push for new solutions in the first place.

Harper is right in one respect: the ongoing border closure is about protectionism and can be attributed to the power of the U.S. beef lobby. However, the "Liberal bungling of Canada US relations" is simple Conservative boilerplate. Haerper knowss the view that: is fairly common, despite the fact that, if you asked your average Congeressman, Senator or, heck, even the PUS himself, they'd problay have no idea what you're talking about. Parrish's comments, or even the war in Iraq, have bupkis to do with the BSE crisis, softwood lumber or anything else. It's about money, babies.

Putin's war.

As I pointed out, there's tremendous social costs involved in drug abuse. Take a stroll dowen East Hastings if you don't know what I mean. Secondly, not all drug addicts are addicts becaus ethey made a rational choice. After all, no one wakes up and decides "Hey, being a AIDS-inflicted street junkie is pretty cool!". Countless numbers of homeless and drug addicts suffer from mental illnesses which can impair judgement. More to the point, though, I will respond with the words of a great phiolosopher: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me." As a society, we have an obligation to give a helping hand to those in need. Yes, there will be those who reject it, but that's no reason to stop trying. Society shares the costs, but in the end, reaps the benefits. That's a pretty crap argument, given that the existenc eof safe injection sites means addicts won't have to commit crimes to score their next fix. That's all part of the strategy of harm reduction. Have you ever been to prison? I doubt it. If prison's are as cushy as you make them out to be, people would be beating down the doors to get in (after all, yopu make it sound like the best in government-subsidized housing). It's a myth. As for your "get tough" crap, we've got a perfect example of why that doesn't work just south of the border. There's a reason they're starting to rethink their approach down there: in the end "hard time" creates more criminals and more social problems. Good article here. Like the drug war, we've done it your way and it doesn't work. It's time to just admit you're wrong.

Yeah, much like granting liquor licences is akin to condoning alcoholism and allowing for the sale of cigarettes is akin to supporting cancer. Because of the tremendous social costs involved in allowing such ills to go unchecked? A myth. As cannibis is the most common drug out there, it's no surprise many who do hard drugs have also tried pot. However, not everyone who tries pot goes on to harder drugs. I very much doubt that ithe average heroin addict living on the streets of East Van would consider scrounging, begging and stealing to get their next fix to be anything like th e"good life". And this individual represent all heroin addicts? Not if the SIS is part of a broader harm reduction strategy aimed at reducing drug dependancy. To the best of my knowledge, there's no law forbidding anyone under 19 to smoke. That would be the sensible solution. Decades of criminalization and prohibition have done nothing to solve the drug problem: indeed, under these policies, the problem has gotten worse and exploded into an epidemic. The realities of today demand new solutions, not dogmatic devotion to the faile dpolicies of the past.

Apples and oranges (unless you are implying that all Chechyans are homicidal maniacs). The rise of Islamic extremism in Chechnya (and the accompanying potential ties with international terrorism) is a relatively recent phenomenon. And, given the brutality of the Russian occupation, an entirely predictable one. Brutality breeds brutality.Conditions such as those imposed by the Russina invasion are ideal for lawlessness, the formeting of radical ideologies and recruitment for extermist causes.

Our dead and injured children

Passionate defence of free speech? Or simply one Rupert Murdoch outlet (the NY Post) rallying behind another (FoxNews). Someone better tell Bill O'Reilly. The demonstrators use of "shut up" is a jab at the free-speech friendly approach of FoxNews's flagship Bill O'Reilly. A while back, O'Reilly had Jeremy Glick, whose father was killed on 9-11, on the show. Here's what happened: Free speech: FoxNews style.

As with 9-11 and any other act of terrorism, any attempt to explain the motivations of the peerpatrators of this atrocity is immediately dismissed as "justification". It's as though, subconciously, civilized nations recognize that these events simply do not occur in a vacum. I find it interesting that any historical background or context is absent from this discussion so far. Instead, we have jibber-jabber about "exterminating terrorists" etc etc. The same thinking that, when applied in the past, has led to more terrorism, more innocent deaths. For context, the Chechyan struggle for independance is more than 200 year sold. The Chechyans have fought for self-detrmination against the Czars, the Communists (Stalin even had the entire population of Chenchnya forcibly transfered out of their homeland in the '40s) and now against ex-KGB man Putin. The Russians have committed untold atrocities in Chanya, as detailed in this report. So, for all the agonizing over the fate of the Russian children, who is paying attention to the crimes of the Russian federation? How can we expect to prevent future Beslans with such selective outrage?

Uh, your poll is three days old. The current Gallup poll has a 7 point Bush lead, while The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows a dead heat, with each candidate at 47 per cent.

Bush bounce ends with a thud The latest polls have Bush at 47%, Kerry 46%. And I must point out that "irrational hatred" is by no merans the sole purvue of the "liberal Democrats". Witness Dem turncoat Zell Miller's vitriolic assault on his party. Or the daily screeds of the right-wing punditiocracy accussing Democtrats and leftists of treason. Harken back to the fits of rage and hatred levelled at Clinton during his presidency. It seems the "poor Bush" hand-wringing yet another example of the right's inability to take what it dishes out on a regular basis.

So your "evidence" is watching people getting manhandled by security, unsourced allegations of violence (none of which actulally came to pass) and the volume of arrests which, as I said before, can be just as easily attributed to aggressive tactics on the part of the cops. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's partisan sniping, identical to the kind you accuse Bush critics of using.

I would expect a leader woth his salt would be able to steer his nation through the turbulent waters post-9-11, instead of involving America in a costly and prolonged war and occupation at a time when the economy was in tatters. Meanwhile, Bush's economic policies are still the cause of much of the ongoing economic woes as Bush's tax cuts may have done great things for the Pioneers and the rest of his wealthy core constiuency, but bugger all for anyone else. Honsetly, you can't expect me to believe that 9-11 and war alone put the U.S.into the whole by nearly $500 billion?

But you haven't shown this to be the case. Aside from the one assault on th eplainclothes cop, who's lives were endangered? What property was damaged? By all accounts, the RNC protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. You simply don't like the politics of the participants.

Hmm...then let's talk numbers. As political commentator and historian Juan Cole pointed out today, Bush simply fails the CEO test. Honestly though, I don't know why I bother. Bush and Cheney could have stood on stage biting the heads off pigeons and spitting them in the crowd and you'd probably applaud their tough stance on bird poop.

Nothing to add, really, but I think Argus and IMK make pretty cute couple.