The Terrible Sweal

I think your post answers the question in your heading, if you are Canadian. The Food for Oil program was overseen by appointees of the Security Council members. Corrupt individuals may have profiteered (which is a matter still under investigation, not proven), but 'The UN' did not steal anybody's food or money.

I agree with Black Dog about the difficulties presented by use of the term 'evil'. So instead of evil, I would say... George Bush is harmful in ways and to an extent that can only be explained by some combination of (1) self-satisfied ignorance, (2) a overweaning sense of righteousness and/or entitlement, (3) corrupt ulterior motives. His record so far is without question the worst of the post WWII presidents. So, as a turn of phrase, perhaps it's better to say not that Bush is Evil, but that Bush's presidency is AN EVIL, the U.S. is suffering from.

Fallacies: Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity.

Fascinating repetitive assertion once again. But many problems there: why can't an agregate 'own' something? What do you even mean by 'own'? Why should your meaning should be adopted by others? Anyway, I'll say yet again. Ownership is irrelevant. That is utter nonsense, as I demonstrated to you many weeks ago with the case of the cherry tree. I'm sorry, but I will prevent you from using your club on me. I'll prevent you from using your club on others too, if they'll do the same for me. But as you have already noted, your version of anarchy is also a social contract government. Accordingly, I return to my comment that anarchy is an empty concept. Even you don't believe that. If you won't pay your property taxes, I suppose you won't mind if the police don't come when someone steals from you, or violates your daughters? Whoever Ruthbard is. Anyway, codified or not, custom and law are indistinquishable for our purposes here. It doesn't do that.

Can I see a copy of this contract, with their signatures? I thought you weren't complaining about the terms of the contract. One of the terms is that though inchoate, it is deemed to be understood. That's not an argument, it's a (tiresomely repetive) assertion. You say presense cannot represent consent. Well, prove it. Strawman. I don't need to offer any such justification, because in this contract the parties have consented. Because it grants rights and powers over property and people that the drafters of the contract had no claim over. No, it establishes 'rights' where none existed. And you missed the point. By what right do YOU purport to decide the contract is illegitimate?

BTW, you wrote... Therein lies another confusion: it is neither the government, nor the majority which holds that right. The incidental votes of the contractors for or against a government administration from time to time do not define or exhaust their status as constituents of the broader social context. As I've pointed out before, the government and society are not identical and co-terminous.

There are some 30,000,000 contractually identical individuals in the contract I'm party to. Which one of us do you mean? But by what right do you declare the contract illegitimate?

You choose to participate in the contract or you choose not to participate. When you choose not to participate, you are no longer entitled to the benefit of the contract. Part of that benefit is presense within the physical space of the contract's effect.

But God supposedly personally helped Gideon pick his 300 assassins: And as for Gideon:

When I saw that I went back to the test and I tried to answer all the economic questions strongly in favor of my best guess at Extreme Right, but the closest I could come was: 7.88.

The question is not about the teaching but how can an individual do this if they are inherently sinful. But that begs the question. Is mankind inherently sinful at all? If mankind is sinful, obviously we need religion to get rid of the sin: what else would work? You are pre-supposing a religious-type of problem to which you can posit only a religious answer. Apart from the fallacy, it also breaks the rules for the hypothetical, I think.

Nonsense. Your test was much more expansive, in that it contemplated the eggs too. In any event, your conclusion is reductionist. If the neighor has two cows that go unmentioned in your example, is it not reasonable to wonder why he has not shared the milk with you yet?

I think because the only commodity in the example is chickens and eggs. Having no chickens, the neighbor has nothing to offer.

As has been mentioned, IF your society is one that allows you to depart, your consent becomes actual when you attain the age of majority and decide to remain. You want to wrap your chain around that pole one more time, Fido?

I think you've diametrically misinterpreted the motivations involved.

The troops have entrusted their lives to the state. It is the moral obligation of the citizens of the state to support them by insisting and ensuring that: -the government train, arm and supply them properly; -appropriate effort and resources are dedicated to protect their health and human dignity; -they be exposed only to risks commensurate with the imperatives of their objectives, and no unnecessary risk be imposed by negligence of the government or the military leadership; -each soldier be treated fairly within the terms of military propriety; and -they never be commanded to participate in criminality or dishonourable conduct. Support the troops. Bring them home.

How about SOME government authority actually taking the simple step necessary to stop all this shit. BAN any use of meat protien in herbivore feeds, and BAN practices which permit transmittal between feed lines.

Social Contract

Today I am: Economic Left/Right: -2.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

The rest of the story... Gideon killed the men of Penuel because they refused to feed his army. With him or against him, I guess. http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?p...=on&showxref=on

Ensure the universal provision of a decent critical liberal education in the public schools.

I think it may be important to point out ... these are almost certain to be two entirely different numbers, based on these descriptions. It is certainly plausible that excess mortality during prolonged conflicts could well exceed direct casualties alone.

I don't think that article does a very good job 'discrediting' the Lancet article. It makes valid comments on the ability for the conclusion to be precise, without showing any likely fundamental problem with the general approximation. Readers who are accustomed to statistical documents also realize that what is being discussed is probabilities. If data shows a range within which 95% of outcomes falls, it almost always shows a 'normal distribution' which allows one to suggest the most probable actual outcome. Yes, the study is subject to this problem. The researchers must have recognized this difficulty and made allowances. To be persuasive, this contention must be backed by a critique of their methods or models. I heard they excluded the Fallujah samples. Yes, here is an example: valid comments on the ability for the conclusion to be precise, without showing any likely fundamental problem with the general approximation. In order to determine if this actually undermines the Johns Hopkins study, we would need to inquire into the respective validity of Daponte vs. Johns Hopkins mortality estimates.

I would not agree. If indeed God exists, in my opinion s/he/it is disqualified from deserving 'worship'.

Chloe, thank you for your reply. Unfortunately it did not move me very much further ahead in my question. You suggest, perhaps rightly, that changing the standard now will permit or invite further changes to the standard in the future. However, that leaves untouched two important points: First, as a variation on the slipery slope argument, it offers no specific objection to the particular change being considered right now. All the harm you suggest appears to be future and conditional upon further changes which may or may not happen. Second, your reply does not provide anything to connect the changes (however large they may be) to any specific harm. I don't see how having some people doing a new thing will hurt the ability of others to do a traditional thing. And I don't see why the new thing poses any problem by itself.