The Terrible Sweal

Bill O'Reill;y is an ignorant, lying blowhard. The constituency that takes him seriously should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately, they are shameless.

I'd look at it this way: The French government did the right thing. They were lucky that doing the right thing also aligned with there financial interests. The U.S. government did the wrong thing. American citizens (as distinct from the cabal close to the President) are unlucky that doing the wrong thing is also against their financial interests.

I would agree that it is not sensible to ascrible the problems countries experience solely to their belief systems. However, to consider only the the question of what is wrong with Islam, then the answer is clear enough. The same thing that is wrong with any archaic irrational belief system such as Christianity, etc.: irrational belief leads to bad outcomes in approximate proportion to the reliance a society places on it.

Here's some more FODDER for the debate.

You're mistaken on this point. First, the Courts in Canada do not legislate, and second, regarding Charter rights, the legislatures are empowered to overrule the courts.

I don't cherish monarchy, but it seems like a low priority issue to me. As for the 1995 referendum, I have no problem with how it turned out. The good guys won, right?

Bill Gates isn't sitting on his millions. The vast majority of his wealth is invested (notably, in shares of Microsoft, a large employer and a technological innovator).

You don't see the inconsistency in saying something is "absolute, subject to..." ? Hello?!! To the extent your freedom is subject to the freedom claims of others (i.e. integrally), it is not absolute. To us in consensus. My freedom is more valuable to me, his to him, but together we can agree that our freedoms are equal. These are sloppy semantics. You don't agree that they are equal. You value yours more. and your opinion on that doesn't change. Your agreement must be based on something else. You should know what a claim is. I know what I would mean by it if I had said it, but I'm asking you what you think YOU mean by it, since you used the term. Still without any content to the word 'claim' here but anyway look ... HOW can it be determined what man X claimed? WHO is to determine it? Prove it to the other man, ultimately. The case posits that they are at an impasse. You can't just change the case to suit your needs. You say mutually agreeable, not me. HOW will they select the arbiter? On what principles will the arbiter decide? Why those principles instead of others? Lest you have forgotten my point by now, it is this ... rights do not arise from nature or from an individual. The arise from the collective of individuals (i.e. society). There is NO consent or agreement in this case. You must deal with it as put: mutual intransigence. Why? What are your grounds for legitimate claim? We are discussing your position, not mine. Please just answer the question, why doncha? Morality. To argue for the latter basically states that you have no respect for your fellow human beings, You are not answering the question really. An appeal to YOUR morality doesn't resolve a dispute between US. I reject your morality. I say that to deprive me of my free use of that rock shows you have no respect for my superior holiness. Now you will say that position is absurd, but that's just your opinion versus mine, is it not? What gives your morality a superior value? What makes something moral at all? Who makes the law and what gives their laws moral legitimacy? That's what I've been asking you to explain for your theory. Nonsense. Laws are simply the promulgation of the rights society intends to provide. Here's the sequence: society -> intention -> laws -> rights. Opt out of what? Once again, to say that I can opt out by leaving is saying that the government of Canada owns Canada. No. You forget that that argument has been disposed of. You opt out of Canadian society by leaving Canada. Think about it. The criminal is not made to go anywhere, not clapped in irons, not forced under threat of violence to do anything. However lenient it appears to you does not change the fact that it is a sanction imposed on the individual. It is coercive.

Have your say?

CBC story I don't see any answer to my question in your quote.

Who would you define as a centrist and extreme right winger? Whats Paul Martin? It's all relative of course, but I'd say the Peron regime was pretty far right, along with numerous other South American regimes. Also Marcos and Franco. On this scale Paul Marting would appear to be near the centre. I would say that Ralph Klien is about as far right of center as Trudeau was left of center. Which is to say they represent the respective endpoints of the "Canadian Center". By not "slapping her on the wrist", and his fear mongering about how Harper would bring us closer to the United States, I fail to see how anybody can miss Paul Martins opinion of the United States.......actions speak louder then words. I don't see what you see. Carolyn Parrish is an elected member of Parliament with opinions of her own. You contend that not censuring her for these opinions equates with Paul Martin 'hating America'. You then offer as support of that Martin's generalized criticism of Harper (ad CANADIAN politician) as further proof he 'hates America'. I don't see the logic. So you have never cast blanket statements about America? Not that I am aware of, no.

It depends on whether or not you think being an intellectual, an anti-communist or a "counter-revolutionary" is a capital crime. The short answer to your question would be, "about as many as were convicted of something and executed by Hitler and Stalin." That doesn't seem very believable, considering the differnces in scale.

If they get four more years of Bush policies, our dollar will be higher than theirs by the end of that time. Vote for Bush, short the Buck.

