Cartman

Some powermongers survive a long time and are not seriously opposed (Stalin). Worse yet, they mange to pursuade people to follow them despite their ruthlessness(Hitler). My argument is that a more sinister state might evolve should the current one be eradicated.

Kimmy Posted on Nov 8 2004, 05:15 PM From Maple's link above.

Here is where our opinions diverge. This is too great a leap of faith for me. We seem to agree that some people would make a "bid for power", but we disagree that others would cooperate/work against her/him. We also disagree insofar as even if people were so enlightened to turn against those bidding for power, they could do so without the use of coercion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dollar_cdn/ Generally, the high loonie seems to be the result of positive economic forces for a change and the weak greenback the result of poor performance in the US. I will start to worry if the US experiences a major selloff.

Has anybody heard of anyone losing their jobs today over the higher dollar? Has anybody? Anybody?

What exactly do you believe is a good level for the dollar Kimmy? Is any change up or down bad? What, if anything, do you think the government should do about it? What do you think is causing it?

August’s political orientation test suggested that I was not quite Stalin, but statist and left-wing nevertheless. For me, current state restraint (coercion) is an unfortunate necessity because of human greed; our current system probably the ideal at the moment. By nature, people are greedy but are also generally receptive to morality; a social creation, people inevitably regress towards the group’s social sentiments. This makes coexistence possible, but not without serious conflict. This is because some people possess low levels of internalized self-control as a result of biology or faulty socialization while others are born into advantaged positions and can more easily press their wills upon others. Both will act egregiously should sufficient opportunities present themselves. Sadly, my conclusion is that we need a democratic state to maintain checks on power and impulse. If memory serves Hugo, in some posts you seem to agree that people are greedy (I think it was in regards to welfare fraud?). But, by promoting anarchy, you suggest that somehow people will be able to sufficiently restrain themselves without coercion. To me, this suggests one of two logical alternatives: 1. You have identified some other aspect of human nature that will surface in anarchy to allow for peaceful coexistence or, 2. You have identified another powerful but possibly elusive social force of restraint. I apologize if you have done so elsewhere, but I would like you to clarify which one, if any, you sustain. I truly respect your ideas and thoughts and hope that no offense will be taken by this post.

In exchange for legal and symbolic benefits, individuals who request the state to marry them allow their relationships to be governed by the state to an extent. The state over-extends its power by regulating common-law relationships as well. By conferring the status of marriage to homosexuals, the state is entitling them to the same benefits (legal and symbolic) currently enjoyed by everyone. Once entrenched, homosexual marriage will be tied to heterosexual marriage. If, however, “civil unions” become the legal status, then the symbolic representation for homosexuals is significantly reduced and the legal benefits can be eroded at any time. I believe that some heterosexuals are afraid that the symbolic benefits will be demeaned if homosexuals are allowed to be married. IMO, this is based entirely on hatred. i.e. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/ Why should I care if the state creates legal subjects of Jane and John or Mary and Jane? How does it affect me? It does not. What disturbs me is that it appears those most opposed to homosexual marriage supposedly use God’s laws to support their position on civil affairs. God has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with my marriage because I was not married in a church and God has nothing to do with homosexuals who choose to be married by the state. The arguments against homosexual marriage have not changed my opinion on this issue, but they have made it abundantly clear that they desire to over-extend their authority into the civil realm by using God’s wishes as support for their arguments. Answer: bestowing the same legal status to homosexuals does not harm heterosexual marriage, it only reduces the ability to discriminate. That is why no hard-right theocrats have responded to your excellent question thus far.

I began this thread because I have read elsewhere (years ago and I have no current link) that Arafat kept the lid on Palestinian frustration. There were/are people scrapping for power in order to puruse a more radical direction to this movement. My understanding is that he was at least open to some dialogue with the US and Israel while these radicals want nothing of the sort. Let us assume that compared to these people, he is a moderate. Think of other events that have transpired just before/since his severe illness and possible death. 1. 911 demonstrated that the US can be attacked physically and economically by terrorists. 2. Osama has demonstrated an ability to carry on terrorism and evade capture. 3. Israel has not exactly inspired hope amongst the Palestinians. 4. Bush has been re-elected and has traditionally supported Israel's position on this matter. Conclusion? Regardless of what you think of the man or what should be on his tombstone, I predict an increase in global terrorism. The people he led will become more frustrated and angry. While Arafat at least met with world leaders, the runners up will increasingly see global terrorism as a viable political tool. Arafat's death = more terrorism and heightened security in the West. Maybe I am reading more into this than need be, but I got a bad feeling that things are going to get much worse after his death. The first problem will be where he is allowed to be buried.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rvey041107.html Well, Canada does not look that bad.

