Jack Weber Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) The problem is that we don't have property rights, we have no right to defend what is ours. If the idiot leader of the liberal party in 1982 would have been a 'real' classical liberal we would have had property rights in our charter of rights, instead he gave us what amounts to a mess. Yes... You're completely helpless in Canadian society... It's all Trudeau's fault... Do you Albertan whiners ever give up??? Edited October 8, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 I'm also not foolish enough to believe that common sense exists. WOW! So you disagree with the philosophy of Aristotle? You know it was quite central to John Locke's ideas right? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 You do have a right to property in the face of other private entities. You simply don't have a right to property in the face of the state. What you're talking about doesn't apply here. Please tell me why Brian knight is fighting a court battle because he decided to defend his property,if we all ready have these rights? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 WOW! So you disagree with the philosophy of Aristotle? You know it was quite central to John Locke's ideas right? In the field in which I work (and many others), you are taught that there is nothing that is commonly believed by people. So far, I've seen that philosophy proven right many times. There is common knowledge, but that only comes through education and experience. There are relatively few (if any) things that people simply know...because. Quote
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Please tell me why Brian knight is fighting a court battle because he decided to defend his property,if we all ready have these rights? We don't have a right to break the law in the defence of our property...or wouldn't common sense tell you that? Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Please tell me why Brian knight is fighting a court battle because he decided to defend his property,if we all ready have these rights? The best guess is he broke the cardinal rule of the legal system and took the law into his own hands and broke the law (as it relates to confining people),instead of calling the cops??? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) The best guess is he broke the cardinal rule of the legal system and took the law into his own hands and broke the law (as it relates to confining people),instead of calling the cops??? If my memory serves, he hit someone and shot at them....or some such... The farmer raced to his car and chased the man on the quad. Police say that about two kilometres from the house, the farmer rammed his car into the quad, and both vehicles wound up in the ditch.The farmer pulled out a shotgun and fired two rounds at the fleeing man, who was struck, but kept on running, police allege. But the chase wasn't over. The farmer then called friends and relatives to help him with his search, police said. "The suspect was located on the road and brought back to the scene of the collision." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/03/27/cgy-farmer-bashwaw-shot-theif.html Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 In the field in which I work (and many others), you are taught that there is nothing that is commonly believed by people. So far, I've seen that philosophy proven right many times. There is common knowledge, but that only comes through education and experience. There are relatively few (if any) things that people simply know...because. I did not say common knowledge or common belief, I said common sense. common sense Function: noun Date: 1726 : sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/common%20sense Common sense, roughly speaking, is what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their shared natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common". http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Common_sense Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) Common sense, roughly speaking, is what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their shared natural understanding. Which is (for the most part), BS. I've seen many people's natural understanding. There's nothing sensible about it. Theres certainly very little just about it. Your 'common sense' serves as an example. Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc Quote
August1991 Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) The problem is that we don't have property rights, we have no right to defend what is ours. If the idiot leader of the liberal party in 1982 would have been a 'real' classical liberal we would have had property rights in our charter of rights, instead he gave us what amounts to a mess. Alta4ever, don't be simplistic/racist/nationalist and blame Trudeau/Quebec/Liberals for this evil situation.The Charter of Rights was a legitimate attempt to protect individuals against the power of the State. On balance, I think it has not been so bad. With the Charter, a PM Trudeau could not invoke the War Measures Act, arrest several hundred people and hold them for several months without a bail hearing. ---- Returning to this OP, I think that our governments are more concerned with sharing the wealth than with creating it or protecting it. Our State, from the GG to the PM, Cabinet Ministers and so on, our civil servants, federal or provincial, various police, Crown prosecutors - they all have an Iron Rice Bowl. It is easy for them to spend other people's money. Edited October 8, 2010 by August1991 Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 If my memory serves, he hit someone and shot at them....or some such... Two men stole his quad, he shot at them in defense of his property. Mind you the closest responding police station is more then 45 minutes away if they decide to respond. One was held until the police finally arrived a couple of hours later. