Jump to content

Jackboots and Stormtroopers.....


Sabre Rider

Recommended Posts

Imagine if you will, you have put up a sign of protest in your front window denouncing whatever. The next day you receive official notice that your sign is an offense and you must remove it immediately. Believing in your cause and your rights to free speech and civil protest, you ignore the notice. The following day, your home is visited by government officials, the local police and a quiet nondescript looking fellow all banging on your front door. You refuse to answer or open the door, thinking they will go away. But it turns out that nondescript fellow is a locksmith, who quickly drills out your door locks and your house is invaded by the police and government officials who quickly take down your sign of protest, arrest you and search your home for evidence of other potentially treasonous and revolutionary materials.

You probably think that this sounds like something that would or could only happen in the former Soviet Union, or Communist China or any number of Asian or South American Dictatorships, but would never happen here in a Free and Democratic Canada right? Well, you would be wrong it seems. The BC Liberal Government under DUI Campbell is currently attempting to push through Legislation that would empower the various BC Municipal and City Governments the right to exactly what I just outlined. Invade your home and arrest you just because you put up a sign that they do not like or agree with. And to add insult to injury, they will charge your the cost of the locksmiths bill. Plus you could be hauled in front of a judge and if found guilty, fined C$20,000 and sentenced to six months in jail.

Oh, and before you hard core Conservative and Harperites start bemouning, "Of course this is what one can only expect from Liberals", let me remind you that in the bizzaro world of BC Politics where Left means Right and Up means Down, the BC Liberals under DUI Campbell are not affiliated with the Federal Liberals, and their actual political philosophy and leanings are more in line with those of the Federal Conservatives under Harper.

Anyways, here is an item from the Vancouver Province......read it and weep, coz if this goes through, who knows what else is planned for us all.

Losing free speech is a sign of Olympic times

By Ethan Baron, The ProvinceOctober 14, 2009

Picture this: a resident of a downtown Vancouver apartment puts a sign in her window during the Olympics that says, "B.C. homelessness — a disgrace." She finds a notice from the city on her door ordering her to take it down, and she refuses, believing the Charter protects her right to express political opinions.

Twenty-four hours later, police show up with a city worker and a locksmith. Her lock is drilled out. The group stomps in against her protestations and take away her sign.

As impossible as this scenario may seem in a democratic country such as Canada, it would be perfectly legal under pending legislation. And this woman could be fined $10,000 and jailed for six months, simply for exercising her civil rights. She'd also get a bill for the locksmithing.

The province last week introduced legislation to empower authorities in Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler to enter homes and remove or cover up "unauthorized" signs during the Games. It's up to each municipality to define the area in which to apply the law.

The Miscellaneous Statutes and Amendment Act specifies that such action can be taken "without the consent of the owner or occupier." The proposed law would let authorities remove any sign on a person's residence or property that doesn't celebrate the Olympics.

"It could be a sign saying "2 for 1 Pizza," it could be "Free Tibet" — anything except something saying, "Yeah, 2010," says David Eby, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).

Should any of the three municipalities take advantage of this power, hordes of international journalists will let the world know.

"Of course it's of interest to us," says Michel Viatteau, Canada-bureau chief for Agence-France Presse, one of the three largest news wire services in the world.

"We're always covering all kinds of limitations of human rights and freedoms."

AFP, which will have a team of 60 journalists working the Games, sends articles, photos and video to more than 10,000 media outlets, in every country on the planet except a few tiny island nations.

Whether Canada comes out of the Games looking like a China-style police state should be less of a concern to British Columbians than the fact that our Charter right to free expression is under attack by the very people entrusted with representing our interests and safeguarding our civil rights.

It's not just residents of downtown Vancouver and neighbourhoods near Games venues who are losing their free-speech rights during the Olympics. Under Vancouver's Olympics bylaw passed in July, no citizen has the right to hold or display an unapproved sign in a 40-square-block area that includes most of the city's major streets.

The BCCLA asked city officials to limit that sign law to commercial ads, but they refused, Eby says.

"They wish to reserve the option to restrict political speech," he says.

It's disturbing enough that Olympic security agents have been harassing 2010 Games critic and University of B.C. ophthalmology Prof. Chris Shaw, and even waylaid his 24-year-old friend, Danika Surm, in a Langara College hallway.

