Shwa

But again, your premise is based on "inflated union benefits" which is an opinion of limited substance and not any sort of fact. Canada Post is Crown Corporation making profit; CUPW has a legitmate and perfectly legal collective bargaining agreement. Why on earth would anyone - union or not - voluntarily give up a benificial position when the employer is making money and senior management is raking in big salaries? Seriously, would you? Because it IS a Crown Corporation AND making a profit, I see no reason whatsoever that the employees - those who actually make the enterprise profitable in the first place - should not share in that wealth. So there is no "drain" on Canadians at all because they are making a profit.

Answering questions with more questions is cheap, but I need some clarification of your questions, so... I am not sure what you are asking in your first question, could you clarify please? And your second question, are you aware of the history of the CBC?

It sounds more fascist to me, no revolution, the National Socialist and all that. Plus some corporations get to stay alive, while others are nationalized for the benefit of the People. Somewhat Orwellian, but I want to know how it deal with unemployment first.

Because they have a collective bargaining agreement. That is all the defence they need. As for their wages and perks, well, they have a collective bargaining agreement and negotiated those wages and perks in good faith with the employer. Now... if Canada Post is actually turning a profit - as things are - what sort of austerity measures are required and to fund what with their profits? And IF Canada Post is making profits how is this a "drain on our country?"

Seriously? You provide a point of discussion and somehow it is my fault for not replying in the way that pleases you? LOFL! Let me give you a specific example: Your whole OP was analogy son, your analogy. But let me get back to your Utopia, in a sense, a restructured nation, your Garden of Eden if you will, to pick some cherries. The problem I am having is trying to determine whether your system is fascist or communist; it can't be anarchist since that would require a fair deal of re-tooling and likely not very adapteable to the present infrastrcuture. Who gets to be leader and how are they chosen? Do we all "mutually" agree on the choice somehow via an on-line poll? Or is that too done through a sort of "executive cadre?" Now all of those disabled, mentally challenged, old & frail or sick and cancerous people who simply cannot work - at all or for certain periods - to become "natural citizens" provided with the bare necessesities. It would make some hostile, but it might make others dead. But no worries, no more burden. Gotchya. Ok, fair enough. So let's focus down to one real problem that society faces and how your mutualist system would deal with unemployment. Please show how the current system could be adapted to deal with unemployment in a mutualist way.

McEconomics. They will tell you though, that the reduction in size of their hamburgers are done out of respect to limiting portion size for the health reasons of their clients. All very altruistic of course. You pay the same for less food, but we are all the better for it.

This is excellent since it points out the ultimate altruisitic motives behind the CPC policy when everyone is accusing them of being the bad guys. (and gals)

I am not sure how prevalent it is for males to think about deadly vengeance when it comes to attacks on the female members of their family. I believe - as a society - we abhorr violence against women even though the courts sometimes do not rule this way. However, I believe most males have harboured secret thoughts of vengeance if anyone assaulted their mother, sister, daughter or other female family member. In this very sad case, one male acted out those secret thoughts and was given a very hefty sentence for his act: a life sentence for second degree murder and 10 years before parole. I am actually surprised at the length of the sentence, but the message must be heard loud and clear that society must prosecute the accused and on one else. Life sentence for man who admits stabbing relative’s alleged attacker

Point of clarification please: Pliny: Bloodyminded: Pliny: Firstly, asking for a vote is an appeal to the masses fallacy and just won't do. Secondly, and the actual point of clarification: since when does "liberalism" equate to "left?" It doesn't in my books. So, evidence of a left-leaning media bias was asked for and what was returned was a quote admitting a "liberal" bias. This is not the same thing. Plus, throwing a quote back from the opposition does not equate to "evidence." Can we get this clarified please Pliny? Thanks!

