o.i.c

willy, You got the essential idea, but it was not a premise...merely an idea. I was actually expecting people to interpret it as anarchy, but utilitarianism works too. My point I hoped to show is exactly the one you picked up on, that such an idea is ludacris because of us, and only us. Regardless of the system, there will always be issues because we are flawed and incapable of considering the effects of our behaviour, among others. It comes down to the age old question of how to control the masses, and I suppose this "democracy" is as good as any other means since Westerner's have bought into it. However, why do illusions of freedom exist? Why can't we acknolwedge what we are, or is arrogance more dangerous than I thought. Afterall, arrogance did at one point make the universe revolve around us. I am glad to hear your idea of questioning one's own actions. This is why I chose to exagerate thinking as opposed to knowledge or intelligence, etc. in my last post. Thinking (i.e. objective self-analysis) is definately a great start. I know that the thinking population I portrayed before is virtually impossible (analogous to predicting the weather), and I'm not sure if it is even desirable. KK, in a few ways, I feel the same way.

I fail to see your argument against the definite personal dislike (maybe hate was strong) of KK towards Russians. It is one thing to question Russian principles (and by all means, I advocate questioning every and all principles), but it is quite another to engage in name calling. What does living in a totalitarian state have to do with necessarily being a bastard, and keeping away from them? Since I have yet to hear reasons for this mysterious dislike, Chomsky seems to be correct in the 'us' vs. 'them' paradigm found among Western states, and how easy it is for the elite to foster hate in your neighbour. As for your "freedom to question authority" discussion, it seems you, among others, love the idea of freedom, but are unsure of what this actually means. You seem to like living in a free state, but dislike when another person actually uses this "freedom", like Chomsky as you say. Is this why you badger his writing style as opposed to rationally arguing the content? You are strengthening Chomsky's argument that the sentiment of anti-Americanism negates your so-called freedom. I personally want to prove Chomsky wrong, but to date, am unable to do so, and the picture just gets worse everyday.

Personal value statements are probably difficult to refrain from, but I suppose everyone should just acknowledge them when after use. I do share your passion for an objective solution, if one exists. Seems logical. You made what I was going to say stronger in that tension in unionized workplaces is probably a result of problems before the union demands change. I'm not sure what to do with your frustration. I consider sarcasm to be a poor form of communication - illogical, unintelligent, and a hindrance. Generally I find it means regardless of the outcome in the discussion, no one will be the wiser; no change or progress occurs. A great example is if you have ever watched CPAC or better, visited parliament.

A quick question Hjalmar. If you feel unionized workers have a better life, why not choose to join the union of those workers? You are, afterall, debating to provide a better life for yourself/family? and other non-unionized workers. As for your 5000 vs. 5 million argument, you have yet to address my issue of who should back down - employee or employers? Strikes occur due to greed, yes I agree, but is it always the greed of the unionized workers? You don't think it is possible that they are not particularily greedy, but desire more for similar reasons that you yourself want more?

Just curious...why do you hate Russians? Why do you think communism is evil? Why do you particularily not want Russia to own nuclear weapons? And why do you feel the U.S. (assumed from your use of 'we') should be able to "crush" communism?

Ironic, I haven't heard truthful accounts of the good of the U.S. Maybe you could share some?

Chomsky is definately thought provoking, and I have become especially interested in his theory of the U.S. eliminating the threat of a good example (i.e. politically). It can explain the recent conflict in Haiti, and this just scratches the surface, as does Moore by the way. However, I would rather him scratch away then never to have scratched at all. As for taking things out of context, although I haven't read all of Chomsky's works, I try to check up on him, though its quite hard on the eyes. To those who believe the U.S. has a conservative, appeasing foreign policy, why not try reading the declassified U.S. National Security documents, a good primary source. The first document I read was NSC-68, which shattered my previous illusions regarding the U.S., and I'm slowly questioning Canada and Britian as well. Another shocking revelation I came across is that the U.S. is the only state to be charged with international terrorism in the World Court for using military force in Nicaragua. The thing which is most shocking in the whole ordeal is that the U.S. essentially vetoed the verdict and decided not to acknowledge it. Of course, I believe it is when we are in agreement with something that we should scrutinize more fervently. It is just that I have yet to hear evidence rationally defeating Chomsky. All I ever hear are personal attacks, which are irrelevant.