One could argue that the need to protect citizens, visitors and athletes justifies such heavy-handed tactics. But there's no legitimate reason for taking away our right to express our opinions when and where we please — in public or in our homes.

E-mail: [email protected]

© Copyright © The Province

Edited by Sabre Rider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost wish I lived in Vancouver. I wouldn't waste any time mobilizing an army of wordy terrorists and completely swamp the system with the most terrifying nouns I could think of, like...freedom, liberty or justice for starters.

Perhaps we could even plant IED's (improvised elucidating devices) around the city. I'd see if I could get my hands on a bunch of those laughing bags and in addition to the laughing insert explosive words like free Tibet or even BANG. Remote detonate these whenever the stormtroopers are within range...priceless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost wish I lived in Vancouver. I wouldn't waste any time mobilizing an army of wordy terrorists and completely swamp the system with the most terrifying nouns I could think of, like...freedom, liberty or justice for starters.

Perhaps we could even plant IED's (improvised elucidating devices) around the city. I'd see if I could get my hands on a bunch of those laughing bags and in addition to the laughing insert explosive words like free Tibet or even BANG. Remote detonate these whenever the stormtroopers are within range...priceless.

Sometimes I wonder who is more foolish, the Campbell Liberals and all the crap they are pulling or those that keep voting back into power even after so many broken promises and outright lies.

As it is, I can see this measure blowing up big time in their faces. They are basically waving a red cape square in the face of the anti-Olympics crowd, daring them to do something. And of course they will, in full view of the worlds media. The authorities will have only two lose-lose options, ignore the blatant violations of the law and end up looking completely powerless and gutless in the face of public opposition, or enforce their poorly thought up law and look like draconian jackbooted thugs.....either way, its lose-lose.

The proposed law must fly in the face of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one can only imagine how many reactionaries are just chomping at the bit to launch a Charter violation law suit against Campbell & Co. This could end up costing not on BC'ers a whack of money, but also the rest of Canada, especially if the RCMP or even the Armed Forces were used to enforce this law during the winter games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twenty-four hours later, police show up with a city worker and a locksmith.

So, if she wants to be a real smartass, she would take down the sign and hand it over before any damage is done to her door, doing so with very sincere-sounding apologies.

Five minutes after the "stormtroopers" leave she can simply put up another.....

Do that several times daily and eventually they'll either give up, or arrest her, at which point she can go ahead and sue and be able to retire on the proceeds...... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if she wants to be a real smartass, she would take down the sign and hand it over before any damage is done to her door, doing so with very sincere-sounding apologies.

Five minutes after the "stormtroopers" leave she can simply put up another.....

Do that several times daily and eventually they'll either give up, or arrest her, at which point she can go ahead and sue and be able to retire on the proceeds...... :rolleyes:

So I take it you and apparently many others here judging by the lack of response to this topic are basically okay with this assault on our basic rights and freedoms? Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if she wants to be a real smartass, she would take down the sign and hand it over before any damage is done to her door, doing so with very sincere-sounding apologies.

Five minutes after the "stormtroopers" leave she can simply put up another.....

Do that several times daily and eventually they'll either give up, or arrest her, at which point she can go ahead and sue and be able to retire on the proceeds...... :rolleyes:

I'd be pissed and sue them anyways if this had happened to me. Free speech. All of this was done without a warrent it seems. They illegaly entered her home. This is called tresspassing and break and enter and they should be charged.

The point is her home should not have been entered by the police. And next time, they might be even more heavy handed if she let them do this and then put up another sign and let them do it again. She should sue now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the legislation certainly sounds like a load of crap.

I assume the idea is that if they ram it through at just the right time, the Olympics will be over before it has a chance to be struck down in a court challenge. Because to me this sounds like something that would be struck down within seconds once a judge gets a chance to rule on it.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it you and apparently many others here judging by the lack of response to this topic are basically okay with this assault on our basic rights and freedoms? Got it.

The time to query our basic rights and freedoms being assaulted has long passed, in my view.

I've watched Canada slide left politically over the last half century and now somehow we are besieged by right wing fascism with jackboots and stormtroopers (not quite, a locksmith and a social worker backed up by the police). But this is how Liberal Fascism works. Get the book by Jonah Goldberg.

Although your concern about our rights seems sincere your understanding of government is lacking.

