Timothy17

I certainly do not believe that, and if my post somehow alluded to such a belief, than my apologies. By your definition, "individual liberties," is a system that keeps people apart : not brings them together, which would necessarily have a presumed bias in the form of a kind of misanthropy. Tim

Aye, but do the children of men starve for want of a father ? Mom likely does everything humanly possible to ensure her children are fed, but can she replace Dad ? Do rats care who dad is ? They do not. Do people care who dad is ? They certainly do. Does dad let his children starve so he can spend all his money on hookers ? Some might, but legal (at least till recently) and societal props - ushered in by both men and women - manifestly condemn it, and I can say with confidence that I know most men would rather starve themselves than see their children starve.

Lol, you actually provided a good point : married men ten to die younger, which provides a question : if men desired nothing but their own self-gratification, then why on earth would generations of them choose to live a life that rewarded them with an early death ? Wouldn't the power-hungry, domineering man be much happier to remain single, father children through the usual, pleasure-seeking means, and be utterly rid of any obligation to the mother, or his prodigy ? Why not get a brood of children and let mom deal with them ? Isn't it obvious from court cases that the man has a financial incentive not to have a family ? Wouldn't he much rather prefer to dominate as many as possible, increase his wealth, and rather than limiting himself to one woman, open his potential to each and every, as he sees fit ? I therefore continue my initial proposed thesis that Patriarchy is as good for society as it might be for men in particular, as far from creating anti-social tendencies, it actually provides incentives to be more responsible. Mom has a natural, biological prop that assures her presense and stability in society : it's the men who lack this naturally provided boon. So, yes, you are right : if happiness is now defined by modern man as a liberty from all responsibility in life, then matriarchy is certainly a boon for him ; however, if he believes that in responsbility he finds his real freedom, and his ultimate fulfillment, then patriarchy becomes the better way, as that system, and only that system, ensures his actual and realized role within society, by conjoining him to, and ensuring his presense in, his family. Tim

Actually, this provides an excellent opportunity for a point : why are homosexual partnerships presumed not to be about dominance ? Why is partiarchal marriage viewed with suspicion in the traditional sense, but seen as a boon in the novel sense, as in homosexual partnerships ? I stipulate that homosexual unions are different due to nature : in them there is no biological props that need to be balanced. The delicacy and complexity of heterosexual unions is due to a balancing of the biological prop, which is the monopoly given by nature to women. It is this monopoly, this biological prop that creates the required social and legal props to ensure and secure male participation in the family, without which - or in absence of - the incentives for competent male participation in society are diminished, if not destroyed, and the male becomes more of a stud or a peripheral to the family, and the dead-beat dads, and the virtually fatherless children are a consequent by-product. I propose that in Western civilization we came to recognize that Mom is a sure thing : Dad, not a sure thing, but if and when present, surely a good thing. Tim

You said, "Western liberty is that each person is afforded as much freedom as reasonably be guaranteed." What I am proposing to debate here is the reasonableness of guaranteeing a matriarchy, by comparing the merits of the two systems. Seeing as patriarchy is the system under question at present, it would logically follow that we convict the system in court before we kill it, which I believe is a very reasonable freedom to grant it in accordance with Western notions of liberty In other, previous posts, I have noted that Western Patriarchy cannot possibly be entirely about dominance, though conceeded that much like anything, it can be abused by those who desire dominance ; in fact, Patriarchy actually limits dominance due to its exclusivity principle : one man cannot marry every single woman, and thus shut-out all the other men, while dominating all the women. Furthermore, I would assert that Patriarchy recognizes the right of children to have access to their fathers, as much as can be reasonably guaranteed, and also permits what nature has not ; namely, the inalienable inclusion of a man in and with his family. I assert my belief, presently held, that without social and legal props this position of the man is precarious, and without it the man is deprived of a litany of natural incentives to be a competent, responsible, and beneficial member of society, if only for the sake of his children. If there is one consensus I have heard from working, married men about why they bother with all the stresses of work and family life, it is exactly because of their families. Family men more often than not work for their families, and single men often work, study, etc., for the sake of, and hope for, a family. The Patriarchal system thereby provides an incentive for males to be competent and active members of society. Arguably they can, by education and indoctrination, be conditioned to have that mentality, but the very real and present needs of a living family can hardly compare to a whimsical, ideological notion, especially as a means to justify any kind of suffering or social limits. Tim