I have no problem with how much we pay for health care here at all. We have a very efficient system especially relative to the United States. But what bugs me is the way we keep getting so many of these little fees added on after we have already paid provincial and federal taxes. I would expect that it would be more efficient for the government to just use the tax base for these fees rather than creating yet another level of bureaucracy. For every layer, there are added costs. I cannot remember the exact costs because it was some time ago, but when Mulroney implemented the GST, a good percentage of the entire take went just to pay for the new bureaucracy that implemented it. I will agree with right wingers on one issue, bureaucracies are incredible at finding ways to get more tax $$ in an effort to be more efficient to spend fewer tax dollars.

Thank goodness the PC party here realizes that this is a regressive tax. Campbell should listen up.

Take, Are you primarily talking about a lack of social interaction here?

oops...me too.

Agreed, they impact some people more than others. All of those little fees do add up in the end. They are really annoying especially after you have already paid your income tax. I think that really irritates people. Health care premiums are a good example. After you have already paid your federal and provincial taxes, the government requires a premium and now considers user-fees? Then there is talk of privatizing services? Sometimes I wonder where my taxes are going. It would be easier for the individual and more efficient to have services paid for entirely by taxation, but I think we know why that has not happened.

HA! Campbell takes on the US...whatever. http://mediresource.sympatico.ca/health_ne...d=&news_id=5187

CBC story on the Alberta election by a former PC...harsh? http://www.cbc.ca/albertavotes2004/comment...one_110104.html

Get a pure Husky. They conserve food and do not gobble it down at once. Its really weird! Education and health care standards and responsibilities are set by the state via Royal Commissions. Supposedly, they represent most Canadians. The responsibility is shared between the state and the individual. When people cannot afford these things, then the state will pick up the tab. We need a healthy, educated populace.

I honestly believe that the answer to this question is simply that if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, they will be perceived on an equal footing to all others and that makes people uncomfortable. Calling it something else keeps the group exclusive.

We have determined that education benefits both the individual and the society at large. Thus, individuals and society pay for it. Health care I would argue is a moral issue that most people accept. Even the Canadian right accepts these responsibilities. So, I guess the answer is the tyranny of the majority.

Hey Terrible Sweal, wanna sign the Moral Majority's petition about gay marriage and sodomy in the US and Canada? Check it out. http://www.onemanonewoman.com/

yup. http://www.ishipress.com/macgregor.htm http://www.falwell.com/?a=p&content=1077559813

Let us assume that Arafat is a terrorist. If he dies, might they not have an even more radical leader? He and others claim that he is a moderate compared to many others in the general movement. Is it inconceivable that they work with Osama at some level and spur on global terrorism? My fear is that Arafat's death will lead to more terrorist acts against the US especially with Bush in office for four more years.

I am doing very well economically. My productivity is demonstrated by the fact that I have two new cars, a new home, an RV, boat etc. Of course, I spent all my record savings and went into record debt but I am still doing great.

It's very difficult to make the case that most behaviour is the result of choice. Human behaviour is incredibly ordered. I maintain that most of our behaviours are ordered in informal ways (i.e. how we gesture, what we do in elevators, what we wear etc.). I am intentionally using trivial examples here to illustrate how pervasive is this order. Equally striking, however, is how many behaviours are patterned by membership in particular groups, not random throughout society. Generally speaking, males and females are expected to behave in certain ways (i.e. women and men dress differently) . How are we to explain why all or most members of a specific social category behave in incredibly similar ways? Is it just coincidence that almost all men and women choose to wear a specific range of clothing each day? No way, they make constrained choices. Males do not wake up and decide between a dress and a suit, they will decide between colours/styles of suits and believe this choice is entirely their own. Going further, I would say that violation of these trivial informal rules can be met with strong opposition and maybe even force. Perhaps there are few state laws dictating dress codes, but the reaction against a violation of this informal order is sufficient enough to ensure most obey it. People can be ignored, avoided, humiliated, shamed, considered irrational and incapable, stupid and unqualified for responsibility etc. etc. And if you do not believe me Hugo and August, then go ahead and wear a dress to work tomorrow. Neither of you will do this because human behaviour is ordered and you are afraid to violate this order due to the consequences. Chances are that these consequences do not include state sanction. Anarchy can only slightly reduce human oppression and may even increase it in some ways (though the latter is another argument). I just meant that one is popular while the other is less so amongst this group. I was a snob, however, when I referred to Phil Collins.