Government is not something you allow to grow to the degree it has in our social democracy. Granted we are part of the problem in voting ourselves "rights" from government. Government cannot promise us positive rights - that is rights that require them to give something to it's citizens by forcibly taking it from one group of citizens and giving it to another - those are called "privileges" and "favours".

I don't know, it seems so disingenuous to wail about an invasion of our basic rights and freedoms when the left is all about big government running our lives. If you don't think they are running your life now you will in a few short decades - if you don't think you will be around then it will be the legacy you will leave for the next generation.

You have to agree that the country has slid left politically but not as fast as Europe because of the influence of our neighbours to the south. Once you realize that you will understand where jackboots and stormtroopers have their origin. It isn't from people who believe in limited government.

Specifically, on this particular issue, the orders do not originate in the offices of the current BC liberal government. So you have the wrong target. There is a concern for safety at the Olympic games and it is an international event. The international interests are the ones that would precipitate such actions. The danger of sabotage is real and not imagined. How would you look after it?

Frankly, it is my opinion that government should have nothing to do with the Olympics and therefore would only be in existence because the people supported it and worked towards it's success themselves. We wouldn't see such a threat of sabotage if only the people were involved. You might see some opposition but they wouldn't dare jeopardize the wishes of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically, on this particular issue, the orders do not originate in the offices of the current BC liberal government. So you have the wrong target. There is a concern for safety at the Olympic games and it is an international event. The international interests are the ones that would precipitate such actions. The danger of sabotage is real and not imagined. How would you look after it?

This isn't about safety. Signs aren't a danger to anyone.

This is about 2 things:

Money: they are probably under pressure to suppress any signage that might contradict the lucrative exclusivity agreements they made with sponsors.

Avoiding embarrassment: with cameras from around the world in Vancouver, they probably want to suppress publicity for any message that isn't flattering to the government or to the event.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about safety. Signs aren't a danger to anyone.

No, but safety makes a great excuse. I'm reminded of the notorious APEC games, also, perhaps not coincidentally, in Vancouver. In order to avoid any possible embarrassment to our illustrious dictator guests, Chretien's top fixer Jean Carle flew to BC and made it clear to the RCMP that no free speech would be tolerated anywhere near the site of the APEC summit, or along the motorcade to it. To that end, the RCMP tore flags off of private flag poles, and tore signs, some no more than 8 x11 note paper, out of people's hands. They arrested a number pf people for trying to protest on their own laws, then released them later without charge (there never was any legal charge to lay and they knew it) They knew it was all illegal, unconstitutional, but they really didn't care. The theme was "do it now and shrug off the complaints later". As we've seen lately, the RCMP don't really seem to care much about what little things like right and wrong.

Someone ought to be able to get a judge to issue an injunction against this law the moment it's passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you noticed in the last 20 years that the uniforms of our law enforcers have slowly turned black - real Nazi like outfits. They have also lowered the height requirements along with IQ levels - but don't worry - they are not dangerous to the public unless they feel like tazering someone that day - or beating the crap out of some student...What was that video about anyway - I see a group of cops swarming some kid ---- and --- what and why was the one cop kneeing him repeatedly - what's wrong with the good old fashioned punch in the head...? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about safety. Signs aren't a danger to anyone.

This is about 2 things:

Money: they are probably under pressure to suppress any signage that might contradict the lucrative exclusivity agreements they made with sponsors.

Avoiding embarrassment: with cameras from around the world in Vancouver, they probably want to suppress publicity for any message that isn't flattering to the government or to the event.

-k

There has to be the apparency of safety or no one will come. There has to be a forceful presence that ensures travellers to the Olympics will be safe.

It has nothing to do with Canadian law. Canadian law plays second to international interests.

Is "embarrassment" really all you think of that they may have a concern about? It may be but not the way you think - they certainly don't want to be embarrassed by having no one show up.

I agree with you they are concerned about money. It is a colossal investment with hopes of a return. As a taxpayer you should hope there is some return on your contribution.

What would you propose doing to ensure Olympic tourists and athletes felt safe?

You know, these A-holes that riot and destroy property at international events create the necessity for these super security scenarios and it gets those who are sympathetic to their causes to complain that government is trampling on their freedoms. Those professional muckrakers give government justification for their jackboot antics and are the reason behind them.