I think I know where you are coming from ; however, I feel I cannot engage on these grounds, as it seems to be begging a chicken and the egg argument. Patriarchy was the default staple from which modern society sprouted, so it is difficult for me to assume that less patriarchy = more society, technology or economy : society, or rather civilization, was advancing even under Patriarchal rudiments, and it did this, in my opinion, with more social cohesion and stability than the present societal construct is affording us. Obviously I will have to disagree that with the evidence you cited comes the conclusion that it is necessarily better this way. If economic growth and technological advancement were not possible under a Patriarchy, then there simply would be no society or civilization for the past so many centuries, if not millenia. Take, for example, the Romans, considered to be pioneers and forerunners of all things civilized, though borrowing heavily from a Greek foundation and infuence. The Romans had an interesting society from the point of view of our debate/discussion, because in it we witness the birth of a new social class, the Patricians, quite literally, patriarchal families, as opposed to the general population, the plebeians. The disctinction is evidenced in their respective names ; the former were characterized by their Patri-ness (literally, father-ness, which is the root for our word patriot, for example), the latter, as being people (pleb). Admittedly, they gained this distinction also due to their participation as being "fathers" of the Republic ; nonetheless, the tales surrounding the myth of the birth of their Republic clearly demonstrate the cause of the Republic was due to patriarchal incentives : namely, the protection of the chastity of someone's daughter. We can conclude from this that the key distinguishing characteristic between these two social classes was the strictly patriarchal organization of the Senate-class, a class that lead Rome to world power, but a division that constantly wracked the Roman Republic with internal problems, especially between the Patrician and Plebian classes, resulting in numerous civil upheavals. The example of the patricians eventually fused its way down and into Roman society, and before long the monopoly of the patricians became purely oligarchal and aristocratic, as the one custom that distinguished them from the greater body of citizens evaporated. This custom of the patricians was principally a patrilineal system of descent and wealth transference, which protected the property of that class and ensured its passing on to future generations, which provided a legal prop to earn (or at least acquire) wealth. Like any society, the question became how to properly earn that wealth in a manner that kept the peace and benefit society as a whole. Later, the patricians would, by becoming members of the Senate, actually be disbarred from traditional means of earning wealth, and encouraged to improve their education and general learning and to occupy themselves entirely with statesmanship, so as to provide a final reason (or excuse) for their cherished perogative to be the sole governing class. While hardly a perfect example, I believe this demonstrates that a patriarchal organization of society is by no means a hindrance to its "social evolution," but rather a prop and spur for its development and growth, principally by ensuring and protecting the participation of males in the family, which by virtue of that fact connects them to their past, places them in the immediate needs of the present, and also gives them cause to be concerned for tomorrow, and for the future, via their certain prodigy. Tim

I agree with you, though I don't know about the envangelical comment, and will have to take it for granted ! What I am insinuating is the Western ideal that authority be granted through service, as in the ancient Greek / Homeric saying, "He who serves his country best, serves me [i.e., the king] most." There is a tendency that the responsible person, demonstrated by actually caring, merits the leadership role in any situation, and the one who produces this "actually caring," that is, being responsible and rendering the services needed, begets the authority to do so. We generally have the same belief, for example, in the workplace, where the hardest working and most competent persons, and those who have served longest, are generally seen to be entitled to any advancement or promotion that may become available, and promoting along these lines diminishes any potential dispute. If it works in the workplace, it ought to work in the family, too. Please don't expect me to make an apology for polygamy : I concede that polygamy today has no other justification than a pursuit of power and necessarily requires an obnoxious and overly aggrandized notion of self-importance. I agree, which is exactly why it becomes necessary and binding, as a discipline, so as to produce effective and competent leadership ; the only thing more likely to be wrought with problems is an, as I have said, absolute "equal partnership," wherein the family breaks at each and every instance of disagreement. And again, I agree in principle, which is why the Western Patriarchy system demanded exclusivity and was indissoluble - even if the woman was incapable of bearing children. The showdown with King Henry VIII demonstrates this historically in my opinion. The default societal belief was that he was bound to his wife regardless and independent of the fact she did not produce for him any male heirs. His lust for power - even the King of England's - was not sufficient grounds for undermining the Western notion of what constituted the Patriarchal organization of society. Tim

