The Terrible Sweal

I hope it won't be too objectionable if I note that the current vote count on this poll makes for an interestong indicator of what the public is trying to sort out about the Conservatives.

Continued... I don't know if punishment really works as a deterrent given the stupendous rates of recidivism. If we're trying to deter, maybe we ought to consider something other than prison. As regards prevention, once we're sentencing, prevention has failed. Prevention of crime isn't found in courts, it's found in police patrols, security guards, alarm systems, guard dogs, armed citizens, and so forth. Sorry, I used incorrect terms. For deterence I should have said general deterence, and for prevention I should have said specific deterence. As for something better than prison, I think it is time we became more pragmatic about prevention. You identify an important consideration, but have framed it as a conclusion. Could we be a little more objective, perhaps? Say 'the rate of recidivism reveals something of the success or failure of rehabilitation in our justice system.'

The problem with any allegations of harm against "the public good" is that "the public" is a mythical thing that does not exist. Yeah, yeah. Whatever. I agree with that. Definitely. You could say that a good measure would be if we regarded every criminal conviction as a tort for which a civil suit should be filed. Almost all crimes involving a real victim already provide grounds for a civil action. The problems of fully realizing this as a solution are the difficulty and expense of private litigation, and the frequent inability of defendants to pay damages.

The gov't only has theoretical control over the interest rates. Any attempt to manipulate the BOC interest rates would have caused the Canadian dollar to plumet and make it impossible for the gov't to finance its debt. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The government selects the BOC governor and is said to have 'moral suasion' with the Governor to have monetary policy work as a complement to government policy. Manipulation? No. Policy setting, yes.

Something of an oversimplification, there. Institutionally we now have the criminal courts where society addresses violations of the public good, and civil courts where individuals can seek redress of private harms. Like improving efficiency and access in the civil courts, perhaps? Well, that is true in regard to penalty considerations, and well put. In theory, however, a sentence calcultion involves elements other than punishment: deterence and prevention, rehabilitation, etc.

These two pragraphs are incompatible. The latter is correct. It is precisely this characteristic that makes the Liberal party such an boon to Canada. The Liberals are not the hectoring Nutritionists Demanding Perfection nor the Critiquing Priests of Capital. The Liberals are the voters' gopher. Our lackeys, our national concierge service.

The tory sleaze of this situation boggles the mind. First they go around taping people, Parliamentary coleagues and ministers of the crown included. Then the portions of the tapes fall short of the smoking gun they disingenuously claim. Murphy's actual words on the tape consist of saying, albeit gently, that there can be no deal. And to cap it all off, the fools won't release the whole tape. Like helloooo! Why not take out whole page ads in the national papers: "WE HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE" !! This whole situation is so clasically representative of typical Alliance-Tory flimflam. Who let Stockwell back into the strategy room? (And the NDP had better be careful about playing too clever with this issue or they'll get burned too.)

What's going on here? I know that Stephen has a habit of disappearing for extended periods at a time at the most inopportune times. Is this another one of these situations? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is Harper a non-monarchist perhaps?

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.

Excellent questions. As a liberal, I must oppose over-punisment because I wish my society to be free of the practice. As a liberal citizen I realize that my best protection from being victimized is to eliminate victimization from my environment. (Of course, this reply leaves open the question of defining "over-punishment"). As for the death penalty specifically, the answer is a bit more complex. I submit that one of the fundamental elements of classical liberalism is a reliance on Reason to make choices. I submit that another liberal fundamental is the primacy of the individual. Reason tells us we and our organizations are fallible -- that we may convict an innocent man -- and that being so, no argument of near-certainty or expediency can overmatch the primacy of the individual. That is the instrumental argument. There is also an institutional argument: a liberal society might determine that it places such value on each individual as a end in herself that it simply will not/does not give the state a power of life or death. I think there are a whole lot of wasteful stupidities and cruel ironies in our law enforcement, justice and correctional systems. None of the parties have especially appeaing policies in this regard because it is a very complicated problem and they don't 'do complexity'. For completeness, I will note that I do think we hear numerous cases of under-punishment, at least as the media reports it. But the issue is more complex than simply assigning immediate 'responsibility'. Someone is convicted: found responsible. In sentencing we have to ask at least two more things: how 'morally bad' was her intention and what is the best thing for our society to do with her. Ya but so what? Aren't we tolerant of everyone's views even if we disagree? No. As liberals we believe everyONE is entilted to HAVE their views, but we don't need to give play in public policy to any and all views just because someone holds them. Classical liberals are not trapped by moral relativism. Easy now. Don't jump to conclusions about either what I actually support and what that would mean. You ask: "At what point do we take care of ourselves rather than believing the government should ... ?" Based on liberal analysis I'd say 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.

