Birdy

He's in fact refuting so many of the world's greatest philosophers who claim man is born into a certain state saying that their work and life dedication are wrong as this very conclusion is the result of a cultural upbringing. I think.

From the Conservative platform...

hahaha... oops!

I don't know for certain, but I assume $10 million pledged was part of their budget when developing the platform. The Conservatives were more about the individual announcement rather than the whole shabam this campaign. A 30 day plan to actually form a plan, doesn't tell me Dion thought about this in advance. If he did, wouldn't he just tell us the plan?? All I do is argue the nature of man. Maybe that's the big breakdown here. I argue though man is born this way. But wait, are you saying that is a cultural bias? I'm confused.

But you admitted your cultural bias sides with the 'other three'? The other three representing socialist thought to varying degrees. And you called yourself an anarchist in the breath prior. Maybe it would be easier for us both if you were to come out and say what you stand for instead of eluding to this and that and me having to put together the pieces in order to form some kind of argument, which in turn, isn't an argument. Are you a social anarchist? I have no bloody idea. Maybe better, what do you identify mostly with? I understand it's hard to pin a person down... so maybe that's a better approach.

Really Ollie? Trogdor, remember who you consort with when you call yourself an anarchist. Fascism? really now? I give up. I'm sorry, but i can't debate a human nature that I think is soo good to a person who doesn't seem to think we possess this spirit at all. Nor can I debate a philosophy that has one of the broadest spectrums out there when you centre your argument around fascism. I really do think the human spirit is the best thing we have going for our race and frankly, this debate is killing my buzz, and that says something as I'm a pretty damn positive person.

I don't really think he was trying to do anything with this article other than point out a 10:1 ratio. Premise doesn't seemed to be killed.

*shakes head* lose, lose situation here. Thanks for posting d_jango, I enjoyed the read and didn't find anything wonky about it.

Zing! If you have money, are you not entitled to a voice? I don't think the article suggests anything done differently is inhuman, but rather is more an attack on anarcho-communism (in light of libertarianism). I tend to agree that large scale wealth redistribution dampens the spirit as I also believe that every person inherently possesses a 'do-good' quality inside of them and a want to make what they consider valuable contribution in their life. One form or another of superiority has existed since the days of the cavemen and there will always be a part of human nature that thrives on competition. Communism stifles this spirit in a person (the same kind of spirit that has allowed soooo much good in this world to be done) and dismisses it as non-existent, when history has repeatedly proven otherwise, in various forms. I think the argument for inhumanity posed in this article is based on this very libertarian thought, where as the reference to Ortega was used... as reference. Yes, fear mongering is very human as can also be cited in those who wish to compare Stephen Harper to the likes of Adolf Hitler, or who propose environmental apocalypse should his moderate government be elected. Or perhaps that in you, proposing libertarian thought prefers people 'rot' as long as the rich are getting fed. You couldn't be further off base. "Shoot and Indian and take it". My god. This actually pisses me off.

Nicely taken... out of context. haha Hey now, i said it was a little harsh. Hook, line and sinker pour moi: "In the name of phoney 'humanism', an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity."

I always thought the first creed of the anarachist was a rejection of the state. So, while I understand your cultural bias, I find it odd you are so quick to defend (or so it seems) those governments who propose to act as the BIGGEST state. If only Jack Layton were to give up politics and start up a commune! Ahh, paradise! Here's an interesting article, a little harsh at times, but with some good key points about the nature of the human spirit and the want to do good:

I'm muffling a scream with my hotel room pillow. A scream that wants to say sooo much but i'm opting to bite my tongue instead. Trogdor, didn't you just say only two posts above you were an anarchist!?

Ohhh.

I thought the Cons were change. If they feared change, wouldn't Paul Martin still be PM?

I don't know about a majority. I think a minority is more probable. He's falling pretty fast though! Has anyone seen any poll data since the platform release?

I totally agree with you. I guess the problem when it comes to a democracy is that maybe too large a percentage of Canadians don't view things like innovation as important, or refuse to think outside of the box. Like in my riding for instance, manufacturing has beaten us down repeatedly, yet still somehow all of these people think that government is going to make the nightmare go away, doors to factories will reopen and life will go on as it did for the last 20-40 years. It's not gonna happen. People still litter and don't recycle and just don't care about the environment. Or people adopt the attitude that universal healthcare is okay the way it is and think we should cough it up because it all evens out in the long run. People are too happy with the status quo to elect a government that is innovative and spirited, or in the least questions how things have been running. Priorities for these people are just more of the same. So when it comes election time, they vote in more of the same. This is pretty much the essence of why I proclaim myself to be a libertarian. I'm sick to death of the status quo.

