The Terrible Sweal

BTW, Hugo, in your system, does a parent have any obligations toward his or her infant? If so, why?

I'm sorry, this is probably my fault. I meant "exist" as in a physical sense. Concepts like family "exist" but they are metaphysical, they don't have any atoms, they don't exist in the physical world. It's my opinion that metaphysical concepts are different from physical entities, and that metaphysical things can't own anything. Which, of course, turns on your opinion of the meaning of 'ownership'. I'd have to disagree with that. I think people have rights, and what society assigns people may coincide with what their rights are or may not. Yes, this is probably the fundamental point in which we are at odds in this treadmill discussion. It seems to me that you interpolate a normative understanding of 'rights' into a descriptive/prescriptive stance. To the extent you use it prescriptively, you need at least to first support or justify that norm. But more fundamental is that your norm doesn't perform well in a descriptive function. But the 'right to live' is only really 'the right not to be deprived of your life by the action of other humans'. The bears and the wolves and the cold don't give a fig about your 'rights'. I agree that the right was violated, but as I point out above, not on the source of that right. The Nazi's violated the social contract. I don't think that's true, either. In the history of any government there are always distinctly non-market phenomena, all states have gained or sustained power through war, violence, extortion and other non-market methods. (Digression: the merits of war and violence cannot be judged without consideration of the reasons and the circumstances. ) Don't you believe that the market has inherent means of self-correction? That's what the evolution of the social contract is. But that's only the surface. It being accepted that your freedom is bounded by the freedom of your fellows, it follows that you must have some means of identifying these boundaries. Oh, I agree. That doesn't sound like 'anarchy' to me. In fact, that's my point. Bam! Circular argument. Nope. Not at all. Where is the circular part??? If I live in the wilderness, who's robbing me? You can't have it both ways! Don't be peurile. An evil band of city-dwellers have come out to steal your oil. Not in the least. It's a far cry from roving bandits to a market and a logistical infrastructure. Why don't you actually try to answer those questions I posed? Because you'd find it impossible.

Yes ... ... Q.E.D.

Yes, Kimmy, I drew inferences, based on substantial experience with these characters' conduct. I was willing to, and did, check my inferences against the article. It confirmed my inferences. I don't see any grave default on my part there. And it is still the case that you don't have to read Frum to know what he's going to say. He's more predictable than the tides. It is an accurate description of a substantial portion of it. And moreover, since the rest of the piece has virtually nothing to say, I think it was probably the purpose, if not "the point". I agree; that headline gives an incorrect impression, (though it may be the headline editor rather than the reporter at fault.) Day cited the article, not the rumour. The report or the headline? If you mean the report, what did it say?

Interesting survey. Are you going to give us the results eventually?

Would this same argument have arisen if the question were: "How wicked is GWB?" or "How destructive is GWB? or "How bad is GWB?" or "Is George Bush a stupid prick?"

Terrible Sweal, I use authorities to understand many things. I can not possible know everything so I think we all make judgment calls on information based on where it comes from. In business I default to people like Drucker and Covey. In sport I look at great coaches and players. In philosophy and theology I look to great thinkers. This is not blind faith but an examination of what they say and then applying those thought to the other things I know. We are all bounded by our own experience so I would argue to some degree we all do this. So as the scientific approach to life is applied, what methodology of measurement is acceptable and on what authority do you accept it? True. We do not have the luxury of living in state of full information, and so reliance on authority can be a statistically beneficial strategy. However, it is only so if we don't abuse the strategy by making it a dogma. In other words, the authorities of blackjack may tell you "never hit on a 17", and this makes sense. But it would be stupid to go by the authorities if you actually know the next card is a 4.

Because it does not exist. I'm sorry, Hugo, but that requires accepting an absurd and unworkable definition for 'existing'. Do nations exist? Do families? Your definition would say no, but these things do exist. They have words for them, and they have real effects on our lives. First, you are mistaken. Individual shareholders do not own the undivided assets of a company. Second, this discussion of 'existence' is yet another rhetorical dead end. Society defines the 'rights' that its members possess; if such rights are defined to be held collectively by whatever divisions society establishes, that's not a problem (except as a policy question: what particular rights ought to be defined). I think this "social contract" is completely arbitrary and subjective. I can certainly understand that you (among others) would perceive it that way. That's the way it is often experienced from an individual perspective. Consider it as an economic phenomenon, however: it is a market that has historic data, and whose form has developed through accreted action of market participants over that time. It is arbitrary in the sense individual participants are price-takers. It is subjective to the extent that market participants have bouned-rationality. That was and is true to a greater or lesser extent in various places and times. I think that your interpretation is correct about SOME PARTS of any social contract over shorter time-spans and fewer data-points, but that my interpretation, above represents a deeper more sustained reality. Even 'absolute' monarchies typically include a 'social contract' in operation, albeit unbalanced, irrational, and corruptly maintained. Of course, the human lifespan predisposes us to be immediately concerned with your interpretation's time-span rather than mine. A 'free-society' addresses this problem by attempting to make the most appealing social contract possible, and allowing objectors to opt out. A contract you can opt out of is not coercive. That would be a correct inference from that principle, indeed. It invalidates your position, if you think about it. Yes. In fact, I believe it to be the only social contract "government" because it is fully voluntary. Except for the involuntary parts. You have said that again and again. But you ignore the point that free societies (such as Canada), by allowing you to withdraw from the contract, are consensual. I can defend myself, or hire somebody else to do it for me. Hire? Hire who? You live alone in the wilderness. What will you pay them with ... you've just been robbed. And what would stop your protector from stealing from you? Okay, but we need to know how you're going to get it. Where did you get that from? Who brings your ammunition? What did you exchange for it? Oh, and by the way ... you can't stay awake forever, and maybe I'll bring a tank. Maybe I'll just waft mustard gas over you. Whatever. ... WHICH, is an irrevant distinction for the purposes or our discussion.

