The Terrible Sweal

Glob and Maul: Willy: Or even the whole party. Who knows? Or exagerates it, depending on what those 200,000 believe. It looked to me like they found those Christians with specific support of organizations who advocate a specific agenda because it is Christian. No, it is part of a strategy to reveal that the party has attitudes people don't want driving policy.

What the hell is your point? That you have written a lot of nonsense. In the first case you say Albertans don't look down on others, then you proceed to detail a lot of looking down on others. In the second case you say you don't have anything against people, but you just use them as the butt of your grotesque sense of 'humor'. In the third case, you claim a level of education belied by typing 'buligamy'. In the final instance you insist that the rich and the poor walk equally tall, and so do you, but you repeatedly use terms such as 'lower oneself' regarding doing labor.

Okay for a normative argument: What rights SHOULD individuals establish among themselves. But this fails as a descriptive argument. To 'own' is to 'control free of coercive interference'. But this says nothing about how such freedom is established against someone willing to coerce. Also, btw, the argument for self-'ownership' doesn't translate very well as a basis for general property rights.

It remains a circular argument. In order for the social contract to be acceptable, the contract has to be legitimate. No. For the contract to be legitimate it must be accepted. The state is not a party. That cannot be. It is. Cut the sophistry. The contract is the means by which the agents impose the government. What of the citizens who reject the prevailing custom/law/norms? Under truly consensual social contracts, they are free to absent themselves from the obligations and benefits of the contract.

What an astounding mishmash of contraditions! Here's one: Or how about this pair: Or this one: Or this:

By "which individual" I assuming you're asking whether I mean parent or child. For purposes of this discussion we're talking about parents, right? The point is what do we do in cases where it appears the 'rights' of a parent may be upheld only at the sacrifice of the interests of the child and society. They have a duty, to the child, to do that. I don't think you'll find it is enshrined anywhere as a 'right'. Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that since the courts can order such a dramatic violation of religious freedom in dire circumstances, they might also be able to order less dramatic violations of religious freedoms in less dire circumstances? Close. I am saying that just because they said, 'yes, this case is dire enough', doesn't mean that all subsequent cases must be equally or more dire. BTW, I don't think it's necessary to confine this to what the courts might do. These question apply equally in the policy/legislature realm.

What politician does not have a point of view or policy agenda? If they really have a narrow focus on a single issue they won’t get elected. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe everyone has a point of view or policy agenda. In politics it is not 'bigotry' for the voters to judge them on it. It is what the voters are supposed to do.

No no no. You're confusing classical liberalism with your breed of anarco-libertarian-objectivist-whateveryoucallitism. Classical liberalism is the movement that gives us social contract theory. Hooey. Is that what you call it. Unfortunately even as you describe it, natural-rights is merely a philosophy of wishful thinking. No, think of 'welfare' in terms of it meaning in economics. Welfare is a value provided to the market in general. Your natural rights notion must accept coercion as well, if you intend to defend 'property' against 'theives' for example.

Bigotry my eye. These people are there as part of a concerted effort to advance a point of view and/or policy agenda. It is perfectly fair for voters to recognize this and question whether this is an agenda that suits us or not.

I am guessing you meant to say "Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support within the party." No, I usually mean what I write, the occasional empty nostrum notwithstanding. My implication is that as long as she wins her set and is an asset to the party, she will be rewarded commensurately within the party -- as distinct from the experience she could anticipate in the Conservative Firewall Coalition. I'm inclined to agree. But among the Liberals she will have the chance to surprise us all, whereas there is nowhere to go with the tories. Yep.

It looks like you've leapt ahead to specifics before we've settled the criteria. Why do you say my criteria are not classical liberal? What do you think the criteria should be, to be classical liberal?

Going by this test, every country need five parties: HighLefties: Communists HighRighties: Faschists LowLefties: Anarchists LowRighties: Libertarians Plus Centrists.

Did someone here make this point already? Was it me? The Glob and Maul:

A functioning civil society that provides the maximum quality of life to the largest number of people. The debate comes down to what is necessary to achieve those goals. Wonderful. Clear, succinct, correct. This loses something from simplification, I think. I think many people are a bit frustrated with the right/left (and other) dichotomies our politics seems to force upon us. The structure of dichotomies invites the use of imperfect metaphors like 'balancing both' which suggest that we can be satisfied with a dichotomy if only each of its two sides were taken in equal measure. However, I think many voters feel that what is necessary to achieve maximum quality for life for the largest number of people is a selective analysis rather than acceptance of a dichotomy.

You know, maybe Belinda was told the truth. Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support for the party. Maybe that sounds like her best shot to her.

Okay, let us take up the topic of minimum wage laws from a liberal perspective. Prima facie, from a liberal point of view, individuals should be free to tender and accept employment at whatever remuneration they choose to in the market. In order to support a minimum wage law, I must justify it to myself on the criteria is outlined earlier for when the government has a proper role for action. Where: -individuals might otherwise be excluded from equality of opportunity ; and/or -where the general welfare (as determined in our democratic institutions) can be improved without invidious harm to individuals; ON THE Condition that the state action has a sensible prospect of being successful. Before getting down to cases, do these seem like acceptable criteria for government action to you?

I hope Layton can get past some of this high-horse moralism and get what he needs: credibility on the national stage. BTW, I don't see anything wrong with putting Broadbent in the senate. Who'd disagree he's at least as good as Marjory Labretton?

This time: Economic Left/Right: -3.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59 Just south-east of Ghandi, that commie.