I am totally surprised when someone who supports big government, such as the Lib left does, is aghast at Government shucking individual rights for the common good, something they fully believe in. But it isn't rights they are concerned with overall - it is privilege and favour.

I sound like I am defending the government here but really I am only portraying the reality of how the situation comes about. We have no reason to complain we all participated somewhat in creating what our current government is. If you want change then it has to be demanded before things get ugly and they are starting to get ugly. Governments need to understand they are the servants of the people and not the masters. The people must also learn that government cannot provide anything on a zero sum basis and thus not equal. If it gives some people a benefit it must take it from someone else.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be the apparency of safety or no one will come. There has to be a forceful presence that ensures travellers to the Olympics will be safe.

It has nothing to do with Canadian law. Canadian law plays second to international interests.

Is "embarrassment" really all you think of that they may have a concern about? It may be but not the way you think - they certainly don't want to be embarrassed by having no one show up.

I agree with you they are concerned about money. It is a colossal investment with hopes of a return. As a taxpayer you should hope there is some return on your contribution.

What would you propose doing to ensure Olympic tourists and athletes felt safe?

If we in Canada need to spend a billion dollars on top of our normal police & military costs, then I propose cancelling the Olympics altogether. The Olympics have become a publicly funded gift to hospitality business owners, security firms and property developers. The "legacy" consists mainly of elite level sporting facilities that the vast majority of people will never get a chance to use. And, of course, the debt. Even the Auditor General can't figure out how much the games will cost.

Not only is free speech being sacrificed, but other freedoms and protections from authority are apparently dispensable as well. The City of Vancouver seems to be so afraid of protest that they are going to make it illegal to

(a) bring onto city land any

(i) weapon,

(ii) object, including any rock, stick, or glass or metal bottle useable as a weapon, except for crutches or a cane that a person who is elderly or disabled uses as a mobility aid,

(iii) large object, including any bag, or luggage that exceeds 23 x 40 x 55 centimetres;

(iv) voice amplification equipment including any megaphone,

(v) motorized vehicle, except for a motorized wheel chair or scooter that a person who is elderly or disabled uses as a mobility aid,

(vi) anything that makes noise that interferes with the enjoyment of entertainment on city land by other persons,

(vii) distribute any advertising material or install or carry any sign unless licensed to do so by the city."

So, you can't bring a motorized vehicle on to city land? Aren't streets city land? You can be arrested for carrying a metal water bottle or any "object useable as a weapon"? A pencil is useable as a weapon!

The province is also preparing to round up the homeless and put them into shelters or jail.

The billion-dollar security force is being accused of harrassing opponents of the Olympics with police showing up at their residences or work, questioning casual acquaintances and following people. Chris Shaw

You know, these A-holes that riot and destroy property at international events create the necessity for these super security scenarios and it gets those who are sympathetic to their causes to complain that government is trampling on their freedoms. Those professional muckrakers give government justification for their jackboot antics and are the reason behind them.

The reaction has to be proportionate to the threat. In some cases, it's the police who create the problem by abusing their authority when dealing with peaceful protestors. Look into what happened at APEC in 1997.

A little research on the web shows that there is a similar pattern wherever the Olympics are held. Suppress free speech, temporarily remove the homeless, crack down on protest, all in the name of "security".

I am totally surprised when someone who supports big government, such as the Lib left does, is aghast at Government shucking individual rights for the common good, something they fully believe in. But it isn't rights they are concerned with overall - it is privilege and favour.

"Big government" is a phrase that only has meaning to people who hold certain ideologies (mostly followers of Ayn Rand). I support government doing things in the best interests of society. In this case, the government is employing unconstitutional methods to promote business interests. Everyone should oppose that.

I sound like I am defending the government here but really I am only portraying the reality of how the situation comes about. We have no reason to complain we all participated somewhat in creating what our current government is. If you want change then it has to be demanded before things get ugly and they are starting to get ugly. Governments need to understand they are the servants of the people and not the masters. The people must also learn that government cannot provide anything on a zero sum basis and thus not equal. If it gives some people a benefit it must take it from someone else.

You're right - it does sound like you're defending the actions of the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it you and apparently many others here judging by the lack of response to this topic are basically okay with this assault on our basic rights and freedoms? Got it.

Actually, no. But putting words in peoples' mouths seems to be a habit around here, so I should have expected this. For further explanation regarding the tone of my post, see below....

