The Terrible Sweal

1) I don't think I'm off topic. 2) Even if I were, I don't see they time. This suggests you have not folllowed Harpers' comments over the last few months carefully.

No one 'speaks for' it because what it is is simply a projection of Quebec's fixation on a national duality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WTF is that supposed to mean? People in Canada are a figment of the imagination of people in Quebec? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Y'know, August, you were a lot les obtuse before you decided it was time to press for sovereignty again. I mean, obviously, that the concept of a single "ROC" that can be 'spoken for' by asingle individual is a figment.

If we're talking about Paliament, then remember, you vote for a person, not a party.

Let me be specific, since you don't , I expect you won't.

Oh, I like Con llogic! Stockwell Day was leader of an education institution that taught that democracy was wrong because it elevates man over God. Therefore ALL Conservatives oppose democracy.

Therefore I can draw up a contract which states that Theloniusfleabag is allowed to come into your house any time he likes and help himself out of your fridge. I accept it, he accepts it. It's legitimate. Obvioiusly I would disagree about your agreement, but in concept, yes, the two of you have established between you that Thelonius has a "right" to do that. Your only problem is that I will slit your throats while you sleep. But wait...maybe I won't do that if toYOU, if you'll agree with me that Thelonius doesn't have that right. It matters to me, but since you and Thelonius have decided that he DOES have a 'right' to do that, pragmatically, only my ability to apply force creates a reason for my objection to matter to you. Yes, it is. No. It isn't. What agents? Who is this who imposes government by way of the social contract? The individuals comprising the society. (Duh!) Go ahead and try. You'll be arrested, tried and imprisoned for tax evasion. Tax evasion!?!? No, as a Canadian, I'll be given my passport and wished well by the govt. whereever I should choose to try my luck. Canada does not impose taxes on income earned outside of Canada.

Your terms are wrong. I don't agree that any man can establish rights. They are part of being human and you can no more create or destroy them than you can create or destroy a person's humanity. You are contradicting yourself. You agreed earlier that rights only have meaning among persons. I'm not interested in your word-games. Took a long time for you to get to the answer, but here we have it: your answer, like mine, is: force.

Your immature name-calling against a well-established and accepted school of thought does your argument no favours. Please. I don't even know what well established school of thought you claim to be following here. I'll adopt your suggested terms. A lot of traditional economic definitions are not accepted in Austrian economics. Is this a "no", then? (BTW, did I already mention something about your resort to definitional disputation?) Indeed. The Austrian school's insistence on reductionist analysis and tendency to exclude information which doesn't fit its conclusions is well known. See what I mean. At a stroke the Austrian school dismisses the whole concept of 'aggregate'! (No doubt to resurrect it under a clever altenate name as it may suit some passing fancy.) And again I tell you your distinction, as it applies to the creation of rights, relies on a faulty assumption: That your opponent in a confrontation will accept your view of initiation, and will care. I am not making any assessment of ethics at all. All of which has no bearing on the points I have made. You think he's a theif, he thinks you're the theif. Now what? I believe you agreed that your point was in fact that classical liberalism is inconsistent in accepting government action while claming to be based on individualism, right? I don't agree that there is any inconsistency in this because I believe free individuals may freely agree to join a cooperative and accept its duties in excahange for benefits.

No one 'speaks for' it because what it is is simply a projection of Quebec's fixation on a national duality.

I think that most people would agree with me, if they thought at all.

Have your say.

Of course you do. You can usually be relied upon to make emotionalistic judgements, based on chauvinistic beliefs, to impute some failure or deficiency to anyone or aything that upsets your applecart/worldview. I expect nothing less.

*choke -- sputter* Bigotry? Huhn? Nice rhetorical hyperbole, but what exactly do you dispute about the statement? True, and why not? The Tories ARE the party the religous right looks to bring forward their objectives. SSM is the proof. Yes, and? Is there something wrong with having politicians with specific values? That old red herring is really getting wiffy. Surely some conservatives are intelligent enough to understand that the problem is not people having beleifs, it is with those who will press those beleifs against our freedoms and rights.

I don't hate Conservatives, I oppose them. I don't like the policies or beliefs they propagate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To be more exact, you oppose the polices and beliefs you imagine they would like to propogate in their evil secret hearts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. There is more than enough information publicly known to substantiate my opposition. I think you tories are suspiciously insistent on imputing some malice to people who just don't want to see you elected.

It requires no other people or level of society to maintain this freedom. Therefore, violence against it is a transgression against the norm rather than the norm. Huhn? I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand what you wrote there. Perhaps you or Rothbard could address and answer to a question. How is freedom and/or rights established or maintained in the face of others intent depriving us of these (as we see them)?

Mmm? I ascertained that you had digressed from a discussin of classical liberalism and veered into your traditional advocacy of anarco-objectivist-supra-rational-whatevrmacallitism. That being the case, there was no call to address comments which were tangential to the topic of the thread: classical liberalism. But since it might please you, I'll share my thoghts on one or two of your comments: 'Welfare' - do you know what it means/how it's used in economics? Your response made me think perhaps not. 'Coercion' - your approach to debate can frequently focus rather too much on defintional wordplay and not on essences. I don't care whether you want to call restraint of 'thieves' "coercion" or not, and what you choose to call it doesn't matter to the validity or invalidity of my point.

Sure. Strictly speaking, in my opinion the earth is round and orbits the sun, gravity causes things to be pulled back to the ground, 2 and 2 make 4, and you are being evasive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Evasive? Of what?

I think a small majority of Canadians think it should be allowed. I also don't think laws should be driven by superstiuous moralistic concerns.

Is your reason for being here also to post idiotic and pointless insults? Well mission accomplished then, so now you can go your way.

That is just sooo far-fetched. Tamils just aren't that big a group, and they don't support the Tigers that much.

I don't hate Conservatives, I oppose them. I don't like the policies or beliefs they propagate.

Don't you think it is the next thing to face Canadians? And if it does why is their case so apples to oranges? As I already noted, marriage is a state sanction for a PAiR-bond. Homosexual couples wanted l access to a state sanctioned system which they were denied because of sex discrimnation. Polygamists are ot being denied something otherwise availale on discriminatory grounds. Rather, the relationship which they establish does not meet the state's objectives. Or put another way, the states ojectives for marriage can be met by homosexual couples, but (depending on the objective) not by groups of multiple persons. Society decides, through our institutions. I am merely telling you what I think that decision will be. If it were up to me to decide, i'D have civil unions for everyne and no government dfinition of 'marriage' at all

Me! The problem with that is that polygamy is not an obvious step from SSMarriage at all. Marriage is a state sanction for one individual to pair with one other individual. Polygamy is an apples to oranges situation. SSM is a red apples/green apples situation.

And that is its self-contradiction. To be consistent as a classical-liberal is to reject the state. Don't you really mean that in your opinion classical liberalism is inconsistent?

I was not criticising your sentence structure, but rather the fact that your sentences indicated contradictory things. Whether you are a scholar or not is not important to me, but YOU claimed to have a particular level of education. BTW, it is 'polygamy'. As for writing expectations, bear in mind that what you are doing here is putting forward an opinion for others to consider. If your opinion is ill-considered, it is like asking a visitor to eat a poorly prepared meal.