Mutual acceptance of the social contract creates the legitimacy of the state. No, I said definable, I believe. Or maybe determinable? Anyway, I'm not evading, it's just too big a job to take on here. It can, but that depends upon having a legitimate claim over the goods which inferred agreement is supposed to affect. I have no idea why you insist on this 'legitimate claim over goods' stuff. It makes no sense in this context. In social contract theory the government does not impose the contract, the contract 'imposes' the government. No. The citizens implicitly agree with eachother to conduct themselves according to the prevailing custom/law/norms which comprise the society.

No, quite honestly, I thought he meant that the Liberal position was based on a calculation of how it would be perceived in the newly reinvigorated Bloquist world. So you dismiss the possiblity that unhelpful opinions from abroad may negatively affect he negotations? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you dismiss the possibility that the Liberals' position is based on politics and not doing what's right? Do you dismiss the possibility that this is a situation where being the voters' lackeys is a little less noble than you made it sound in the other thread? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. The Liberals don't need to make this sort of move to cater to Tamils in Toronto for two reasons. First, the Liberals practically own Toronto (and most of Ontario again). Second, a large proportion of Tamils in Toronto are refugees from LTTE (Tiger) abuses in the secessionist territory. Disignating or not designating the Tigers as 'terrorists' is not going to change much in the way most Toronto Tamils would vote (i.e. already Liberal (if at all)).

I think Jack Layton should seek a limited coalition government with the Liberals. Specifically, NDP give legislative support for an agenda thru delivery of the Gomery report, while Layton takes a cabinet post. And the gracious and grateful Liberals give Ed Broadbent a senate seat.

Sorry about that. In response to this I would say that physical containment only seems to work as long as the subject is physically contained, and unless we're going to start locking people up for the rest of their natural lives as a response to every crime all we are doing is delaying the recidivism. Well, to be completely calculating about it, the longer we lock someone up, the fewer chances he gets to screw up outside. There is also some suggestion that after early adulthood recidivism in most categories declines sort of automatically. I'm interested in any workable alternatives to prison. But there is a difficulty with economic punishment. The harder the state makes participation in the legitimate economy the more incentive there is for individuals to resort to the illicit economy. I think part of being a criminal is that you don't really live in a space where garnishments and bankruptcies hold as much importance in one's day to day existence. It's pretty hard to garnish a smash-and-grab. I agree. I also think almost anywhere in Canada we can trust a properly chosen jury not to convict someone in a reasonable case of self-defence. Yes, even in pansy-ass Toronto. Or maybe it's warehousing them rather than educating them. Or maybe it's something in the water these days. Or bad parenting. Or religious mal-education ... crowds of clean cut mormon missionaries rampaging in our streets! Anyway, yes. A lot of factors. Indeed, though the causitive connection to minimum wage laws is uncertain at best.

Are you sure it's sacrifice? Whose judgment shall prevail as to what kind of values may be presented to young minds?(1) I am confident that in some cases it is sacrifice. Please be more specific. I know you're not just talking about normal church-going people. I mean, as far as I know, every Prime Minister during my lifetime has been a practicing Christian (probably Catholic, yes?) so obviously just being raised in a religious tradition doesn't prevent someone from participating in society to the fullest. How about specific examples: removal of evolution and/or teaching deliberate false biology or other falsified science, or teaching doctrines of racial or gender inferiority. First a question, then an answer: Question: Which individual? Answer: Yes in proper cases. Were we sufficiently confident that meat truly is dangerous, certainly. We already have this kind of rule for many things, don't we? We do. Recent cases regarding the medical treatment of Jehovah's Witness children certainly illustrate the point. But if you look at these decisions, I think you'll find that the court takes the freedom of religion very seriously, and only the clear danger to the child's welfare justifies the violation of the religious beliefs. I think it's important to cut that a little bit finer. The cases show that the clear dangers have justified a very personally invasive process forming a significantly defining aspect of the religion. In other words, it isn't so much setting the bar as selecting the pigeonhole.

Some interesting ideas there. Worth considering. OK. As regards general deterrence, I don't think it's consistent with classical liberalism to make a criminal into an example for other potential criminals. Good point. I concur. I think you've verged into rehabilitatin there. Specific deterence includes the physical containment period as well as the incentive to avoid more severe punishment. I don't see any element of determinism. Amen. What do you mean? Personally, I think that it is a real problem that we have removed the right of citizens to defend themselves. As one professor noted in the 1970s, for instance, those who advocate gun control laws are safe in well-policed suburbs and secure apartments, and don't think of people who have to live in parts of town that the police have abandoned to the gangs. The problem with that as a solution is it's bandaid-ness. As a liberal I believe everyone should be permitted peaceable possession of firearms, and if gun ownership works to reduce crime, that's fine too. But as a citizen I would prefer not to be confronted with the need to hazard my safety in gunfights, so I would prefer other solutions. Start with elimination of victimless crimes and the reallocation of resources. Then recognize that statistically criminals tend to be the rootless, the ignorant, the desperate, the abused, the unempathic, the selfish, and work to decrease these influences in our society. Yes, we can say that. If the objective of rehabilitation is lack of reoffence, and the objective (or one objective) of the justice system is rehabilitation, the fact that almost three-quarters of convicted criminals will offend again does not speak well of the success of this system. For completeness, you need to recognize the difficulty of the task and the possible contribution of other factors.

In a thread about Sri Lanka, you call a sovereignty movement a "psychodrama". Now, that's rich. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let me speak more precisely then: every action of the Canadian government on the wolrd stage need not be seen through the prism of Quebec soveignty. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who brought Quebec sovereignty into this? I'm not an expert on Tamil immigration patterns, but I believe it's Toronto ridings we're discussing here. Read last para., post #8. So you dismiss the possiblity that unhelpful opinions from abroad may negatively affect he negotations?