Well, this is what I have been saying for a long time now and I thought we could probably take that as read. Please pay attention. I'm pointing out that your approach fails to take it into account, "read" or not. This is an inconsistency that you need to address. My freedom is more valuable to me. The other mans freedom is more valuable to him. The only mutually acceptable conclusion is that our freedoms are equal and equally valuable. You haven't answered my question, or your answer is contradictory. I asked to whom. You say that your freedom has 6 value to you than your neighbor, but then you arrive at the conclusion they are equally valuable. Equally valuable TO WHOM? Who claimed it first? I cannot answer without knowing what do you mean by 'claimed'. And why does that meaning apply to the case? Man X sat in the shade, and after that Man Y began to pick cherries. Whoa whoa whoa!!! Now in addition to a meaning and justification for 'claim' you've openned several other cans of worms. (1) 'Prove' it how? To whom? Why that method why and that person? (2) Your position seems to be that arriving at the tree first equates to 'claiming' it. I don't see why that should be. Because my will to use the rock was exerted before anybody elses. You're running on a treadmill. Why should I respect your primacy instead of making you respect my force? What is their response when it is applied? EXACTLY. Humans provide and defend their 'rights' together (i.e. collectively). RIGHT AGAIN except we don't "settle for less", we make an exchange we interpret as advantageous. Absent the rule of law there are no 'rights'. Under the rule of law, the only 'rights' are those that you can call on others to give effect to. Perhaps not, but the only criteria we need to worry about it whether the state lets you opt out. Canada does, along with many others. Basically, non-coercive law is law that does not require the use of force to bring criminals into submission. Under anarchist law, prisoners willingly attend their trials and willingly carry out their punishment. Oh yeah. What incentive induces this behavior? And that doesn't seem coercive to you?!?!? Hugo, man, pause and reflect before launching this switchbacking rhetoric please. Good, we agree on that much then.

Exactly ... Now the next element: what defense is there if one is not the biggest or strongest? I suggest two possible responses: (1) that the stronger has some incentive to permit property to the weaker or (2) that the weaker can call upon powers other than his own. And though these are divided into two here, the difference is really only perspective. That is definitely arguable, but the underlying ethical assumption (efficiency = good) requires a defence (or some qualification). Yes, with the caveat that the 'identification' method may be subject to dispute and to costs. Also, making ownership 'clear' also carries costs. Perhaps. Waste according to who?

Thelonius: I suggest a fifth possibility: Recognizing their inability to efficiently/effectively resolve their dispute by themselves, they defer to an exogenous arbiter.

True. And then there's the rhetoric of alliances abandoned, despite the fact that the alliance terms were not invoked and would not cover this false, illegal 'war'.

I came up with this hypothetical talking with Hugo and I thought it might make an interesting further digression for others on its own. ... Two men are walking in the wilderness. Man X arrives at a cherry tree and sits beneath it in the shade. Two minutes later Man Y arrives and starts picking cherries. They confront eachother and each asserts his exclusive rights to control and dispose of the tree. What resolves this dispute and why/how?

