The Terrible Sweal

How can it be? Once one man becomes Prime Minister, the office is closed to all other candidates. Sure, it will be open again at some point in the future, but the same could be said of Stalin's government too. In a democracy, office holders are not rulers, they are citizns volunteering to serve.

What says I don't? I want to hear your alternative theory. Enough evasion and prevarication. I want to hear you actually try to defend your position for once. Answer the question. Seller of what? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Seller of whatever they have a monoploy in. Must you behave like a complete berk? Demonstrate why. There's my answer, I guess. Hugo, I am NOT going to demonstrate to you why 2 is 2 and not three. Look up the meaning of "de facto" for yourself. I've asked you repeatedly to articulate whatever mad theory of property leads you to make your absurd postings. If you are finally willing to put your money where your lips flap, GOOD. !!!Not at all????? That's very questionable. Most of that sentence is open to question too. Is it true that no human is inatley superor to another?? Sez who? Even if it's true, it would not preclude there being a Right way to think. What you have actually described is support for a claim to self-dtermination. Inserting "ownership" at this juncture is (a) meaningless, and ( again presumes the conclusion. [quot It therefore follows that when a man takes natural resources and mixes his labour with them they become his. It only "follows" because you have fallaciously slipped the word 'ownership' in here without any sensible definition. After numerous attempts to get at what you think you mean, I conclude tha you are unable to be intelligible on this topic.

My ownership of the nugget. Please don't waste time with sophomoric nonsense. I know the nugget is the object, but what right has been created over the nugget. You have it in your possession, but what says you "own" it? Yes, that's right. Until you find an insurmountable problem with it, or you provide a better definition, it's the one I'll go with. Done and done. Problem: for the purpose of this analysus, your definition does not include all necessaily relevanr cases. Better definition: see my post in numerous prior threads. Since forever. The definition of monopoly is the control of a good, service or commodity held by force (against the customers, against potential competitors). Sophistry. You posit an absurdity , then create special personal defintions in support of the absurdity. Monopoly, Hugo, means 'one seller'. It can readily exist in the absence of violence, for example where a unique skill or process is involved, where one seller has out competed its rivals, or in cases of mature 'natural monopolies'. A "de facto right" is an oxymoron and effectively meaningless. Nonsense. Presuming the conclusion. You have not established that you own it (or indeed what you even mean by 'owning' it).

I don't think there's a formula. Every voter owns their vote and doesn't need to answer to anyone for how they make their choice. Personally, I like to always vote against the incumbent, unless there's something wrong with the other guys.

August, you seem to be arguing that the opposition should have the discretionary power to make any vote a confidence vote. I think that would be an unattractive prospect.

Nice drive-by smear, there, August. Why stop with Nixon though? Why not explore the paralels you no doubt detect between PM and Stalin?

That would require that people care. I don't think very many do care anymore, and think their numbers will decrease further with another Liberal win. More like it would require suspension of disbelief in such overblown melodramatics.

Victimized in the same sense that the James Gang was victimized by bank robberies? More like a company victimized by wrongdoing officers ad employees. Odd how the big business brains of the tories don't seem to grasp this concept. Or wait, maybe they actually do have some shred of the wits they aspire to. That must mea they are -gasp!- being disingenuous for political reasons! Imagine that.

With these combined togehter in one party, each is marked with the warts of the other. Unfortunately, the latter part of that description is not born out in evidence. That's a highly argumentative perspective, rather than a rigorous description.

"Inside help" obviously, but "from the party itself" is a ridiculous notion. This is why Gomery should be allowed to finish the job.

That might be important to establish, if it were not already completely established and respected. The Bloc and Tories are arguing speciously that a procedural motion should be treated as a confidence question. That's not a good precedent. It's sacrificing principle to expediency.

Sure. I think so. The Liberal Party has obviously been victimized by criminal infiltration. Martin has been consistent in attemptng to root it out. Bull. How did he "shut it down"?

If this potential is not given merely for the asking, then you are no longer talking about democracy. No, it does not. If you accept that there is a physical world which exists independently of human perceptions of it, then there is a "correct" version of events in which one party was the first to use violence. IF. And IF you accept that humans are able and willing to come a correct impression of it. Lots of IFs. So you agree now? Good. Indeed, I use other words for such distinctions, like "federal government" or "gentlemans' club". Clearly you have not been paying attention to my comments at all, or perhaps you are smply unable to grasp these concepts. Be that as it may, I don't say the state is everything. Do you mean that collectivism is essential to the enforcement of rights, or that rights can only exist in collectives? No, I mean what I wrote.

I go out into the unclaimed wilderness and find a nugget of gold. I pick it up and take it home. What violence was committed? What ownership has been created? You mean that is YOUR definition. "Since"!? Since when?

Perfectly believable, given the Faux News Cabal market-share.

I consider myself a patriotic Canadian, but I won't simply jump on the 'greatest' bandwagon because I think a more nuanced understanding is preferable. Here's a subjective stance that I'll subscribe to instead: On an ongoing basis, Canada is the country I willingly and gratefully accept as mine, above all others.