I'd be pissed and sue them anyways if this had happened to me. Free speech. All of this was done without a warrent it seems. They illegaly entered her home. This is called tresspassing and break and enter and they should be charged.

The point is her home should not have been entered by the police. And next time, they might be even more heavy handed if she let them do this and then put up another sign and let them do it again. She should sue now.

Agreed on all points IF this had actually happened.

Read the article again. It's a hypothetical story about what "could" happen, hence my original tongue-in-cheek reply.

The BC Liberal Government under DUI Campbell is currently attempting to push through Legislation .....

Even though such legislation MAY come about, I strongly doubt that they'd send police and locksmith to break into her home. If that actually happened, the press would be all over it, it would probably get international attention, and the city would be more embarassed than if they had simply allowed a thousand such signs to stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support government doing things in the best interests of society.

This says it all.

The problem lies in who is going to decide what are the best interests of society.

The BC government, under the leadership of Gordon Campbell, has decided what action is in the best interests of society as regards this matter. What is your suggestion for the best interests of society? If it is that government not step on the toes of individuals infringing upon their rights, as you seem to be declaring, is that so far from Ayn Rand?

Isn't it in the interests of society that Vancouver's city hall decides what can be brought onto city land? If not what should be the interests of society? If you think there is an infringement upon individual rights by the city is that so far from Ayn Rand?

The interests of society, from the point of view of government, is the exercise of it's power to protect whatever it deems are society's interests. When the state engineers society it IS the society and protects itself, and it operates, as a social democracy, under the full recognition that it has the endorsement of the majority to do so. Under such circumstance, one must ask why a more careful and cautious consideration of government is not exercised in the democratic vote but instead is concerned with what privilege and favour it can gain, essentially foisting off what individual social responsibility it can onto government.

By the way I agree with you that the Olympics have evolved into an elitist global enterprise and all governmental financing should be ended. If the Olympics wish to continue it should be financed out of private interests. But isn't that more of an Ayn Rand position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course what good are jackboots and stormtroopers without concentration camps and prisoners.

B.C. to force homeless into shelters during 2010 Olympics

So I suppose we'll probably have to release all the criminals from our existing jails to make room for all the bum's, hobos and neer do well's that'll be filling them up. Its just too bad Canada is still such molly-coddling socialist utopia or we'd probably have a nice shiny new regional super prison to use.

So I wonder if a sign that reads "Will work for food" will warrant a baton to the head or maybe a Taser to the testicles?

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the legislation certainly sounds like a load of crap.

I assume the idea is that if they ram it through at just the right time, the Olympics will be over before it has a chance to be struck down in a court challenge. Because to me this sounds like something that would be struck down within seconds once a judge gets a chance to rule on it.

-k

Sure enough.

However, it just strikes me, that this is something I would expect if Communist China were holding the Olympics not British Columbia.

Infact, I want to see displays of free speech and freedom in Canada while the olympics are in the country.

Why must we behave like them.

This appears to have little to do with security and bombsweeping techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it just strikes me, that this is something I would expect if Communist China were holding the Olympics not British Columbia.

It strikes me that the Communist Party is about as liberal as our Liberal Party is communist. I'm at real odds with Pliny's assertion about exactly who the real troublemakers are in today's world. Ironically the people running both China and BC seem to share the proto-typically conservative value of combining law and order with a fear and loathing for trouble-makers as the justification for cracking down and getting tough. The real similarity that strikes me in both cases is how these are effectively being used to hide the more grotesque inefficiences of their social policies from public view.

Why must we behave like them.

Good question. I think the Chinese government has been operating on the same principle our's uses when engaging them in trade and through diplomacy - the more they do the more we'll come to adopt their way of doing things. I guess after enough time has passed they'll meet in the middle, at which point the methods used to achieve their ends will be harmonized if not globalized. Besides noticing, as Oleg mentioned, the dark fearsome image that cops around the world now like to project notice how universally and often a term like terrorist is used.

We definitely live in a MAD world where dictatorship now seems mutually assured. Lest anyone imagine I'm fearful of some one world one state conspiracy, I think its more insidous than that. Its more like an unstoppable trend towards a world that's run by a mindless swarm of pirahna with little more than a few mutual interests and occasional nod and a wink towards each other's methods. If this is the face of order emerging, I'd like to see more chaos thanks.