Your first sentence makes sense. You second sentence less so. The apparent distinction between legal rules and moral rules unclear. As between legal rules and moral rules, the former have an operational existence between people, the latter do not (unless they are embodied in the former). it makes your argument merely a normative opinion about how 'rights' ought to be ordered. As for the contention 'nothing shall interfere with free will' there are two problems. First, as you conceded, there is the inherent limit imposed by the countervailing rights of other individuals to also be free. This is not a mere note-in-passing, it must be given effect in order that theorizing remains internally consistent. One cannot say: I am free to burn my computer unless it soots up my neighbors home, therefore I am absolutely free to burn my computer. Without necessarily disagreeing, again, I think your statement needs a closer evaluation. Valuable to whom? If he took it when my back was turned that would be an act of violence (seizure) exercised against my property. Oh dear. I had so hoped we were making progress, but your back in the tautology: you contend that property is that which only violence or your will can alienate from you, then you define violence as any alienation of 'property' against your will. A full circle. Perhaps a hypothetical will help: Two men are walking in the wilderness. Man X arrives at a cherry tree and sits beneath it in the shade. Two minutes later Man Y arrives and starts picking cherries. The confront eachother and each asserts his exclusive rights to control and dispose of the tree. What resolves this dispute and why/how? But your use of the rock interferes with my will to use the rock myself. Why should I suffer my will to be frustrated in service to your will when I can simply take your rock? No. That point is a non sequitur from my arguments. It is only an non sequitur from where you THINK your argument goes, but in fact your argument has not yet precluded the applicability of that framework. Your justification for property so far does not sensibly preclude the rightness of force. Impossible. The rules of 'ownership' you assert are the very matter under question. I am presently showing you that they are logically hollow, and so, I can hardly apply to them in justifying anything. Well, I gave you two alternative definitions for property earlier. In the absense of rule of law, property is whatever you can obtain and hold against others who may try to take it from you. In the presense of rule of law, your property is whatever your society says it is and will assist you in defending against others who would try to take it from you. I think a difficulty between us in this discussion is the understanding of 'rights'. I think your use of the concept incorporates a normative element, whereas mine does not. Inclusion of the normative element is problematic in that it requires a separate justification from the descriptive. I withdraw my accusation of lying on the condition that you give me an example of a "liberal democracy" as you define it. I accept your withdrawal, but reject the notion that any 'condition' is applicable. Instead I will give you reasons to reject the US as a good example of the liberal democracy I mean. You can decide which states in the world are better in these respects. First, the US taxes its citizens resident or not, on worldwide income. In effect, you cannot opt out of Uncle Sam's racket. Second, I believe that conscription would be considered legal and legitimate by the American state. There may be other reasons, but these suffice. I don't mean to say this harshly, but I defy you to give any content to that statement. Non-coercive law is self-contradictory. A normative imperative only becomes a law when it is made the subject of coercibility. I.e. the implication of coercion is an essential condition of being 'law'. You must be more coherent in your positions. Don't let rhetoric confuse you. The statement quoted above is not consistent with your other assertion, ie. the universal morality of 'Lockean' free will. If I will not consent to your freedom, what do you do? Well, some time ago I asked you to show me a monopoly that came into existence without state fiat. You were unable to. Even if there were no such example, the existence of state action does not preclude the monopoly being justified by market theory. This brings us back to the question of who owns Canada. The government can only say I consent to their laws by being on their territory if it is, in fact, their territory. That position is incorrect, which can see when the proper pronouns are used: Our state can only say I consent to our laws being on our territory if it is, in fact, our territory. You could say it, but you can't enforce it. Why not? What do you lack that the state commands? Of course. This is how the government is able to violate our rights. It has told us that they are not our rights at all. What distinguishes a 'right' from a demand?

Just entitlement. The natural right is the right I can give myself without any other individual having granted it to me, nor that I have appropriated without infringing upon the right of another to give himself the right. If I am the only human being in existence and I come upon, say, a rock, I can claim it for myself and use it for whatever I want, constrained only by laws which do not come from man at all (i.e. the laws of physics). I need no force or any other human being to do this. This concept makes no sense. You are alone on an island. You wave a rock about. In what way does a man alone on an island need or use a 'right'? If an ape alone on an island waved the rock, is he exercising a right too? To take into my possession. So what is 'possession'? Surely you are capable of giving meaning to you ideas beyond simply substitution of approximate synonyms. Because if a second man comes along and wants my rock, he cannot acquire it without resort to force or negotiation. Two questions: What if he takes it when your back is turned? What makes resort to force a wrongful way to acquire your 'possession'? Indeed. He has put forth greater effort for the rock, and so deserves to 'own' it, right? Well, that is technically the case in law as it stands: Citizens hold all their landed property 'of the crown'. But in terms of political economy, we can speak in terms of sovereign authority rather than 'ownership'. My reply would be meaningless to you, in the absense of a usable understanding of 'own'. That, simply, is a lie. Failing to file a tax return in the US is punishable by one year in prison. :angry: Be careful with that word, 'lie'. Who says the US is a liberal democracy? And do you then reject all law? Monopolies don't exist in a fair market. Nonsense. The are consenting by not departing. Whatever. Wherever I have permission to do it from the rightful owner, and with anyone who also gives their permission (assuming I also consent to both). Ask them! How should I know? If they willingly consent to whatever it is I'm doing, either there's something in it for them, or they just don't care. Either way, I'm not violating their rights, which remain the same as mine. It's a shame you didn't address my main point at the end of that series. Exactly. But before you start about "impact on society", the anarchist viewpoint is that unless you can identify a specific individual or individuals upon whom your act is impacting, there is no other party, no victim. Fine that does nothing to disturb my position. 'Rights' (including any ostensible rights to property) only have meaning to the extent they are given effect by and through the people around you. But I can choose not to have a phone. And you can choose not to live in Canada. A country that practices conscription is not practicing liberal democracy.

