guyser Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Derek/Argus, well...I did say others may be better informed, so thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Right.........but proxy wars in far off crap holes that nobody really cares about is far better than Planet of the Apes....... So flash forward to the present and here we are talking, seriously too mind you, of a medieval culture that's no more advanced than the fictional one you cite over-taking the planet. You have produced the very thing you fear and are proposing more of the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 On the simplest level sure, defence. I'm also thinking beyond that box which is why I said mentioned peace dividends. So why hasn't South Korea embraced the nuclear option to counter the North, or Japan to counter China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 They should and probably would if they had to defend themselves. The only way to counter aggressive super-powers, which includes their network of dictators, is with economic sanctions. In actual fact just having such a network should be reason alone for sanctions....Canada should be ashamed of itself for not having declared this a crime against humanity decades ago. That's not to say we couldn't change that and have something to be proud of again. But we better get on with it and much sooner than any later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 They should and probably would if they had to defend themselves. The only way to counter aggressive super-powers, which includes their network of dictators, is with economic sanctions. In actual fact just having such a network should be reason alone for sanctions....Canada should be ashamed of itself for not having declared this a crime against humanity decades ago. That's not to say we couldn't change that and have something to be proud of again. But we better get on with it and much sooner than any later. You are aware that North Korea considers itself to be in a state of war with the South? You are aware that it was the North which invaded thecSouth in 1950? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Sure. Just more super-power shit that we should have stayed out of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Sure. Just more super-power shit that we should have stayed out of. North Korea's invasion of the South was not "superpower shit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) So flash forward to the present and here we are talking, seriously too mind you, of a medieval culture that's no more advanced than the fictional one you cite over-taking the planet. You have produced the very thing you fear and are proposing more of the same. More bleeding heart liberal bigotry. Once again, everything that goes wrong everywhere is the White man's burden. The Brown man bears no responsibility for his actions or ignorance or brutality. After all, he's just a brown man. He can't be held responsible. He's too ignorant and easily provoked and upset... Edited January 29, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 The mission has 'evolved' in Iraq. Does that mean, in simpler terms, that it has changed? It seems that quite a few words I thought I understood, like 'accompany' and 'combat', have arcane technical meanings that continue to, well, evolve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 More bleeding heart liberal bigotry. Once again, everything that goes wrong everywhere is the White man's burden. The Brown man bears no responsibility for his actions or ignorance or brutality. After all, he's just a brown man. He can't be held responsible. He's too ignorant and easily provoked and upset... Yes, the extreme racism exhibited by so called "progressives" or "liberals" these days is truly astounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 To the left, the soldiers are worse then the terrorists and the police are worse then the criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 To the left, the soldiers are worse then the terrorists and the police are worse then the criminal. To the left the Soldiers are fine and in fact needed, it's the people telling them what to do that should always be questioned. I know many people on the right-side of politics that have just as much or more of a vendetta against police as some on the left. That I think has more to do with personal experience then which political party you vote for. Although Conservatives seem to love authority for some odd reason and have a tendency to never question said authority, unless that authority happens to be left-aligned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 To the left the Soldiers are fine and in fact needed, it's the people telling them what to do that should always be questioned. I know many people on the right-side of politics that have just as much or more of a vendetta against police as some on the left. That I think has more to do with personal experience then which political party you vote for. Although Conservatives seem to love authority for some odd reason and have a tendency to never question said authority, unless that authority happens to be left-aligned. That of course runs counter to Libertarian ethos..........one of course could claim the statist "left" also loves "authority"....