Thank you Melanie for your input, I will wrack my brain and flush out my thinking : The benefit is, principally and chiefly, for the children, and especially for their socialization, as having the sure presence of both Mom and Dad, representing the dignity of both the male and masculine principles. I therefore propose that a Patriarchal marriage is not, and cannot be, "equal partnership," in the context of "power-sharing," because ultimately, and in effect, the parents, each and both, are made to serve their children, which begets the reciprocal right to be obeyed or respected by their children. Arguably, a woman in a Partiarchal marriage could be granted "head of household" status under the law, wherein she becomes responsible before the courts for the behaviour of her husband and children in the one sense, or, in another, in the ultimate or final decision making of the family, as in where to live, where to educate the children, etc. ; however, a truly "equal" partnership in that regard becomes an impossibility, as it would require and assume consent by both parties (husband and wife) in each and every decision, even when those decisions are not active, but reactive, wherein a decision must be made or needless consequences are suffered. In each instance of any disagreement, in a theoretically "equal" partnership, there would be, for all intents and purposes, a divorce in practice, which would make each marriage a long string of perpetual "divorces" whenever a consensus agreement could not be reached ; therefore, the stipulation that there at least be a head of the household to ensure the unity and solidarity of the family, and prevent its breaking up, becomes logical and practical. I concede, however, that there is no obvious reason why the male should enjoy this perogative always and by default, but I think it owing largely to Christian discipline and teaching that the male be the head of the household, and so where there was doubt (who ought lead the household?) the Christian Scriptures were consulted as the definitive in formulating the social organization of the West. Tim

I whole-heartedly agree. If it were possible, then every nation on earth would pass a single, simple law : love one another, but as authentic love is impossible to coerce or manufacture, it is generally admonished by example or as advice instead. I am forced to first object, and then disagree. Objection : You said, "Patriarchal societies are incompatible with our Western notions of liberty." This I must refuse to accept, owing as it is that the philosophical liberalism that is the mainstay of our Western notion of liberty originates with men who were raised in, and themselves engaged in, a Patriarchal organization of society. They had plenty of opportunity to repudiate this, and never did. What might be more accurate is to say instead, "Patriarchal societies are incompatible with our [recent, modern] Western notions of liberty." Patriarchy is a very Western system of social organization. Matriarchy was simply unheard of, as no societies were discovered until the Age of Exploration that actually existed formally or purely along matrilineal lines. Finally, I am forced to disagree outright as there are, indeed, strong social incentives in Patriarchal societies to engage in the patriarchal system, but there is no possible way to force someone to say, "I will," and "I do," as such coercion or force would necessarily repudiate the vow or oath then being taken, and annul the whole deal. That latter stipulation, that marriage is always and by necessity must be freely entered into by both parties, without hesitation or even objection from a witness, guarantees the bedrock notions of Western liberty. Tim

I am inclined to agree in part ; however, I would stress that the patriarchical model is not a stress of power as in a desire for despotic control over other human beings, as the mandatory monogamy and exclusiveness of patriarchical marriage would thus become an incumberment (sp?) to your proposed thesis ; namely, "the lust for power over other human beings," but a counter-balance of power so as to necessarily permit the male involvement in the family context. I readily admit your concern as absolutely valid in the examples you have given, and concede that the patriarchical model can, has been and is abused so as to satisfy an unnatural and excessive love of power, and love of self, whereas it ought to have the opposite effect, wherein "power" is begotten by a loving, even mandatory service, as in our democratic models wherein authority is vested and gotten through service ; hence, all of our elected officials are also, by necessity, public servants. In all my reading, one of the inalienable rights of the woman in a patriachical marriage is the right to be loved by her husband, and this is unconditional. Tim