Let's start here: But essentially everyone contributing to the community garden would be required to contribute more than their fair share to produce a surplus to take care of those who are unable to contribute to the garden. This will require oversight and each garden will have to be managed so that it is producing enough to cover off those who cannot contribute to the garden directly, including the managers who are busy overseeing the garden. These garden managers will require regular reports on the garden so there will have to be staff to produce reports, to be delegated manager functions and to enforce a standard set of care for the garden in the form of rules. And if there is any sort of "nationalistic" cooperation between these gardens, there will need to be managers of managers, and managers of those managers, and so on. So now you have a bureaucracy that has to also receive a portion of the proceeds from the garden. Our original contributor is one busy little bee. Never mind the suppliers of seeds, fertilizer, garden implements, etc. They are all contributing to the garden indirectly, but still are due a "portion." Naturally, some gardens will do better than others resulting in surpluses for some gardens and deficits for others. There will need to be some sort of equal distribution system that will require some sort of trade agreements, transportation methods, all of which will require infrastructure, which will need to be built and so on. So, to break down your analogy - is the garden the country and the "contribution" taxes and the "portion" they receive back services? Need to clarify that a bit.

Cite?

Meh. For the cost of an extra-large at Timmies each, we get to keep the Queen. God Save Our Double-Double. Yeah but, no one would care. And no advertisers would buy sponsorships to the event nor ads on TV when such events get airtime. But tell you what - why not write a nice note to your MP offering your services for whatever salary you think is reasonable and let us all know what reply you get, if any.

Hey, in all fairness, any implication towards you being a retard had qualifications attached. No one has called you retarded.

The interesting sidebar is that there are still plenty of big unions in Canada and they aren't going away. With the remuneration disparity between the workers and executive class increasing every day, collective bargaining is still the thin edge of the wedge. If the CPC government becomes too anti-union, we might end up with regular occurances of strikes, work action, slowdowns and so on in the federal public sectors. This wave of conservatism might also affect Toronto. Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair went to the Toronto Police Services Board with a request for a 4% increase and was told by the board that they want him to layoff officers. The Board was told to cut their budget by 10%