Indeed. A cheesy use of contrived outrage to try to damage one's opponent. Not nearly on a par with Immigration Minister Joe Volpe's response to the "Librano$" incident for contrivance, but at least as contrived as the faux outrage that launched this thread. I pains me to disagree with you, kimmy, but while Volpe's KKKomment was exaggerated, I think the initial reaction of Italian Canadians to a stereotype they purport to actually suffer was more genuine than Mark's opportunistic reaction to a comment of generic, non-racial currency in common parlance.

Post #29 on this thread. You said: "All democracy does is (in theory) allow the entry of any ruled person into the ranks of the rulers." I extrapolate that if it allows 'any' it must allow 'all'. But that someone has already applied force to obtain an end from someone otherwise unwilling who did not first use force against them. SEZ THEM! The identity of the instigator depends on which party you ask. We've been over this before and you were unable to defend this definition, False. You have been unable to refute it, and you have offered no sensible alternative. No, he does not have rights, and he does not need rights because he is alone. Well then, your position that rights spring from the individual must be wrong. Ten men alone in the woods can band together and form a village. That is voluntary collective action too. Explain how. I have, repeatedly, and at length. Individuals form an implicit agreement constituting the conditions of relations among themselves (their 'rights', if you will). The means by which they carry out this collective intention (provide and defend the 'rights') is their state. If they don't have collective means, they have no 'rights'. Ergo, if they have 'rights', they have a state.

It does not. Not all in a democracy are in the ruling class. You aren't, I am not, nobody in this forum is. None of us can make law. Therefore we are ruled, not rulers. Your argument is inconsistent. You just said democracy made everyone a 'ruler' and now you say it doesn't. Which is it. Perhaps you mean that 'true' democracy does so but faulty democracy does not? In which case, my point remains valid (as regards 'true' democracies), and your exceptions (the faulty democracies) fall outside the rule. But you have not explained why. Ergo you have no point. Go back one step. You did not explain why not. Anyway, I did explain why in a later edit. I said it is coercion because it involves the application of force to obtain an end from someone otherwise unwilling. Why do we need a state to provide a legitimisation structure or to be an arbiter? You have it backwards. Any legitimisation structure or arbiter is serving in the function of a state. This doesn't hold water. Does a man alone on an island have 'rights'? If so, what is the practical content of such 'rights'? Essentially we own ourselves, our bodies. So therefore we also own what our body produces, our labour. Everything else stems from that. Around in a circle again. What do you mean when you say we 'own' ourselves? From whence does it arise. How and by whom is it given effect and why? I advise you against making false accusations. Right. And the state is one of the leading methods of such collective action. The state is the method of providing rights. True, it can be corrupted and missused, and has been. Hugo, despite my pleas I notice you did not respond to the specific questions I asked you.

Law is the tyranny of the weak over the strong.

Hugo wrote: Alright, so let's accept for the moment your definiton: the state is comprised of the ruling class. The solution of democracy (that all join the ruling class) would seem to address that problem adequately. So what? So it cannot be tendered to demonstrate the merits of extreme individualism. Of course it is coercion: the application of force to another against his will to obtain an objective. Anyway, without a legitimisation structure or an arbiter of some kind, one man's 'initiation' is merey another man's 'response' My personal answer would be that rights are negative, that they must be assignable to the lowest common denominator of humanity, and basically amount to self-ownership and property rights, the right not to have violence or fraud committed against one's person or against one's property as an extension of the person. This right can apply equally to all. I would challenge most other "rights" because they generally favour some people over others, which makes them privileges, not rights. Sorry to say, I cannot see how this comment responds to the essential question about the source/nature of 'rights'. How about you give me the essentials of what YOU think, so we can have a discussion here. No, it isn't. ... The state is the means for some to impose their ideas, vision, morals and goals on others. There is essentially no difference between the state and the mafia. Sigh. You have merely recited your position without responding to the theoretical challenge posed by my comment. I've noticed our conversations go better when you can keep your head out of the arsehole of dogma, so I urge you to try. Homesteading or free trade, generally. HOW does homesteading make a 'right' to property? Indeed, IF. WHY do you 'own' your body? Say your labor alone produces X, while your labour combined with the labor of two other workers is 5X. Who 'owns' the excess and why. Also, If I can come along and take it all from the three of you, why shouldn't I? Well, I ask you to explain it. But really, to avoid circular discussion of superficalities, I'd like if you could give specific, responsive, replies to the particular questions I have put to you. BTW, Ive tried 4 times now to get these f*ckin quotes to work, and I give up now. :angry:

I'm not left wing, I'm a classical liberal. When I discuss the Conservative Party, I present it as accurately as possible. The CPC IS the party of the religous right, if any one is. The CPC IS the party that favors provincial power over federal power. The CPC IS the party most likely to cut people loose from social support. It IS the party which would be coziest with the lunatic Bush regime. None of these points is a distortion. Instead of a party with a vision noone in their right mind wants?

In regards to the comments directed at Inky Mark. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is a gross and despicable distortion of events. Alcock's comment was obviously directed at Mark's personal insignificance, not his racial group membership.

YAWN! Someday maybe you right wingers will learn that vapid dismissals do not amount to valid rebutals.

I notice a lot of peeps avoid such opportunities.