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Jack Weber Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Which is (for the most part), BS. I've seen many people's natural understanding. There's nothing sensible about it. The "sanity" of Alberta comes to mind.... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) Two men stole his quad, he shot at them in defense of his property. And you think that is a defensible act in the face of theft? Mind you the closest responding police station is more then 45 minutes away if they decide to respond. That's the fault of the sane Government of Alberta and/or the county in which he lives. Police should never be more than 30 minutes away and that's almost always reasonable on the rural prairies. One was held until the police finally arrived a couple of hours later. Which, it seems, is thought by the police and the Crown to not be reasonable. Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) Alta4ever, don't be simplistic/racist/nationalist and blame Trudeau/Quebec/Liberals for this evil situation. The Charter of Rights was a legitimate attempt to protect individuals against the power of the State. On balance, I think it has not been so bad. With the Charter, a PM Trudeau could not invoke the War Measures Act, arrest several hundred people and hold them for several months without a bail hearing. He can't help it...It's in his DNA... Watch this... NEP!!!!NEP!!!!!NEP!!!! I suspect some Albertan will now have a coniption and tell us all the Trudeau is the embodiment of all human evil because of the NEP... Edited October 8, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Alta4ever, don't be simplistic/racist/nationalist and blame Trudeau/Quebec/Liberals for this evil situation. The Charter of Rights was a legitimate attempt to protect individuals against the power of the State. On balance, I think it has not been so bad. With the Charter, a PM Trudeau could not invoke the War Measures Act, arrest several hundred people and hold them for several months without a bail hearing. ---- Returning to this OP, I think that our governments are more concerned with sharing the wealth than with creating it or protecting it. Our State, from the GG to the PM, Cabinet Ministers and so on, our civil servants, federal or provincial, various police, Crown prosecutors - they all have an Iron Rice Bowl. It is easy for them to spend other people's money. John Diefenbaker's bill of rights dealt with these issues much bet then garbage trudeau left us with. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) John Diefenbaker's bill of rights dealt with these issues much bet then garbage trudeau left us with. Yes, a simple, easily changeable law, is much better than a constitutional guarantee (one requiring the consent of all sovereign the legislative bodies in Canada to change). You make yourself very hard to take seriously with statements like that. Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 And you think that is a defensible act in the face of theft? you bet it is, it effects the lively hood of a rancher, remember for some these aren't toys, quads are tools. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) you bet it is, it effects the lively hood of a rancher, remember for some these aren't toys, quads are tools. I live in the rural prairies. Outside of risk to security of person, physical force of most varieties (especially shooting someone) is unacceptable. Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) I live in the rural prairies. Outside of risk to security of person, physical forces (especially shooting someone) is unacceptable. Pretty much... And these folks try to claim they're NOT hillbillies.... Edited October 8, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Yes, a simple, easily changeable law, is much better than a constitutional guarantee (one requiring the consent of all sovereign the legislative bodies in Canada to change). You make yourself very hard to take seriously with statements like that. The bill of rights did deal with the situation better then the charter, too bad John didn't entrench it like the charter was. The fact that it was changeable is immaterial to the discussion since we are talking about how the the charter vs the bill of rights would have specifically dealt with this situation. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Pretty much... And these folks try to claim there NOT hillbillies.... I qualified my statement to say physical force of most varieties. A very simple restraint may be acceptable (taking someone by the arm, for example), but that can even be pushing it. Quote
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 charter vs the bill of rights would have specifically dealt with this situation. It wouldn't have dealt with this situation, unless security of persons was not protected. Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 It wouldn't have dealt with this situation, unless security of persons was not protected. I am guessing you never read the bill of rights. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
August1991 Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) John Diefenbaker's bill of rights dealt with these issues much bet then garbage trudeau left us with.Diefenbaker's bill was a simple act of the federal parliament. It was pure 1960s PR, eye-candy for Western rubes.Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights is pure nonsense, and changed nothing. It's a Marilyn Monroe declaration, from the 1950s. OTOH, in your defence, it took me time to understand that Western rubes were not foolish at all. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights still has political implications in Canada. Edited October 8, 2010 by August1991 Quote
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) I am guessing you never read the bill of rights. I just did a search through it now. It really wouldn't have done anything in this situation. The right to the enjoyment of property doesn't allow you to violate someone's right to security of person. Under the law, vigilantism of any kind is not allowed, for any reason. Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.