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) That of course runs counter to Libertarian ethos..........one of course could claim the statist "left" also loves "authority"....... There are both liberal libertarians, and conservative libertarians. To claim libertarianism is strictly a right wing concept is silly. Libertarianism is a philosophy of the political centre because it combines liberal social values with free-market economic principles. What they have in common is the philosophy that people should have the freedom do do whatever they want, as long as what they are doing does not limit the freedoms of others. This is not to say that they believe in anarchy or lawlessness, nobody is arguing the need for laws and police, it's just about limiting the extent of government intervention. And keeping those in positions of authority in check just as much as they want to keep us in check. When you tip the scales in one direction to far you end up with a violent system like we have seen in other countries. Would you consider the NDP statist "left"? Edited January 29, 2015 by PrimeNumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 There are both liberal libertarians, and conservative libertarians. To claim libertarianism is strictly a right wing concept is silly. Is it as silly as claiming Conservatives love authority? Libertarianism is a philosophy of the political centre because it combines liberal social values with free-market economic principles. What they have in common is the philosophy that people should have the freedom do do whatever they want, as long as what they are doing does not limit the freedoms of others. This is not to say that they believe in anarchy or lawlessness, nobody is arguing the need for laws and police, it's just about limiting the extent of government intervention. And keeping those in positions of authority in check just as much as they want to keep us in check. When you tip the scales in one direction to far you end up with a violent system like we have seen in other countries. Yes, I know that, but thanks...... Would you consider the NDP statist "left"? You bet.....more so than the Liberals and Conservatives, but to a lessened degree then that of the KPD...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 You bet.....more so than the Liberals and Conservatives, but to a lessened degree then that of the KPD...... Well I've seen them challenge the Authority of both the Armed Forces and the various Police Services of this country more so than the conservatives ever have and probably ever will. It's pretty obvious that the Canadian Conservative Party of which I was I was referring to when I said conservatives love authority, have absolutely no libertarian values. Why libertarians would vote for them is really beyond me. They have done pretty much the exact opposite within every context of a libertarian policy, save for getting rid of the gun registry. Hence the reason I say they love authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Well I've seen them challenge the Authority of both the Armed Forces and the various Police Services of this country more so than the conservatives ever have and probably ever will. It's pretty obvious that the Canadian Conservative Party of which I was I was referring to when I said conservatives love authority, have absolutely no libertarian values. Why libertarians would vote for them is really beyond me. They have done pretty much the exact opposite within every context of a libertarian policy, save for getting rid of the gun registry. Hence the reason I say they love authority. I would say the current Government further deregulating the economy and reducing Government revenue runs counter to your meme though.......promises of state run childcare or "investing" CPP monies into pet projects, to me, is a far more relevant example of the authority of the State..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) I would say the current Government further deregulating the economy and reducing Government revenue runs counter to your meme though.......promises of state run childcare or "investing" CPP monies into pet projects, to me, is a far more relevant example of the authority of the State..... So you don't think that giving the national police service and government surveillance agencies more powers is not a more relevant example of authority of state? You don't think silencing scientists is a more relevant example? Libertarianism maintains a non-interventionist philosophy as a foreign policy. So you don't think that dragging us into a foreign war is a more relevant example? I could go on.. To me a National State Run Day Care is peanuts compared to what I mentioned above Edited January 29, 2015 by PrimeNumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 So you don't think that giving the national police service and government surveillance agencies more powers is not a more relevant example of authority of state? No, I look to programs promised by the various parities that will have the least amount of impact on my life as lessening of State authority...... You don't think silencing scientists is a more relevant example? What scientists were silenced? Libertarianism maintains a non-interventionist philosophy as a foreign policy. So you don't think that dragging us into a foreign war is a more relevant example? I could go on.. No it doesn't.........see Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Hence the reason I say they love authority. Imagine that, a federal govt exercising authority. Shocking and horrific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Imagine that, a federal govt exercising authority. Shocking and horrific. Unfortunately the current fed. gov. keeps trying to excersize authority they don't have. But luckily the SCC keeps smacking them back in their place, but at what cost to taxpayers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 No, I look to programs promised by the various parities that will have the least