Ron Paul. Every one can wax romantically, but that hardly exempts one from foisting their views upon others. Even Ron Paul requires structure to deliver his content and eventually such content must be considered superior to any other to usurp the status quo. IF his ideas were so obvious THEN one would think that populace - to whom Paul gives so much credit - would have flocked to him by now. I don't see that happening in any comprehensive way, which means that there is a contradiction of sorts going on yes? Perhaps the populace ain't to bright after all. But such arguments are plied for criminal (and other) defences in courts thousands of times over, day after day. Redefinition of one thing or another isn't a new strategy for law or for politics. Such sophistry has been the sad treatment "of the general public" for thousands of years why is there any surprise with Clinton or Trudeau or Castro? Because you believe in Ron Paul, doesn't mean he is not above all of that and, should he or his ideas ever come to fruitition in a meaningful way, they too will be subject to sophistry, deceit and superiority. You mean like Mussolini declaring he was a socialist for life? Yes, well, what can one say? Freedom has it's perks. Regardless, all of their history is the simple construct of literary narrative. It isn't art, yet it isn't science either. And like Clinton's BJ, subject to examination, inspection and criticism. Sure, but the documentation is assembled for a purpose, usually of ideology or some other beneficial purpose to the writer. If there is anything you should worry about is a history book that claims, in its title, to be "The Complete History of..." Again, that is structure and can be generally applied to a whole range of political organization. Heck, we haven't even looked at the nuts and bolts of such a structure, let alone what it actually contains. But we can distinguish between fascist totalitarian statism and communist totalitarian statism, as we can between and emperor and a God-king. Which is the point is it not? The distinguishing? Well, I see that you have arrived at a condemnation of all forms of totalitarianism and that is good. We must be on guard after all. However, I see no forms of this here and now, even though there are state intrusions into everyday life. It vacillates in the centre in most of our Western societies. That is our 'balance.' You determine the tribal moiety by way of the distinguishing taboos and ritual responsibilities. Supreme leaders, committees are all facets of both fascism and communism. Similar structures. You might call one a committee and another a council - they are all cadres of some sort. Well known structural dynamics. What distinquishes your brown shirt from your comrade is in the taboos and ritual responsibilities. I think the resultant content differences between fascism and communism are clear enough for us to determine one from the other. Content is the supreme distinguisher, especially when you have the primacy of politics at play. Marxism can be used to express anthropological ideas - sound ideas - about a given population or culture. Can fascism do the same? If it can, I haven't read about it yet. Except in one case it worked in that environment. But Mussolini's "social engineering" wasn't all too far removed from the Medici's or Holy Roman Emperors. His ideas didn't come out of the blue. You could even say there was a sort of provenance to his rise to power. Something that the interested have been wary of ever since. Like a Prime Minister or President can ride the coattails of anti-communism or anti-fascism. Sure. There are oppositions everywhere. Even to Ron Paul. Yes, however how many haven't made any long term stay in power? Heck, Kings were frequently murdered or desposed of in battle for centuries while allying themselves with the Church. That a few lasted to any length of time is the exception, not the rule. Franco, Mao - what makes them interesting is that they lasted when the general rule was that they shouldn't have. They must have had some powerful cadres! Of course he did, but even as he wrote, his views were beginning to be gradually modified by his experience and observations. No, the content is the how and why which differ greatly and are the distinguishing marks of the ideologies. Structurally they are similar and all answer to the top, usually invested in one person supported by an equally interested, but ever evolving cadre. I think so too, but I am not convinced yet. And, if it does, it won't last long. The political activists and leaders of any -ism would never be so bold as to openly state their objectives. All is well sayeth the press release. Again, a broad statement that can be applied to any political organization. Even kings and queens engineered their societies. Emperors did. All leaders will, to one degree or another don't you think? I am not cherry picking so much as pointing out the syncretic nature of having to reconcile all of the power centres for fascism to work. I believe there is less of this in the organiztion of communism even though Soviet Russia appeared to have a healthy - and well known - black market. LOL! True enough. Then again, who wants to associate with failure? Perhaps in a small way, one has to defend one's position as it were. But I don't naturally associate the two. However one gets to the party I suppose, while democracy and anti-liberalism are raging all about. Someone is bound to say they have the right idea and kill opposition to it. They key is how does one get the reigns of power to be able to kill the opposition? The devil is in the details.

Too bad, but I suppose the squeekly clean reputation of the Buckeye football program was too much to risk. From the Globe and Mail: Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel resigns So what is next for Jim Tressel? Is the UFL still in operation or can he catch on somewhere else as an offensive coordinator somewhere?

Sure, but if you open the Constitution, it can get quite 'drafty.' All ideas should be welcome yes? Or is there a limit as to how wide we open things up or that some ideas should be excluded at this opening?

Still I'd like to see if there is a measure of congruence to what we have now or something transcendent without having to wade through an entire manifesto.