I have to say its particularily depressing to see conservative Libertarians blaming dissidents and protestors for bringing all this statism down on ourselves, or are we actually terrorists? Its so hard to tell these days.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes me that the Communist Party is about as liberal as our Liberal Party is communist. I'm at real odds with Pliny's assertion about exactly who the real troublemakers are in today's world.

The redistribution of wealth is a form of aggression, that; I think you can agree with, do you not? What level of aggression do you think is ok?

Once you cede that the State can initiate aggression against it's individual citizens and their property in any form you allow the State to justify, for the common good let's not forget, any further initiation of force.

When rioters initiate aggression against others and their property I think it is easy for you to see that police force is necessary to uphold peace.

Certainly a sign in someone's window is not an initiation of force and should be tolerated as freedom of speech. Bill 13 is indeed an act that allows government the ability to initiate force against it's citizens, let's not forget it's deemed to be for the common good. The Statist demands his government act in the interest of the common good for what he sees as inequities or necessities for "fairness" and "equality". In doing so the State is granted the power to initiate force against it's citizens for what it deems is the common good when all the citizen wants of government is to be free from any initiation of force against him and his property- the very reason for the existence of the State is for that protection.

In essence, you have to see with Bill 13, the growing powers of the State. But you have to also understand how the centralization of power evolved to the point where Bill 13 could even be considered in what you think is a free society. It isn't a free society as long as government can initiate force against it's citizens in ALL it's manifestations.

The argument here is to what degree you think the government should be able to initiate force against it's citizens and for what reasons. Not that you disapprove of government's ability to act like stormtroopers, you have already agreed and heartily approve that it can, as has most of the western population in social democracies.

There are many warnings about the slippery slope of socialism but they are not usually heeded when government buys votes with privilege and favour and tells you they are your "rights". These "rights" only guarantee the continuance of their ability to initiate force against their citizens - someone has to pay for government to supply you with those privi.....er...."rights". Too many make no connection to their welfare and the governments ability to act like stormtroopers. To some it appears necessary that they do.

The question must be asked, will it be you, or someone in government, that will determine what is in the best interests of the "common good". Well, if your government has the power to initiate force against it's citizens to any degree it won't be you - you will only agree or disagree, and you will eventually disagree more than you agree. Of course you can blame the right or the left for acting like stormtroopers or communist revolutionaries but that furthers the divide and fosters dissent and unrest. Peace is never achieved by the State in the end - you are witnessing it warring against it's citizens and you are complaining but you have agreed to a trend in government growth, allowing it to initiate force against it's citizens for what you believe is the collective good. Go ahead and blame the BC Liberals for acting against your will - you granted, in your understanding of government, them the right to act in the interests of the common good. It is only a matter of opinion what that is, loss of governmental power is not in the interests of the common good, at least from the perspective of government - besides, who will look after you and protect you from the greedy, nasty, mean people in the world who need to be controlled?

Basically, Bill 13 should never have even been a concept in anyone's mind but it is. It's strange anyone objects to this act which is obviously intended for the common good. Someone's rights are being infringed upon? So what? The interests of the common good must take precedence. Mustn't it? I argue for years for individual rights and freedom from government oppression and I find it quite ironic when those who have argued with me against the concept of individual rights over the common good and in this instance feel individual rights are more important. It just makes me want to cry.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This says it all.

The problem lies in who is going to decide what are the best interests of society.

The BC government, under the leadership of Gordon Campbell, has decided what action is in the best interests of society as regards this matter. What is your suggestion for the best interests of society? If it is that government not step on the toes of individuals infringing upon their rights, as you seem to be declaring, is that so far from Ayn Rand?

Isn't it in the interests of society that Vancouver's city hall decides what can be brought onto city land? If not what should be the interests of society? If you think there is an infringement upon individual rights by the city is that so far from Ayn Rand?

The interests of society, from the point of view of government, is the exercise of it's power to protect whatever it deems are society's interests. When the state engineers society it IS the society and protects itself, and it operates, as a social democracy, under the full recognition that it has the endorsement of the majority to do so. Under such circumstance, one must ask why a more careful and cautious consideration of government is not exercised in the democratic vote but instead is concerned with what privilege and favour it can gain, essentially foisting off what individual social responsibility it can onto government.