I have to confess, as in my previous post, that this point was stressed by others in my studying, and readily admit its culpability to controversy. Near as I can tell, it is another - specifically legal - prop to counter-balance the naturally lacking biological prop ; further, in the event of a divorce, the headship would by default be utterly repudiated (divorce literally means the complete dissolution and repudiation of the marriage, as if it never even happened) ; however, in our current legal system this is obviously denied : the male is still expected to be a provider, but not a protector, of his family, particularly in alimony (to the woman) and especially in child-support payments, for at least as long as the children are deemed to be "children," in the eyes of the law. Now, I imagine that eventually this broad discussion will have to make recourse to discussions of divorce and the particular rational therefore, but right now I am speaking broadly of what can be called the "patriarchical ideal," wherein divorce would be a very rare event, and legal seperation more likely.

I must confess I know not what a 2IC is.

That is an important question, and an assumption even I appear to have carried over without due care ! I believe, however, the "head of the family," is not meant purely in terms of family decision making, but specifically "head" in law ; i.e., its representative, spokes-person or manifestation, as in court dealing with other members of the family ; that is, he is entirely and inalienably responsible for his family, whether this acquires him blame or praise. This is a legal, not a social, prop, that forces him to take responsibility for the social, and legal, props he enjoys by virtue of law in a patriarchal society. That is my opinion and very maleable thinking on the "head of the family" stipulation which I also found as being deemed "necessary" in the little pro-patriarchy apologetic literature I have been able to find.

Lol, well, I appreciate your candidness ; however, I am not sure exactly what it's supposed to mean. I am going to presume that you mean patriarchy has been tried before ("been there, done that"), and this experiment somehow got boring ("wore out the t-shirt")?

Hello my fellow Canadians, I wish to begin a general discussion of the modern concept or thinking in regards to what is known as, or thought to be, patriarchy. What does it mean to you? Since the cultural upheavals of the 1960's, we have seen what I think can fairly be called the demonization of "patriarchy," so much so that its topic is almost taboo, and few - if anyone - even know what that term entails or actually describes, at least as witnessed in my own personal experience. I, like I am sure others like me, who were raised and schooled secularly, originally associated patriarchy with a perverse male sexism that excluded entirely women and children from any benefit of law, and most benefits of society or civilization in general. However... My modern, adult experience of the effects of this belief in practice (namely, the demonization of patriarchy, which has filtered down to a near demonization of all men, especially in their capacities as fathers or husbands)has had radical effects on the modern family and social experience ; namely, in the enormous and rampant rise of children growing up virtually fatherless, of rampant and easy divorce and re-marriage (constituting a new family, the "extended family"), and, finally, in a built-in legal bias towards women, especially as it regards children/custody. I am going to throw my neck out there by stating unequivocally that I have now developed a strong bias and support of patriarchy, as I understand it ; naturally, no one would support the demonized version of what is called "patriarchy," so I hope my self-nomination as a patriarch, or pro-patriarchy Canadian will cause a little scandal and lead you, dear reader, to wonder how I could possibly don such a universally despised mantle as it is currently understood, and risk exposure to so much animosity and hatred. The Merits of Patriarchy First and foremost, patriarchy is the sole system of social organization that actually actively encourages - and yes, even protects - the male role and involvement in the family. It accomplishes this in three ways, by establishing him as : i) Head of the household, ii) Sole-father ; sole-husband, and iii) Protector and provider. The other side of patriarchy is matriarchy, which is also patriarchy's antithesis, and repudiates the aforementioned involvement, at least in one or more points, and virtually expels, as it were, the male from the home or makes him hopelessly dependent upon the favor of the mother (that is, in its fullest, his fall from her favour disqualifies him from membership in the family ; that is, in the home, and makes him highly and easily replaceable, as is evident from all martiarchical societies, even today). Patriarchy, by its systematic inclusion of men as essential and necessary members of the family, uses social props, specifically legal props, to protect his otherwise precarious attachment to the family unit. I say precarious because the man, for the most part, has absolutely no power or control over the begetting of a family itself : this privilege nature has betowed upon women as in a monopoly. She can never doubt who her children are ; he, however, has no such certainty, outside of the patriarchical organization of society and its social, specifically legal, props, which support his position as an inalienable member of his family, and condemns the kind of promiscuity that might endanger his certainty of what constitutes "his" family. Now, it comes time to debate whether the inclusion of the male as an inalienable member of the family produces "good" or "bad" fruits ; that is, to debate its merits for society : for men, women, children, and possibly the state, individually or as a whole. It would appear that the law is heavily leaning away from patriarchy, and is virtually establishing a matriarchy by default, wherein the woman has, naturally, her biological monopoly on one hand, and further is also given a litany of social and legal props that aggrandize her position, and her power, in society, especially as it regards society's basic and fundamental unit, the family, which is -by legal default- undeniably not only by nature, but also by law, chiefly "hers." At this point, I welcome questions, criticisms, objections, etc., as I hope to get a lay of the land, as it were, on the modern Canadian's understanding of patriarchy. Thank you for your help, Tim