Looks like all my campaigning on the skank failed.

I love you all. Bradm- you're very, very right.... and I thought that to myself afterwards but was running late, so please accept this as my retraction. So yah, i was snoozing, where are we? Individuals should innovate, that's my stand.

What do you mean none of those people were individuals? Sarcasm? I don't know. I'm sorry, i'm the most stubborn person I know (aside from my little bro). Sometimes it takes little poetic phrases like your last to stop me in my tracks, and for that, I'm very sorry. I appreciate the poetic though! All I was trying to say is that we should not rely on our governments to provide us with the idea in the first place. Why do we look for innovation from our government, why not look for it in ourselves and ask that our government support it? Noone sat Bell down on a government mandate to invent the telephone, or Frederick Banting to discover insulin. There was a passion in these remarkable people to do it on their own. THEY changed the world, is what I'm trying to get it. THEY as in the individual. Universal this and that is old now, the idea has been around, it's been tried. Why can we not support new and creative change - again, and sorry to regurgitate, like Singapore's two-tier health plan? The second any government starts contemplating solutions outside of the universal, Canadians get all up in arms about it. That's one of my major problems with the NDP and a little with the Liberals. They're all about universaility, when hindsight and foresight both agree, universal cannot deliver as univeral. I like the Greens for the innovation, and the Conservatives for their ability (at least when it comes to healthcare) to not be afraid to question the system. I'm off to catch a plane outta here, but I think we agree on the whole individuality thing (maybe i'm totally wrong? ). I just like to be long winded and argue for the sake of debate. Mine is a family full of debaters.

Frederick Banting did. So did Alexander Graham Bell.

Tommy Douglas didn't change the world. He planted a seed for free healthcare, Diefenbaker supported it, Pearson enacted it, and look where we're at now.

And Canadians will be forever destined to have only two options on the political stage - the Liberals and Conservatives.

I don't find this quite fair to say. If the Libs, NDP or Green party were elected tomorrow, none of their platforms have the ability to stave off this impending recession. NONE. This implies our current economic situation is the result of Harper's government, which it certainly is not. Gone are the days (so quickly!) of referring to Harper/Flaherty as the biggest spenders in Canadian history! How come so soon? Absolutely, and I suppose exactly why the Conservatives are doing just that. - allowing income splitting for families with children with disabilities - giving first time home buyers tax credits - making child care payments tax free - incrasing the senior age credit amount - renewing funding for affordable housing - cutting tax on diesel - lowering taxes for small businesses - providing access to venture capital for innovative businesses - creatiing innovative Automotive and Aerospace funds that help manufacturing change for the better - giving nearly $1 billion dollars to science research - new incentives for apprenices in skilled trades - Reinstating funding for regional development to the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency, Western Economic Diversification, Canada Economic Development for Quebec regions - Support the development of tourism infrastructure on the Saint Lawrence - Establsh a new regional development agency for Northern Canada - Establish a new regonal development agency for rural and low-employment communities over Southern Ontario - $33 billion dollars in infrastructure pledged - Incrased funding for older workers who have lost their jobs to go back to school or be re-trained - $500 million for farmers to cope with production costs, etc. - banning bulk water transfers - $1.5 billion to support the production of biofuels - $1.5 billion to produce more wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power - A pledge to generate 90% of our electricity from non-emitting sources by 2020 - reforming or abolishing the senate The list goes on. Dollar for dollar for what? Question - why do we, as Canadians, rely on our government to provide us a visionary goal? Why can't Canadians shape their own vision and then demand it of our governments? I fear the kind of creationism that you're seeking will never be affordable and/or of priority. Those who seek to create with their billions of dollars, i mean, OUR billions of dollars, do it in the name of things like universal daycare. The world has never been changed by government policy. The world has always been changed by an individual's revolution.

Actually, i should say things 'could' be overnight, but then that comes at the expense of fucking people over.

We definitely agree... which is pretty much why i'm so anti-strategic voting. I want a party like the Greens to get seats in the House, gain experience and be able to communicate their message amongst parliamentarians. I really like the Green platform, but I think there's a large part of it that would be in the least bit tweaked should they actually have governing experience to know what's possible and what's not. Existing as they are, I find their policy problematic and I'm left to identify more closing with the Conservatives, even if I disagree with them on some issues. I said elsewhere that feasibility is huge for me, I'm by no means an idealist. When it comes to anything and everything policy wise, my number one thing I think of is 'how will this relate to our economy?', in good times and bad. We've got a long way to go, I definitely agree, but unfortunately, and as our governing parties know all to well, nothing is overnight in this country, as much as our ideals would want it so.