amount of impact on my life as lessening of State authority...... So a daycare has more of an effect on your life than a war, or being spied on by that very state? What scientists were silenced? http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119153/canadas-stephen-harper-government-muzzles-climate-scientists http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/tell-harper-to-stop-muzzling-scientists/ http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/when-science-goes-silent/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/muzzling-of-federal-scientists-widespread-survey-suggests-1.2128859 http://sciencewriters.ca/initiatives/muzzling_canadian_federal_scientists/ http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/ No it doesn't.........see Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations uuuuh yes it does. I have a copy of Adam Smiths the Wealth of Nations which is in my hands right now not sure about your copy but on page 747, Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 1 "Of the expense of defence" begins. there is a paragraph a few pages later on page 763, this paragraph describes how a Standing army is the only way to civilize a barbaric nation, but it in no way condones doing so. In fact it really condones trying not to use your military, as it saves money. http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy The Libertarian Parties of America's foreign policy reflects this. the twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are: (1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and (2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention. Armed Neutrality: The Swiss Model of Defense As does the Canadian Libertarian Party https://www.libertarian.ca/platform/ The Libertarian Party of Canada stands for a foreign policy of honest trade, peace, and diplomacy. As such, the Libertarian Party would: Immediately withdraw Canadian armed forces from international conflicts. The Libertarian party strongly opposes the foreign interventions of the past 13 years Reallocate military resources for the purpose of national defence, and Arctic sovereignty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 So a daycare has more of an effect on your life than a war, or being spied on by that very state? Sure, its a demonstration of another encroachment of the State on the taxpaying populace...... http://www.newrepubl...mate-scientistshttp://democracywatc...ing-scientists/ http://www.macleans....ce-goes-silent/ http://www.cbc.ca/ne...gests-1.2128859 http://sciencewriter...ral_scientists/ http://www.academicm...h-no-democracy/ Links of the "silenced" scientists no doubt? uuuuh yes it does. I have a copy of Adam Smiths the Wealth of Nations which is in my hands right now not sure about your copy but on page 747, Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 1 "Of the expense of defence" begins. there is a paragraph a few pages later on page 763, this paragraph describes how a Standing army is the only way to civilize a barbaric nation, but it in no way condones doing so. In fact it really condones trying not to use your military, as it saves money. Read the ensuing sentences........... As it is only by means of a well-regulated standing army that a civilized country can be defended, so it is only by means of it that a barbarous country can be suddenly and tolerably civilized. A standing army establishes, with an irresistible force, the law of the sovereign through the remotest provinces of the empire, and maintains some degree of regular government in countries which could not otherwise admit of any. Whoever examines, with attention, the improvements which Peter the Great introduced into the Russian empire, will find that they almost all resolve themselves into the establishment of a well-regulated standing army. It is the instrument which executes and maintains all his other regulations. That degree of order and internal peace which that empire has ever since enjoyed is altogether owing to the influence of that army. Furthermore: The first duty of the sovereign, therefore, that of defending the society from the violence and injustice of other independent societies, grows gradually more and more expensive as the society advances in civilization. The military force of the society, which originally cost the sovereign no expence either in time of peace or in time of war, must, in the progress of improvement, first be maintained by him in time of war, and afterwards even in time of peace. By all means, demonstrate where Smith suggests cutting the military to fund daycares......or save money. The Libertarian Parties of America's foreign policy reflects this. As does the Canadian Libertarian Party Both being fringe parties that will never govern in our lifetimes........versus the GOP and CPC that both contain varying Classic Liberal virtues.......Be they portions of the "Tea Party" or the old "Reform Party", but for said parties to be electable and to govern, require a less myopic view of (political) reality.