Hello my fellow Canadians. As a Catholic Canadian I feel obliged to shed some light on the Holy Father's words here, and share with you how Catholics understand this statement. First, please understand the Holy Father was discussing a i) "new," and ii) "militant" Atheist extremism that he is especially concerned with in Europe, and also in the British isles. Very often, I should note, Pope's have spoken in a "you know who you are, and now you know we know who you are," style. The Holy Father's words are not directed against ahteists, but certain philosophies that are atheistic. Owing to the locality of the ideology he is concerned with, it is not unexpected that North Americans would be shocked by such a statement, as the thinking which the Holy Father is concerned with isn't identifiable in Canadian or American culture and media. In Europe, there is and has been a powerful drive to de-Christianize that continent, especially in outward or public displays of Faith. Controversial court battles and rulings dealing with, for example, the banning of wearing a Cross or especially a Crucifix in public is unheard of here in North America, but for whatever reason certain nations in the E.U seem to find some legal pretext with a mandatory secularization of all public scapes, which is understood as meaning the exclusion of all and any religion. Christianity is hardly exclusive in being targeted for suprression by the law, the Burka (sp?) issue in France is another example, and I believe something similar is being debated in Spain as well. The Holy Father knows all-too-well the sorrows of National Socialism. He was conscripted at a tender age and made to fight in Hitler's army, though fortunately he suffered an injury to his hand/fingers (if I recall correctly) during his training, which made him useless to be employed in conventional weapons handling. His stint in the army was brief as he, like so many other young men - boys, really - were desperately enlisted in the final days of Hitler's war. I believe he was stationed to a disfunctional Anti-Aircraft station in or near Berlin, but he claims that he never fired a shot from it, due to his inability (owing to his hand injury), the brevity of his service, a lack of actual munition, and also the general disrepair the station was in. Posters on this forum are correct to note that Hitler, especially in his early career, made flagrant use of God and invoked that name specifically in his primitive literature especially. Bear in mind, however, that his target audience is Christian Germany, though he presumed that this Christianity was chiefly nominal (rather than actual or practical) due to the general disaffection and disenfranchisement of the German people following the First World War. Now, I have to confess I find it not a little disrtubing and naive to assume that Hitler's earliest writings were somehow different from his later ones in terms of motive or intent : the National Socialist philosophy made no quarrel over lying and believed strongly in an ends justify the means progrom. The so-called "Final Solution" itself is evidence of this mentality ; therefore, I find it incredulous to imagine that simply because Hitler invoked God meant Hitler actually believed in God, least of all the Christian God : his actions and programs clearly demonstrate he had no such belief, or that he at least conveniently exempted himself from every moral obligation that constitutes the Christian's worship of God, wherein we are commanded to worship God by holy (moral) living, self-denial, service of others, etc. I therefore hold that Hitler's use of the name of God was meant to distract and attract his German audience at that time, that in keeping with his philosophy he had no qualms abusing or invoking God's name if such a practice were to be rewarded with power, or be justifiable "in the end." By the end of the Nazi regime, the Fuhrer was for all intents and purposes "God," and in Nazi Germany God was manifested in the persona of Hitler as Fuhrer. Righteousness was perverted into service of the Fatherland, and obedience to the Party especially. Personality cults often develop in despotic regimes, and are almost required to justify the limitless jurisdiction, authority and power of the dictator into every sphere of public and private life. The chief concern of Catholic intellectuals over the atheism in question is its specifically anti-Christian bent, which naturally concerns His Holiness as Shepherd of the Church Universal. If a brand of anti-Americansim were to spread, no one would critisize the POTUS for expressing alarm about it ; in fact, some would even think it almost criminal if he did not warn the public in regards to it, especially if it manifested as violence. Please recall that Catholics do not believe in many secular status quo's, such as abortion, divorce, etc., and the Church - and the Pope especially - is bound by conscience, duty and office to defend the moral code of Christianity, and to protect the free and public exercise of worship by Christians, which includes especially (as I have mentioned earlier) holy living. Pax (Latin for "Peace"), Tim

