The Terrible Sweal

Your case conflates distinct things: attacking a state, attacking a state's assets within another state, and attacking a state's citizens within another state. In the first case, terrorists attacking a state from a neighboring state, the state under attack can defend itself against the attackers at its own border, and may be able to justifiably argue a variation of the 'hot pursuit' rule in defence of crossing the international border after them. This is the position which, in my view, legitimized the invasion of Afghanistan. In the second and third cases, assets and individuals in another state are subject to that jurisdiction as are crimes are committed against them. That's what sovereignty means. The UN Security Council has that authority now. But in the hypothetical absense of the UN, the answer is no, as outlined in my reply above.

The validity of that response depends in large part on which element(s) of the status quo were the real barrier to progress. In particular it seems questionable whether the activities of violent criminal groups (however heinous) was the real or most important impediment, given the intrasigence of Israel in regard to its illegal occupation of the Palestinians. Obvious to whom? Regardless of how much or little one likes Arafat, it remains the fact that no acceptable peace has ever been tendered to the Palestinians. But that's an absurd idea. So are you suggesting that the U.S. invaded Aghanistan not because the Taliban regime harboured the 9/11 perpetrating Al Quada, but rather as a means of resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict? That would be strange for two reasons: First, it would mean that the U.S. government was disingenuous about its reasons for invading another country -- Shurely unheard of. Second, it seems like a bizarrely circuitous course to take if that is the objective -- Afghanistan is far from Israel, and Al Queada was not active in targetting Israel. But none of which would appear likely to resolve the Israel-Palestine problem! But isn't it necessary that Israel be willing to reach a "real peace deal" too? I don't see any part of the strategy that will induce that.

Do we want the respect of America as it is today under its current administration?

For State XYZ to send armed forces into State ABC is an act of war, regardless of what the forces do there, unless authorized to do so by State ABC itself or by the UN Security Council.

Perhaps I shouldn't answer this because I am not 'anti-Walmart', but here goes ... I have worked a low-wage job. I have owned and operated my own business. (At times they were the same thing!) Other than obeying the law, corporations should have no obligations but to do what the owners direct (generally presumed to be maximization of profit over a specified but variable time-frame). As for capitalism, if by that you mean the economic system we have today, I would like to replace it with a free-and-fair-market.

Note that the reserves the right to act IF the host nation doesn't. Does this still qualify Australia as a rogue nation? Either way could you extend your answer a little more please and tell me to what extent you think the policy effects international relations with Australia (or any nation which adopts such a policy)? I look forward to hearing from you. I would call anyone a rogue state if it purports to be unconstrained by international law. International law allows states to defend themselves from aggression, not to attack neighbors to destroy their potential for aggression. Mr Howard's formulation is problematic in a couple of ways. First off, the concept of defending a countries "interests" is vague and open to interpretation. Interpreted broadly, it goes well beyond the meaning of self-defence in international law. The other problem is that Mr. Howard purports to set Australia up as the sole judge of the behaviour of a fellow state -- what amounts to a 'refusal to act'? Who decides? As for a prognostication on the effect on international relations, probably there won't be much unless Australia actually acts on this policy. State's can usually ignore the preposterous rhetoric of the governments of the day if it doesn't change anything in action.

There in a nutshell is the incentive for Iran to seek nuclear weapons. But isn't there an odd disjuncture in this whole discussion? The only thing which constrains a country from building nuclear weapons is the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Countries can leave that treaty by giving a relatively brief notice period. Once they do, there is no basis on which you can suggest they have no right to make the weapons, and no other country or institution has any right to prevent them.

The term "pre-emptive strike" is a euphemism for 'attacking first'. Any state who claims such a right is claiming to be unfettered by international law -- i.e. a rogue state.

This seems to be a question about interpreting the specifics of the hypothetical. It seems to me that this society would have to accept/acknowledge/admit that there is a realm of what is 'unknown'. Art may include reference to or comment on the 'unknown, but it is distinguishable from religion in the sense it makes no claim about the unknown.