... , basically, a thing that I acquire right of disposal over by being the first to appropriate it, the first to labour upon it, or by gift, bequest or exchange. That definition cannot serve, I'm afraid. First, it merely purports to define by reference to another equally indeterminate word, 'right'. Okay, what do you mean by 'right'? Second, it's propositions need more support/explanation: what does it mean to 'appropriate'? Why is being first relevant to this 'right'? What makes a gift valid? Which means he couldn't answer my questions. When something cannot be justified, it is often described as natural or self-evident. Classical liberal philosophers. .... Sorry, I posed the wrong question. WHAT says you """'own'""" the products of your labour? (Try parsing that several ways before you answer.) But there is no option whether or not to pay the fee or receive the benefit. In the case of Canada, you do have an option. You can leave any time and seek a better deal in the international marketplace. Plus, if you're a citizen, Canada will always welcome you back on it's the standard prevailing terms at your option. Not anymore, in the world's liberal democracies. Unless corrupted, a liberal democracy is not a monopoly, it is a co-operative. To the extent and (uncorrupted) liberal democracymight provide for a monopoly, it is so due to the competitive advantage a single provider can achieve in a fair market. Because liberty - the right to do as you choose - hinges upon property. The choice to do WHAT as you choose? The choice to do it where, and with who? What's in it for them? If your choice involves another person you must answer the last question sensibly. To make such an answer, you cannot isolate property (or indeed any other 'right') from a social interest. The only other option is to live alone in the woods (where you can discuss your 'rights' with the bears and the bugs). You can only do as you choose with your property, which ties into your further point: Yes, that's MY point. Your premise of self-as 'property' is a superfluous abstraction, used fallaciously to underpin the tautology I pointed out to you. You're constructing a strawman out of an example by attaching conditions to it, changing the example in a way you think is beneficial to your viewpoint. Attack the argument. That is an attack on the argument. Your example is flawed because it is reductionist and fails to validly test/prove your position. Okay, so what 'right' do you have to dispose of this property? It seems to me that by YOUR definition, a 'right' is conditioned unavoidably by its impact on others. QED.

Not at all. Not in the least. Taxes (as I mentioned) are a fee collected by the state in return for what it provides. You can pay your taxes, just like your phone bill, with whatever source of funds you may have at your disposal. Conscription puts you bodily in service (at at risk). For you to contend that taxation is a form of enslavement, you must accept that your phone bill is a form of enslavement. I'm not sure that is the right question. Upon attaining adulthood all Canadians are entitled to leave Canada if they find the social contract here does not suit them. In other words, your participation here is not judged as at birth, but rather moment to moment in which you remain.

This can be illustrated by examining taxation and those government decrees of what the individual, or two or more consenting individuals, may do with themselves and their rightful property. To begin with, if we accept Lockean "natural rights" (e.g. that I own myself, I own that property which I can obtain without aggressing against another, etc.), then we must have a right to our property, and only our property. We can do whatever we wish to our own property, but may not interfere with another's property without his consent. If you don't accept Lockean property rights and don't believe that your own body belongs to you, then the rest of this won't make much sense. I'm assuming you do, however. I'm not sure I accept them, at least not the way you formulate them. In particular, 1) I do not accept the equation of personal liberty and 'owning oneself'. It seems to me that the interest (and therefore the rights) a person has in their bodily integrity/sovereignty and their freedom of thought is more than mere ownership. 2) the definition of property tendered is a tautology. I own 'property'. Property is what I 'own'. It takes you nowhere. In fact, there are two definitions of property which apply depending on whether there is rule of law in operation or not. Absent the rule of law, 'property' is whatever you can obtain and keep against whoever tries to take it. Under the rule of law, property is whatever your society says is yours and will help defend on your behalf. Who says you own the products of your labour? But first, explain what you mean by 'own'? You could own your labor but, by passing your labour through someone else's processes for example, not own the product. No, the state charges you the prescribed fee for the benefits you receive as a resident. I agree conscription would be a form of enslavement. But there is no conscription in Canada and it would be of questionable constitutionality now, I believe. Well, here is the turning point of our differences, of course. The state need not own your labour. It merely charges you for your membership, so to speak. I would say it impinges on your right to liberty. Why muck property into this? Whoa, stck with the computer... potentially, setting it alight on you porch could afflict your neighbors. So presumably these neighbours can call on the state to stop you from this disposition of your 'property'. This isn't slavery -- it is precisely within the bound you defined as appropriate. But since state controls are not premised on afflicting your property rights, but are consistent with the very definition you suggest for property, the state is in fact, according to your own terms, NOT enslaving you.

Bill O'Reily's rightwing lies aside, can anyone explain to me who the 'coalition' is defending in Iraq? And against what? It seems to me that the forces there are serving as the take-all-comers boxer on the hick-town bar circuit. Is there a strategy here? What is it?

That's not what I got out of it. It seemed to me that Mr. Parlock is either a professional fabricator or a professional instigator.