No, I know the Coalition was unpopular because it was unpopular then as it is still unpopular now. It's synonymous with fiasco. Do you honestly think if we started hearing talk of a "Coalition" again, Canadians would do anything except roll their eyes and strike their palms on their foreheads? That random disconnect between Parliament and the living will of the people is exactly what Canadians detest. That is undemocratic for Canadians; it is, as I have said, contrary to Canada's sense of democracy. This kind of back and forth is what I meant about Parliament not having some right to veto reason and common sense. Canadians have expectations for our Parliament, based on a long relationship with it. It was no surprise the Tories formed minority governments. What is and would be a surprise would be the Tories not forming the government due to a sudden, unexpected and undefined Coalition suddenly seizing the reigns. Benevolent as their intent might be, Canadians do not like or want to be relegated to mere spectators in the political process, and there is no reason why we must be. Parliament is not a Gladiator ring in Canada: It is not a casting of the die; it is not Caesar crossing the rubicon, with the Canadian people being told to take it and then, later, being asked to decide whether or not they like it. October surprises are an American thing, not a Canadian one.

You brought up the polling figures; not I. The Coalition was simply unpopular, the polls reflected what was already known. It's a stunt? I thought it was Constitutional. Sounds like a good description of Canadian politics to me. Are you refering to the "blood and steel" bit you mentioned? Again, simply because the system permits does not make it right. There's something entertaining about the idea of a less popular government ousting a more popular one. In extreme cases of abuse, this I could see. Like if it were a last ditch effort to save democracy from Hitler's National Socialists. But I don't think Harper's CPC is setting out to destroy democracy and take over the world. I think Canadians have pretty well negated a Parliament's freedom to create a soup dejour at their whim and fancy. Again, it may be par for the course elsewhere, but Canadians expect Parliament to reflect their will, and obey their wishes. The Coalition fiasco is proof of that. It is perfectly lawful for them not to; nonetheless, that doesn't make it right or acceptable. Sounds fuzzy and obscured. Doesn't sound right to me. But then, I am one of those silly average Joe's who need a what-for about understanding that Parliament can run amock whether I, or most or even all of us like it or not. Because it's Constitutional. You would know better than I. I think they were thinking the Coalition was a surprise that nobody wanted. The Coalition was misinformed, and soon corrected, in that Canadians have expectations for Parliament, and those expectations are the reality, just as much as our Constitutional Westminster system is also the reality. You seem to still think I am arguing like I thought the Coalition was illegal or unconstitutional; I know it was neither. The Coalition could have seized power and become the government against everyone's desires or wishes, and it is exactly that which Canadians detest. I am arguing as ever that in Canada it is understood that Parliament obeys the will of the people, and a systematic possibility does not veto reason or common sense.