Did you actually read the David Frum piece before deciding it was implausible and inflammatory? Or did you just base that conclusion on what you've read in this thread and the fact that it's David Frum? Kimmy, you don't have to read David Frum to know what he's going to say. Now I did read it, and lo and behold, it was exactly the sort of tripe I expected it to be. He went out of his way to make it seem otherwise. From the story: Exactly the kind of worthless hobby-horsing we expect from Frum. So what did the reporter say that was out of line?

Tell me it ain't so! You call human life a 'commodity'!!! I'm aghast! You misspelled that. You mean: 'hippocracy', or rule-by- horses. In any event, I don't see how the responses you received on this thread so far allow you to make such a blanket condemnation. For instance, you seem to have overlooked that a plurality favored the idea of giving away eggs.

That's not very convincing, I'm afraid. We know, for example, that there are many more items of value in the world than chickens and eggs. Your example didn't even permit a acknowledgement of the value of labour. That's shurely a cardinal sin for a true NDPNIC, isn't it?

I think if he's entitled to the benefit of unspoken meanings or intentions, then we're entitled to our doubts about what they are. Of course. We all have our prejudices about the people in Ottawa. In Day's case, it goes without saying that a lot of people are prepared to believe the worst about anything he says. That's fine, and maybe even justified. What's interesting to me, in this instance, is that the reporter who wrote this story are, apparently, among those. -kimmy I don't believe it's fair to call all inferences prejudice. When someone propagates an implausible and inflamatory story such as this, some conclusions suggest themselves more strongly than others.

This is hilarious!!

It's better to deal with the individuals rather than punish the entire community. How hard would it be to boot such a person and delete their posts? Quite a bit harder than you might think if it is determined. Anonymizing software can let them creep back in, even when banned.

Not everybody believed it. There was a chorus of criticism around the world. Powell's presenation to the UN Council was clearly disbelieved by virtually everyone. What makes the president a liar is his false claim that he knew things which he did not really know.

PC 60 47.07% LIB 18 29.05% NDP 4 9.79% AAP 1 9.10% So they won 73% of the seats with only 47% of the vote. Let the populist lamentations begin.

I think if he's entitled to the benefit of unspoken meanings or intentions, then we're entitled to our doubts about what they are.

Woof woof woof!!! Bow wow! I haven't called Bush a murderer. I haven't proclaimed war is evil. Your comment is utter nonsense. Meanwhile, I have repeated that Bush lied, but usually fully supported by the reasoning for that conclusion (i.e. not, "like an idiot"). And why not repeat it? It's true, and you persisted in pretending to deny it. You prove my very point. The intel was bad and Bush and co lied and said it was good. They said they knew things that they knew they didn't know.

The claim that Arafat died of AIDS is such a transparently 'motivated' assertion that it surpasses even the usual low standard of Likudist propaganda. When an old man dies after years of house arrest, and someone suggests AIDS as a plausible first place to look for cause of death, you've got to think why are they saying that.

He was having an e-mail discussion with party colleagues, not issuing a press-release. -kimmy Is this a sort of 'what happens in Vegas' defence?

BD6, you crack me up. You rant forth a pastiche of petulant drivel and think you've made some point. Clearly you are unable to assess how sadly short of worthwhile discussion that falls. Yawn.

Do you resort to playground-level taunts the instant someone expresses a view you don't like? In any event, the Bush administration deception goes well beyond 'bad intel'. Specifically, they lied in pretending to be certain about something they knew was uncertain and they claimed to have specific knowledge which they did not have. Further, they engaged in an unwarranted campaign to discredit anyone who questioned their (clearly faulty) intel. So, your reference to 'bad intel' is either uninformed or disingenuous. In neither case does it support braying 'idiot' at anyone (else, anyway).