I have attempted to discern anything worth addressing in that post and found very little. However ... I have never heard of them, it's true. But if you have been (against all odds) representing their criticisms correctly, I don't find them persuasive anyway. That's a total falsehood. I have offered a working meaning twice now. Since you even commented on it, I conclude that your statement above can only be a deliberate falsehood. That's just utterly ridiculous given that we have discussed this topic at length. Given your disingenuous and disrespectful approach, I must say I am relieved.

Neither. I am saying that rights are creatures, products or emanations of the social contract. FYI, I mean #2 in this case. You're being awfully elusive about what this mysterious "social contract" of yours is. You don't remember this? "Social Contract Theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society." link Oh, I agree. Ever heard the expression 'pompous git'? You honestly can't see? I'm saying that you think this social contract is the result of market action. Market action must be purely voluntary and cannot include force. Wars are force. Social contracts in terms of states (what we're discussing here) have been brought about by war. Clear? Clear, but wrong. The social contract acts against violence. Ah. So for your example to work, we have to assume all humans have no legs, do we? You're being obtuse again. You are trying to distract me. Evasion. If you are prepared to do without the benefit of the social contract, I believe you should be free to withdraw from it. What 'this illustrates' is your egregious tendency to make ludicrous imputations. Pure evasion. Pure rant. Listen to yourself!

Well, we wouldn't hear any more complaints about how we're sponging off the US for our defence. But having nukes would be a distinct advantage. It would make us safer against potential external threats.

I see no reason to monitor them any more than any other communications.

Le Monstre du Lac Champlain

Spare me the kneejerk emotionalism. The fact is nuclear weapons would make Canada safer against international threats and intimidation.

Well, I think it would be a start if we had a handful of long-submersion, stealth submarines, each armed with enough nukes to destroy a large capital city.

Doesn't the Catholic religion use Latin and the Jewish religion uses their own language. I can't comment on Judaica on this matter, but Catholicism the authority of the Gospels is doesn't depend on the language the are written in.

Riiiiiight. Like in Darfur for example.

Oh! That's bound to be a problem!

No! I say. Canada must get on top of the problem of nuclear proliferation. Europe has nukes, Russia has Nukes, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan all have nukes. With this crowd, I don't think Canada can afford to be slack. We need to develop our own, moderate but convincing, nuclear deterent capability. Quickly.

I think we should leave it that up to them to decide.

I think the question is different. Indeed, at some point on the continuum of zygote-blastocyst-embryo-fetus-baby, law does define when 'personhood' arises. But there are two other interests which must be given account: the woman and the state/society. For example, at whatever point personhood occurs, it may nevertheless not trump the woman's right to liberty. Also for example, the state may have some legitimate interest in the handling of fetuses in and of themselve, whether or not they are 'persons'.

I don't see why art poses any difficulty. A substantial body of art has been initiated or inspired by religious topics and impulses, true. But certainly a huge body of art exists unconnected to religion as well. Also, I don't think permitting the conduct of artistic activity art is in any way necessarily incompatible with exclusion of religion.

There are four people in the known world. They all live in a hut on an idylic tropical island. After every windstorm it is necessary to patch the hut or it provides no protection from rain. Three of them work on patching the hut, but every time the fourth of them refuses to help and eats the building materials. Can the three exclude the one? ?! What does it take to get through to you...I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT. I say that the social contract in Canada is consensual because you are free to leave it if it does not suit you. I don't need and don't make any prior assumption about it's "legitimacy". Which inserts the normative into the descriptive again. I don't see how being reasonable equates to being natural. A negative right does not actually require the participation of anyone. The right costrains the behavior of other humans. Only other humans. It requires their participation to the extent they accept the constraint and don't break it. I AM NOT SAYING THAT. First, the constitution is not the social contract. Second, I don't believe the Weimar constitution authorized mass executions. I think you're out to lunch. You certainly take an insane approach to interpreting my comments. If you can show me a state that arose without any violence or war, go ahead. Are you being obtuse deliberately? Why the hell should I have to show you a state that arose without violence or war??? What does that have to do with what I'm saying??? Yes, there have been violent confrontations. So what? What powers are you going to allow your "fully liberal democracy", first of all? The term is quite subjective, ... So is 'anarchy'. First off, no, all you need for trade is two people with different goods and services to offer each other. Absolutely not. They need the means for them to effect the benefit -- I.e. actually get the bullets to your door, actually collect your oil and take it to their place. How do you get them? Who or what says it's YOUR land? Are you willing to do without the protection of your fellow man? Hasty conclusion. What if I just slit your throat while you sleep? No fuss, no bother. Net gain for the first to do evil. Probably by hiring someone to represent them. Hiring them with what? This is ridiculous. Does the infant email them, or compose a letter and deliver it in person to the provider? Alright, even IF they know there's a need to "step in" what recourse do they follow on behalf of the infant??? Well, there we have it. Where your system of anarchy breaks down, that's okay because the Hobbesian war of all against all will take its place. And all these balancing rights and interests are just 'natural', I suppose? The coercion brings it into existence, yes? The relevant act occurs prior to the existence, no?