It was not the will of the electorate. They didn't elect an unforseen, unexpected Coalition. They elected their parties respectively. There was no Coalition option before them, and when there was, they were decidedly opposed to it; therefore, I confidently say, the Coalition was not the will of the people. I have not a little more faith in the Canadian people. We are not discussing other countries; I am not even talking about them. I am interested in mine. No, I am pretty sure a super majority of Canadians believe Parliament ought obey their will and express their wishes. As you know, I disagree. The Westminster system includes unwritten but understood rules. That Parliament is not a hired agent who can, once hired, do whatsoever it pleases even if contrary to the will of its client is not only illogical, I would venture that it is even an unwritten rule in Canada that Parliament, as I have argued, always obey the will of the people as a first priority. It is expected Parliament will behave in a predictable manner, and not make some wild spectacle of itself, especially if that doesn't reflect reality "on the ground." We don't believe in runaway Parliaments, whether they are allowed to run away or not is immaterial. Parliamentarians, possessing the faculty of reason, have no warrant to divorce themselves from the will of the people, as if they were incapable of sensing or knowing it. They have the freedom to, of course, but not the right to, and the Coalition fiasco, in my opinion, has demonstrated that.

Agreed. I actually like the present composition of parliament exactly because it mitigates the CPC's ability to enforce their party's agenda. I think a statement that the system should serve us, and not the other way around, deserves a better rebuttal. Over 50%. That's a majority in democracy and a super-majority in the first past the post system. No, it exists in the minds of Canadians, and therefore becomes a political reality. I invoke what are essentially North American ideas. You wrote something about pathological compartamentalization... I admire your historical knowledge. That being said, had Harper gone through with it I imagine their would have been a similar uproar, assuming the Canadian people were decidedly against it, as they were with the Coalition. This argument only strengthens my point of Canadians expecting Parliament to be an expression of their will. You don't like Harper's proposal anymore than anyone liked Dion's. We don't need to demonize and insult. I agree he has. But name me one Head of Government or State who hasn't. You're right, we should always demand better from our leaders and representatives, but unless Jesus comes back a Canadian politician I doubt we will have an impeccable politician at the helm. I'm not sure what you mean here. So what if it was Constitutional? So is using the media, espusing rhetoric, proroguing Parliament; that doesn't make it a popular or even a good idea. That doesn't make it right. You are reinforcing my point that Canadians expect Parliament to behave and obey their wishes as a priority to all other things. They aren't my favorite party. I was a liberal until recently, and in many respects still am. I am your definition swing voter. I don't like the Conservative party's atmosphere, culture or posture. No, I certainly didn't. As I pointed out above, you are as guilty of that as I am. I repeat my point: In Canada, Parliament is expected to obey the will of Canadians, and simply because our system permits an action does not make it right or even acceptable. This is not some American idea; it is a firmly Canadian one.

Yes, except that the coalition was not why they voted for their party. Had that been the case, then the Coalition would have formed the government without any public outrage.