By the way I agree with you that the Olympics have evolved into an elitist global enterprise and all governmental financing should be ended. If the Olympics wish to continue it should be financed out of private interests. But isn't that more of an Ayn Rand position?

Ultimately, to the extent that democracy actually functions, the people decide what is in the best interest of society. I don't think that our democracy functions as well as it should but that's another discussion. I take your point that determining what is in the best interest of society is a subjective exercise. Still, I'd rather have that discussion than, as you seem to wish, minimize government or eliminate it altogether.

It is legitimate for the government to decide that the Olympics are in our best interests. It's also legitimate for people to disagree with that decision and for those people to be able to express their disagreement. It's not legitimate for the government to run roughshod over the rights of the people who disagree by passing laws which contravene the constitution. Certainly, you must be able to tell the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The redistribution of wealth is a form of aggression, that; I think you can agree with, do you not?

If you're robbed at gunpoint sure, I've also seen some very aggresive developers who's right to a profit came ahead of the environment they shared in common with other people. Now nobody can make a profit because the developers spoiled it for everybody.

I find it quite ironic when those who have argued with me against the concept of individual rights over the common good and in this instance feel individual rights are more important.

What instance, I can't even imagine how collective rights can be properly defined or upheld in the absence of individual rights, can you?

If your so concerned about individual rights, state aggression and your money, why don't you vote for a party that says it will stop wasting your money and aggressively throwing people in jail for things like pot? Are you seriously suggesting that paying taxes more aggressively limits your individual rights than throwing you in jail for vice?

Perhaps you should try looking at the state's aggressive limitation of individual rights in the context of degrees rather than instances. Where does or should the rubber hit the road first, better yet, what do you value most, money or freedom? How could you even acquire the former without the latter?

Don't forget you can always go back to voting for the real wingnuts once more the more rational thinkers have taken care of the more important things in a more logically consistent and sustainable way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The redistribution of wealth is a form of aggression, that; I think you can agree with, do you not? What level of aggression do you think is ok?

Again with the Ayn Rand. Your statement is premised on the idea that all economic wealth flows from individuals and that the government is acting illegitimately when it pursues policies of wealth redistribution. This is a cornerstone of economic libertarianism. Why don't we test this theory? You move out to a deserted island and have no contact with anyone for 20 years. Build your own house, grow your own food, cut your own hair, be your own doctor. If your standard of living goes up, I'll admit that there is some merit to what you say. I'm guessing that it will go down, maybe all the way to zero (ie you don't survive).

In fact, we owe our wealth to a whole bunch of factors including the abundance of raw materials on earth, thousands of years worth of knowledge acquired by our ancestors, a stable society in which to grow and work, a cooperative economy that allows each of us to focus on the things we do best/enjoy most and the efforts of individuals. So, individual effort is only one factor in the production of wealth. Since society as a whole is essential to our level of wealth, it is legitimate that society as a whole have some say in how that wealth is allocated.

I could write a lot more on the topic but let's just say that in my view, economic libertarianism has much more basis in faith than logic.

Once you cede that the State can initiate aggression against it's individual citizens and their property in any form you allow the State to justify, for the common good let's not forget, any further initiation of force.

Nonsense. If I tell you that you can borrow my car anytime you like, does that mean you can move into my house? There are limits to what laws governments can pass. This is why we have constitutions and why it's very difficult to change them.

When rioters initiate aggression against others and their property I think it is easy for you to see that police force is necessary to uphold peace.
I haven't seen a riot by anyone yet but there is already lots of police activity.
Certainly a sign in someone's window is not an initiation of force and should be tolerated as freedom of speech. Bill 13 is indeed an act that allows government the ability to initiate force against it's citizens, let's not forget it's deemed to be for the common good. The Statist demands his government act in the interest of the common good for what he sees as inequities or necessities for "fairness" and "equality". In doing so the State is granted the power to initiate force against it's citizens for what it deems is the common good when all the citizen wants of government is to be free from any initiation of force against him and his property- the very reason for the existence of the State is for that protection.

You know, it's funny that often the same people who demand minimal government intervention economically also support a huge military and security apparatus. Government is inherently neither good nor bad, it's what the government does that makes it so.