... if all humans have free will, and there's no objective way of discerning if any humans are better than other humans, it seems logical to me that all humans must have the natural right to exercise their free will to the limits of physical laws and to the point where they start to encroach on the natural rights of others. As justification, you need to go further to include the particulars of the limits and manner they are implemented which your position entails. But remember I also said that the concept of 'natural' rights fails descriptively. The comment you make above explains why notionally 'equality of freedom' looks preferable, but it does not explain what makes that 'natural' rather than 'artifactual'. Exactly, and this is a key concept right here: negative rights. The only real rights are negative ones, not to be harmed, not to be killed, not to be coerced, etc. They don't require any other human to do anything, just not to do something. My point there is that the constraint applies only to other humans. That being the case, it follows that my rights require the participation of others. Digression: I'm not sold on the importance of that distinction. What social contract is that? The social contract, where and whenever manifest. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying there. No, it isn't, because as I said, the evolution of the social contract involves violence and coercion, ... Sigh. No, the social contract has confronted and evolved (with some success) against those things. (Of course this is just another iteration of the fundamental issue.) That's right. But getting away from that for a minute, if you don't agree with this premise of equal natural rights, then you agree that it is just or right for some humans to impose their will on others - more freedom for some people than for others, to put it another way. I'm interested to know what your argument for that is. As for the red portion of the quote: I don't accept that rights are 'natural' in the sense you appear to mean it. Nature gives you no rights. Your accord with your fellow man gives you your rights. As for the remaining imputation, no that is not what I think, so I decline to offer any such 'argument'. "Anarchy" ... really means is absence of political power, absence of coercion. Of course, humans being what they are, you can't eliminate coercion, but you can try to avoid it. Right. Now explain how that prescription differs meaningfully from fullly liberal democracy. Yes, it is "important to recognize" that because otherwise it's not a all clear or obvious. Okay, one more time then. I have demolished that. First, I have never said or suggested "those who don't like the government should leave". This is a strawman response and thus invalid. Second, I am not assuming what I am trying to prove ... ,Not me. I'm saying that the freedom to opt out of the social contract in Canada (by departure) qualifies it as consensual. I doubt it. I don't even know what you mean by that. You keep talking the government, but I don't know why. And why do you keep saying I'm saying things I'm not saying? There's the circular argument ... you're having it with yourself!!! Why would I do that? I don't even know what the f*** a "legitimate pretension" is. That's quite a surprise, -- since I haven't yet been able to get you to agree to (or even posit) a coherent notion of property rights. I don't see what "the government" has to do with that matter. I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the social contract. That is not my argument. Why wouldn't a good band of city-dwellers come to work for me as security guards, if I've got oil? You're counting on charity then??? You don't need a logistical infrastructure for a market. Of course you do. And you definitely need if for machine guns and ammunition. There you go hoping for charity again. What induces him to work for your food rather than cut your throat and live on 'your' oilpatch? ... if the child is not able to leave, to fend for itself or find an alternative caregiver, then yes, because the parents "coerced" the child into being born, as it was done without the consent of the child, and therefore they owe it something. Interesting. Three questions more then: How does the infant secure this obligation from a defaulting parent? Having coerced someone into existence, does the obligation then last forever -- if not, why not? How is it possible to coerce something that doesn't exist? Oh, and by the way, you never did get back to addressing this ...