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Sure, its a demonstration of another encroachment of the State on the taxpaying populace...... So I'll take that as you think a not having a daycare is more important than not being at war. Got it! Links of the "silenced" scientists no doubt? haha why even provide links on this site unless anyone is willing to acknowledge them. Jebus weeps for you. A standing army establishes, with an irresistible force, the law of the sovereign through the remotest provinces of the empire, and maintains some degree of regular government in countries which could not otherwise admit of any You will notice it says "through the remotest provinces of the empire and maintains government in countries which could not otherwise admit of any." I'm pretty sure Afghanistan and Iraq both had governments at the time of war and are not provinces of the "Empire of Canada". Whether you choose to acknowledge that fact, has no bearing on the fact that it is a fact. The first duty of the sovereign, therefore, that of defending the society from the violence and injustice of other independent societies, grows gradually more and more expensive as the society advances in civilization. The military force of the society, which originally cost the sovereign no expence either in time of peace or in time of war, must, in the progress of improvement, first be maintained by him in time of war, and afterwards even in time of peace. This just proves my point further, it in no way says a society must engage in foreign wars. It just says that a state has the responsibility to defend the society. In no way at the time of war, was Canada in danger of violence and injustice. In fact the only time it has been in danger of violence is after Canada entered the foreign war. Hence the non-interventionist policy. Both being fringe parties that will never govern in our lifetimes........versus the GOP and CPC that both contain varying Classic Liberal virtues.......Be they portions of the "Tea Party" or the old "Reform Party", but for said parties to be electable and to govern, require a less myopic view of (political) reality.... Case remains, the GOP and CPC are NOT libertarian. They are Republican and Conservative respectively. Just because you refuse to acknowledge something, does not mean it isn't true. Libertarians everywhere will agree that a non-interventionist foreign policy is a Libertarian policy. How can you even say the Libertarian Party of the US is a fringe party when it is the 3rd largest party in the US? With over 370,000 registered voters in the 35 states that allow registration as a Libertarian and has hundreds of party candidates elected or appointed to public office. Why are you continuing to embarrass yourself, you're understanding of contemporary Libertarian policies is just plain wrong. Since the 1950s, many American libertarian organizations have adopted a free market stance, as well as supporting civil liberties and non-interventionist foreign policies. These include the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), Center for Libertarian Studies, the Cato Institute, and the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL). This is literally almost every major Libertarian organization. You are wrong, please stop embarrassing yourself, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 So I'll take that as you think a not having a daycare is more important than not being at war. Got it! Exactly, I feel the Federal Government job is to defend Canadians......not to raise our children. haha why even provide links on this site unless anyone is willing to acknowledge them. Jebus weeps for you. I acknowledged your links that speak to the silenced scientists speaking out........ You will notice it says "through the remotest provinces of the empire and maintains government in countries which could not otherwise admit of any."I'm pretty sure Afghanistan and Iraq both had governments at the time of war and are not provinces of the "Empire of Canada". Whether you choose to acknowledge that fact, has no bearing on the fact that it is a fact. I never suggested that Iraq or Afghanistan were part of a Canadian Empire, but as suggested by Smith, both are/were clearly countries without "regular Government" until established by Western force. This just proves my point further, it in no way says a society must engage in foreign wars. It just says that a state has the responsibility to defend the society. In no way at the time of war, was Canada in danger of violence and injustice. In fact the only time it has been in danger of violence is after Canada entered the foreign war. Hence the non-interventionist policy. That is your opinion. Of course others, including myself, feel instability in a region important to the World's economy does directly threaten the interests of Canadians...........Smith's own Government, likewise the other major economies of the time, very much so implemented an interventionist foreign policy.........perhaps you best reread Smith's comments on the economic benefits of the British Commonwealth......... Case remains, the GOP and CPC are NOT libertarian. They are Republican and Conservative respectively. Just because you refuse to acknowledge something, does not mean it isn't true. Libertarians everywhere will agree that a non-interventionist foreign policy is a Libertarian policy. I never said they were, nor the NDP being Communist...... How can you even say the Libertarian Party of the US is a fringe party when it is the 3rd largest party in the US? With over 370,000 registered voters in the 35 states that allow registration as a Libertarian and has hundreds of party candidates elected or appointed to public office. Why are you continuing to embarrass yourself, you're understanding of contemporary Libertarian policies is just plain wrong. How many US States or Canadian Provinces have seen a Libertarian Party form Government?Exactly.....hence fringe party. This is literally almost every major Libertarian organization. You are wrong, please stop embarrassing yourself, Again, Libertarian parties are fringe at best, yet some Libertarian ethos are shared by Conservatives/Republicans.....I'm not embarrassed the slightest.....why would I be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.