For a while I also thought education was the answer, or an important part at least. I've even considered trying to develop a method of calculating just how much money it takes for laws to materialize from scratch. Dollars are convincing these days. I would then compare that number to the cost of truly educating people without bias. Seemingly naive and idealistic right? But I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the naivety or the unrealistic expressions I'm sure to get when this is read through. However, I think I was tending towards willy - that a thinking population would be infinitely better. I find it almost amusing (nonetheless necessary considering my limited understanding of history) that there exists laws to ensure rights and freedoms. It will take some imagination, but a thinking population would (virtually?) make every piece of legislation unnecessary. This would be true freedom, and probably lay the groundwork for a true democracy. How does freedom exist today when laws (with consequences) dictate so much of one's life - from pedestrian lights and noise bylaws to genocide. If a thinking population existed, capable of what I loosely defined as true freedom, and was able to survive, you can see that this discussion would have an entirely different context. And I agree advertising generally works astonishingly well. There are massive amounts of literature on this topic - adequate for me to know I haven't read enough. However, just stop and look at an average urban center. At every corner, there are signs convincing consumers that they must consume more and more without once contemplating the effects of such behaviour. Mass media is a complicated predicament. Or maybe I'm wrong?...Hence my reason for posting here.

I find myself agreeing with a lot of this. Several previous posts are mislead in blaming labour unions. Instead they should point to corporate greed inherent to so many corporations out there. Although labour unions may battle for higher wages, etc. they seem to be doing so for the workers - the majority. Corporations act solely for the minority elitist community. Anyone else find it eerie that corporations are people under the U.S. constitution. All the so called freedoms and rights, but with nothing to lose. As for outsourcing...the effects of legislation such as NAFTA seem to be bad news for the average U.S./Canadian worker. This allows corporations to legally pressure labour unions to moderate their efforts with threats to outsource jobs. Someone (my apologies for forgetting who exactly) has a strong argument stressing that 2/3 of the Canadian economy is driven by consumer spending. If the number is that high, it seems logical that if gov'ts want to help the economy, they should work to maintain high disposable income for consumers.

I'm joining this a bit late I suppose. Firstly, I'm neither pro-union nor anti-union, I'm just curious to see where this discussion goes. Secondly, where are you getting your 'facts'? I see no sources, so for now I assume them to be purely opinion. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt so that I can say this: You say labour union...I say television - haha sorry. Anyhow, I don't see your logic in blaming labour unions for what sounds to be outright laziness, although, I fail to see the logic in having a strong work ethic for one's country. That would be a classic example of confusing a means and an ends. Do things such as countries/gov'ts/institutions exist for us to serve them, or them to serve us. Obviously it is more complicated than one or the other, but right now, it seems society is willing to sacrifice for things like the economy, country, etc. Maybe another example? - dying for money. Hm, well I think of inflation as circular. Should labour unions back down trying to create better living for workers, or employers back down on profits? It seems like the same situation as explained in [1]. [3], [4] Same as [1]. I suppose this is a "less of 2 evils" situation - support the inconviences faced by Canadians willing to strike, or those of Canadians affected by Canadian strikers? Hm, well lets assume your logic is correct for a second. I think you may agree with me in saying labour unions provide job security (even if the employee is pathetic as you suggest). Let us say a humble 1000 non-unionized jobs are created, what good is that if say 1 month/year later they are all laid-off? Same as [1]. See [6] Externalization is not only found within employee circles. It is a major problem in society, and we only have ourselves to blame - laziness. I'm sure this is the case in certain places of work, however, are you sure it is the result of labour unions? [11] See [2]. As does almost every institution at some point - to group together and pressure enemies. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing though. Why not get rid of the 'boss' if you believe your own argument of the 'boss' being redundant?