But any person of any political stripe can be accused of knowing "far better" how others ought to live. All you are doing here is pointing out the obvious, limiting it and then applying it as if it is exclusive. We can change the reference to "socialists" to any other -ist and arrive at the same conclusion. But the real question is not inferences regarding yourself, but how you fare on the other side of it? Such statements are meant to be applied broadly and may or may not include you in their scope. Do they? I doubt you are the sum of a single or small set of ideas. History, we know, is written by story tellers - period. And, as such, are subject to literary criticism like any other story teller. Whether one needs to be on the side of victory to write "history" is not all apparent, especially nowadays. What we do know is that historians have their biases. Of course there are similarities since they deal with similarily broad subject areas. But are you referring to structure or content? (i.e. the fact that they are called 'manifesto' as opposed to policy platform papers) Here is Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto. An interesting comparative too. BTW - neither Marx, Hitler or Montana Ted were "victors." In structure or in content? You see, structurally I can buy into the MLW 'horseshoe' theory of right/left, but that can applied to tribalism too. Structurally, moieties are very similar and have similar functions in a society, but the taboos can be very, very different. I disagree. He cherry picked those aspects of society that appealed enough to the people that counted to give him power. Nothing more. I wouldn't call him a socialist, more like an emperor whose power is beholden to a cadre ruling the masses. See Canetti's 'Crowds and Power' for the dynamics of such a structure. Another emperor in the scientific age, nothing more. One a little more nationalistic than Mussolini perhaps, but still focused on the primacy of politics. Of course I mean that. The Prince cannot simply and wantonly abuse his subjects at will and maintain power for long. Heck, even Machiavelli knew this. I don't think he was a "diehard socialist for the first twenty five years" do you? He found a group of people that possesed a knowable structure for him and he gravitated to that. But even way back in the day, Mussolini was revising his views based upon his experiences and observations while associated with that group of people. Like any good Prince or emperor. And I don't really dispute that, but we are talking structural similarity, not content. They may be organized on similar lines and, no doubt, those lines are heavily influenced by he prevalence of the socialist organizations in Europe in those days which would be attractive to any radical of any political stripe. It was a proximal influence. However, when we come to the content, the bits and pieces of ideology, the mythologies, the purposes of the power - the taboos - I think there is a radical departure from early 20th century socialism and mid-century nationalist fascism. I would agree that it is the dream of all megalomaniacs, but not of all socialists. I doubt you would find many Western socialists that would want a totalitarian regime, but we can pretty much guarantee that all Western fascists would. But why did he nationalize key parts of the German economy and for what purpose? Look at his economic policies and you'll see syncretism and cherry picking. Slave labour used by leading military-industrial corporations, for example, not what I would call a socialist economic goal. Meaningless when comparing what he said to what he demonstrated.

Why not post excerpts of the salient points of your philosophy? No need to post 20 pages when you can say asmuch in 4 or 5. For instance, there is no need to provide detailed reasons why a thing ought to be as you say, other than a simple citation.

You mean "socialist dictator" and likely didn't mean a sweeping generalization of "socialists" of which there is plenty of evidence of your generalization being patently true. No, but then when it comes to "actual" levels, neither do you. Unless you have some first hand experience you would like to share that can be backed up with some sort of documented history showing you were there. And unless you do have this sort of documentation, then you are as much subject to popular history as anyone else. Yeah and he knew it wasn't socialism, hence his veering to the extreme right to obtain his power. No, but all the elements of fascism did exist and all he did was assemble & modify to suit his immediate purposes. Hence the devious synchretism of his politics. His "system of fascism" was an evolved phenomenon. It didn't rise up one day complete and intact and neither did his views on how to achieve his vision of organizing Italian society. A meaningless statement in the face of what he ultimatley demonstrated. Hitler was only as much a "socialist" as it took to feed and clothe his prized group of "workers" aka his armies, navies and air forces.

They do! But then again, one could likely give a good argument for a certain measure of fanaticism required as a precursor to totalitarian regimes. Which is a disturbing bit of irony...

Which illustrates the difficulty between the strictly synchronic view of history which would have us believe that because Mussolini was a socialist who became a fascist, there is some sort of logical progression from one to the other in a compressed timeframe. The real difficulty is in the misapplication of the view which renders any connection to basic nonsense. In the case of a career than spanned some 45 years, a diachronic view is more applicable. It took a fairly long time for Mussolini to turn to the dark side and even then, as a practicing socialist, his were syncretic politics. Blame Nietzsche if you want, but it seems to me that Mussolini didn't become a fascist because of what socialism could offer him, he became a fascist for what socialism couldn't offer him which was the authority of a nation state to advance his vision of how society ought to be categorically organized. To me, any direct suggestion of a socialist who turns to fascism as an extreme expression of the former is a spurious idea at best. Hitler appears to be the same sort as well. Sorry, just had to interject there for a moment. Carry on...

The velocity of the cricket ball is also lessened when it is bounced off the ground. And baseball batters don't wear face cages either. Well, "not non stop" is a relative term as well as I have watched some rugby games that are a series of scrums between and whole sequence of stoppages on whistles. But I do like rugby, always have, especially sevens. So I am not going to get too disrespectful.