This is a joke. Canada is involved in "delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka"? These people just make this stuff up as they go along.---- I remember a previous Liberal PM who asked the question "Where's Biafra?" (Incidentally, that PM had travelled in the area and knew the region well. His question was rhetorical. He meant to say that he had no intention of supporting an independence movement. But that PM had some political principles.) Apart from terrorism, I think the issue is whether this government will support a secessionist movement abroad for political gain at home. The issue is whether this government has any principles at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> August, get a grip. You're losing it man! Every action of govenrment need not be seen through the soveigntist psychodrama. The issue is not buggering up someone's negotiations by inciting one side or the other.

Mulroney supported and sustained the very high interest rate policy that was bankrupting the country.

Secularism isn't a goal, it is a result of the liberal goal of religious freedom. Pluralism of the kind religious conservatives conceive would be incomptible with individual liberty and equality.

But consumption is just the other end of income. If we have 7% more to spend on haircuts, the barbers can earn 7% more.

So what? I have explained a reason why this is not the case. You are contradicting me, but not refuting me. So, I guess you wouldn't expect your insurance company to pay if your house burned down then?

hmm. Can you explain why that is more competitive?

That's right, tories. Just keep on abusing the voters' intelligence and integrity. That's the way to earn support. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you buy McLellan's serf-serving reasons for exempting the world's most vicious terrorist group from any sanctions in Canada then you have no integrity or intelligence, and we don't want your support. I don't even know what McLelleans reasons are, since you were too afraid to post them and criticise them directly. And btw, I really do want you tories to keep on insulting and denigrating Canadians. It continues to guarantee you'll get nowhere at the polls (and it's just your speed).

Albertans of the conservative/parochial type clearly think that it would be horrible.

Sure. I'll be there.

That's right, tories. Just keep on abusing the voters' intelligence and integrity. That's the way to earn support.

How can you accept the sacrifice of young minds so heartlessly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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. (2) The judgement of our society through its democratic institutions. Were we sufficiently confident that meat truly is dangerous, certainly. We already have this kind of rule for many things, don't we? I never argued any such thing. This discussion would go better if a priority were placed on not making up silly straw-man arguments. Secular human values don't need a 'fair shake'. Children need to be educated in a way which does not harm their ability to participate fully in society.

"Secular humanism" is not a religion, it is a label. Red herring. No one here is proposing to not accept people with religious beliefs.

Let's take that a step further. The less people work, the more likely they are to support center or left wing parties. How do to make a connection between people having more education doing less work? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All thet book-larnin' ain't no good fer nuthin'!

Hey IMR... Sure I support 'economic liberty', (I just wrote: "In the majority of matters, individual choice drives this most efficiently") . But I don't support it to the exclusion of situationally better methods of attaining objectives which individuals together may elect to implement. I meant to get back to you about some other points. Watch this space... How? Adding to police powers, increasing incarcertion, and having more things defined as crimes are all statist responses. Opposing rehabilitation, and reducing legal aid are class biased. No, but it is the party of choice for private members who entertain such ideas. I disagree, but what examples are you refering to? Tories tend to seek to reduce the social benefits provided by government, are less likely to support public schools and other facilities, seek to leave more money in the hands of those who already have plenty, oppose taxation, and generally to stand against measures to alleviate economic disparity. with respect to what? Voodoo Economics, for example. Religion for another.

.... after all, Canada is one of the worst places in the universe thanks to them.