That sounds extreme. Alright, now I am getting weary of this. Again, this sounds more and more like elitism. I do understand our system. I know what a Westminster system is and how Parliament functions. Please stop insinuating that I am ignorant. I believe that Parliament and Parliamentarians should respect the will of their electorates. The Coalition was not their will. Justifying any seizure or transfer of power with a systematic exploit is dangerous. The system serves us, not the other way around. This is understood. We are a democratic society expressed in a Parliament; now everyone and anyone can freely argue about the quality of Parliament, few would argue about democracy. It's democracy that produces the Parliament, and Parliament is measured by how well it serves democracy. What the Coalition did was grossly unpopular and for good reason. The Coalition was not unpopular because Canadians are ignorant or stupid. It was unpopular because they expect their goverment, their Parliament, to behave in a certain way. Again, while the system might permit a possibility, that does not make the possibility acceptable. It ultimately undermines the credibility of the system as a vehicle for democracy. I understand you are passionate here, but please, that is an obvious insult not only to my intelligence but also to my patriotism. Again, please consider how odd that sounds. Government is formed in and of Parliament, it therefore has a mandate from the people. The difference in this instance is that the proposed Coalition had no mandate from the electorate. It was a new creature introduced by a sitting Parliament; unquestionably Parliament's composition would have been different had the electorate been aware of a Coalition possibility. Reason, reason, reason. It was the will of the opposition party leaders to form a Coalition government, not the electorate. Everyone knew this. I wasn't arguing the system. I was arguing that the nature of the action was contrary to Canada's sense of democracy. The Prime Minister had every right to use public opinion, via the media, to bring Parliament in line. He knew Canadians did not want a Coalition government. He did not break the law by saying Parliament is doing something you, the electorate, never wanted. What was immaterial to Canadians was that the system permitted the action; what was material to them was Parliament obey their will. Rhetorical tripe is worthless if it doesn't carry weight with the people. It did carry weight. His argument was better than the coalition's. His argument was in line with what Canadians wanted and expected. The Coalition was not. The Coalition used the parliamentary system to broker a power grab; Harper used that same parliamentary system, combined with the media and public opinion to put a stop to the action. To conclude, simply because something is possible in our Parliamentary system does not at once make it right or acceptable. The opposition leaders should have realized they were risking the credibility of the Westminster system in the eyes of Canadians by their action. I understand they felt they had little choice; nonetheless, that is exactly how Canadians felt when they took action, like we had no choice but to accept whatever it was those three party leaders felt fit to bestow on Canada.

I find that remark most unfair. In the rest of my post I explained that a Coalition government was not presented to the electorate when formulating that Parliament; had it been, the Prime Minister's rhetoric of the coalition being undemocratic would have been nonsense.

I think, Bob, I didn't express myself well if that's how it came across. One could mention the slave trade as an example of an industry (now dead, thankfully) that ultimately profited from injustice. The fact that is was profitable made it difficult to stop. Simply fining (e.g, for excessive abuse(s)) or heavily taxing something like the slave trade would not have served justice, regardless of how much "good" those public revenues did. I'm not sure I want to start thinking about it lol- there's probably a lot of economic activity that is not only needless but inherently destructive. One of the arguments levied against Free Trade was the use of child labour; however, that was not confined to any one industry, and the practice has been persecuted by law for some time now. As an extreme example, though I understand not shared by all, I would venture to say the abortion industry is one example of economic activity had at the expense of justice. Well, in my original post I said a wise government (in Real Politik terms) would make a point of exacting punitive revenues from corporations that were found to be engaged in illegal activity. Determining the balance of when and how much and for what would be an interesting discussion. Well, we could say certain companies that accepted the Bail Outs were cut a lot of slack. These companies had voluntarily engaged in reckless and irresponsible behaviour and helped jeopardize the entire economy by it. Why they fancied themselves worthy of being saved while so many thousands, even millions of others were left destitute begs the question. Can it be said that excessive and risky speculation has been curbed by the governments reaction to the behaviour of these firms? Bail Out plus future regulation of an industry that already imploded itself seems somewhat redundant: the activity destroyed itself, and I doubt anyone is planning to go through that all over again. More likely, they are seeking the next easy money maker.

And mine in turn. Though, to be frank, when you brought up Quietism I had a disturbing recollection: When I was a young boy in history class, I remember asking myself how the German people could have allowed themselves to, via the actions of their government, be complicit in such terrible crimes against humanity. There was this begging "Why?" and "How?" ringing in my head. I dare say, in the future, it is not implausible some student, somewhere, may be looking back on us, and our government, with the figures and all those "0s" of the death toll before them, and begging to know the same.