There are many warnings about the slippery slope of socialism but they are not usually heeded when government buys votes with privilege and favour and tells you they are your "rights". These "rights" only guarantee the continuance of their ability to initiate force against their citizens - someone has to pay for government to supply you with those privi.....er...."rights". Too many make no connection to their welfare and the governments ability to act like stormtroopers. To some it appears necessary that they do.

If we did away with government altogether, we'd have wealthy individuals with private armies. Would that be better? I don't think so. The solution is a healthy democracy where people get involved and educated about what's going on.

Basically, Bill 13 should never have even been a concept in anyone's mind but it is. It's strange anyone objects to this act which is obviously intended for the common good. Someone's rights are being infringed upon? So what? The interests of the common good must take precedence. Mustn't it? I argue for years for individual rights and freedom from government oppression and I find it quite ironic when those who have argued with me against the concept of individual rights over the common good and in this instance feel individual rights are more important. It just makes me want to cry.

Again. We elect a government to take actions. Those actions are supposed to be restricted by the constitution. Even those actions that are not restricted are subject to criticism. That's called representative democracy.

Cry if you need to - it can be a healthy release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be the apparency of safety or no one will come. There has to be a forceful presence that ensures travellers to the Olympics will be safe.

It has nothing to do with Canadian law. Canadian law plays second to international interests.

Is "embarrassment" really all you think of that they may have a concern about? It may be but not the way you think - they certainly don't want to be embarrassed by having no one show up.

I agree with you they are concerned about money. It is a colossal investment with hopes of a return. As a taxpayer you should hope there is some return on your contribution.

What would you propose doing to ensure Olympic tourists and athletes felt safe?

I remain highly skeptical of the premise that taking signs out of the windows of private residences has anything to do with making people feel "safe". It seems like a ridiculous premise.

You know, these A-holes that riot and destroy property at international events create the necessity for these super security scenarios and it gets those who are sympathetic to their causes to complain that government is trampling on their freedoms. Those professional muckrakers give government justification for their jackboot antics and are the reason behind them.

And what has that got to do with the topic at hand?

I saw anti-globalization riots turn ugly in person when I lived in Ottawa. The police dealt with the situation and did not need a bylaw allowing them to take signs out of windows of private residences to do so. They did just fine without. I think

In fact, I don't see how this law has anything to do with preventing that sort of large-scale protest from turning into dangerous riots... unless this large-scale protest were entirely contained within someone's living-room.

Come on, you're just being silly here.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again with the Ayn Rand. Your statement is premised on the idea that all economic wealth flows from individuals and that the government is acting illegitimately when it pursues policies of wealth redistribution. This is a cornerstone of economic libertarianism. Why don't we test this theory? You move out to a deserted island and have no contact with anyone for 20 years. Build your own house, grow your own food, cut your own hair, be your own doctor. If your standard of living goes up, I'll admit that there is some merit to what you say. I'm guessing that it will go down, maybe all the way to zero (ie you don't survive).

In fact, we owe our wealth to a whole bunch of factors including the abundance of raw materials on earth, thousands of years worth of knowledge acquired by our ancestors, a stable society in which to grow and work, a cooperative economy that allows each of us to focus on the things we do best/enjoy most and the efforts of individuals. So, individual effort is only one factor in the production of wealth. Since society as a whole is essential to our level of wealth, it is legitimate that society as a whole have some say in how that wealth is allocated.

If you want to quote Rand it's really not fair to cherry pick only those partial ideas that support your argument and ignore the rest!

She never wrote that all individuals should do everything themselves. That's ridiculous to the extreme. Your model would be more correct if there were a number of individuals on that island who each produced different products or services and FREELY TRADED the fruits of their labours with each other! If necessary the group would form a government, to insure that nobody ripped off another individual by force or coercion.

We owe our wealth to the product of all individuals, not to any collective governing body. The problem when you say "Since society as a whole is essential to our level of wealth, it is legitimate that society as a whole have some say in how that wealth is allocated." is that "society" is a vague and nebulous term. Most governments claim to act for the will and the good of society and appear to do a very poor job of it. The problem is always the same - how do you accurately reflect that good and that will? Somehow it always seems that small groups manage to bleed from the producers in the name of "society", since no one can prove them wrong.

Rand once said this about your idea: "Society is everyone in general and nobody in particular, but it's never, ever YOU!"

I prefer a more succinct quote by P. T. Barnum - "Makers, takers and fakers. There are NO other kinds!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...