Stephen Harper's Speech this afternoon.

[Birdy]

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.

[Thorgnor]

Wikipedia -

"Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "the first person willingly to call himself an anarchist," outlined a "libertarian society based on cooperation, as opposed to competition and coercion, and functioning without the need for government authority."[10]

The term libertarian was first popularized in France in the 1890s in order to counter and evade the anti-anarchist laws known as the les lois scélérates.[citation needed] According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines.[11] The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895.[12]

In the United States, libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism had meantime begun to take hold. The anarchist communist geographer and social theorist Peter Kropotkin wrote in his seminal 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article Anarchism that:

"It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of anarchism."[13]

Today, worldwide, anarchist communist, libertarian socialist, and other left-libertarian movements continue to describe themselves as libertarian. These styles of libertarianism are opposed to most or all forms of private property but would not use a coercive state to abolish it."

So?

Do you think Argentina was a pleasant place to be while the remains of Fascist European regimes trampled the forest and killed those in their way in order to hide from international law? Do you think that Ortega had nothing to do with the events of his times? He was exiled to Argentina, not Canada. Don't take it so personally. You just used a refutation of your political affiliation to claim justification of your philosophy. That's an oxymoron.

Remember who you consort with when you claim to be Libertarian.

More people in jails and more coercion not to commit offences IS REPUBLICAN and therefore ANTI-LIBERTARIAN...

Edited October 9, 2008 by Guest

[ollie]

Remember who you consort with when you claim to be Libertarian.

Yeah, me.

[Thorgnor]

One hundred-fifty years of conflation and miseducation has left us in a heap of meaningless phrases co-opted by our philosophical dopplegangers and suggests that these lefty-righty dichotomies don't really describe how we think, but rather how others characterise our thoughts in order to discredit us. Or it's because money is the only thing that makes for legitimate voice.

I'm most likely off base here.

[d_rawk]

I'm most likely off base here.

Maybe, maybe not.

that these lefty-righty dichotomies don't really describe how we think, but rather how others characterise our thoughts in order to discredit us.

The lefty righty dichotomy is clearly too simple an organizational tool for many situations, but not all. In anthropology, are imperfect categories not sometimes employed when they are suitable for the task at hand?

I've always gotten a kick out of Ralston Saul's definition of "LEFT VERSUS RIGHT" in the The Doubter's Companion

The result of an unfortunate seating arrangement.

In October 1789 the paris mob, led by women, walked to Versailles, stormed the palace and dragged the king back to town with them. The Assembly had no choice but to follow. Louis was put in his gilded cage, the Tuileries Palace. The nearest building capable of seating several hundred elected representatives in the same room was the palace stables out in what are now the Tuileries Gardens. The need to board and exercise a large number of horses had imposed a particular sort of structure. That shape in turn imposed a semi-circular seating plan on the carpenters brought in to do the emergency conversion.

It naturally followed that those who hated each other most sat as far away from each other as possible, to the extreme right and left of the podium. Thus the needs of horses helped to create our idea of irreconcilable political opposites. Had architecture permitted this semi-circle to complete itself, the reactionaries and the revolutionaries would have found themselves quite naturally sitting togeter.

Haha

Lefty-Righty dichotomies totally fall short of describing the fullness of any position, and fail entirely at expressing nuance. But it is helpful shorthand to establish a base. In a conversation with an American friend regarding politics, he described himself as "a die-hard free market libertarian" and I described myself as "considered far left, even for Canada". Neither says much about the particulars of our positions, but gets us very quickly to general understanding of where the other is coming from, and lets us drill down on the particulars from there.

[Birdy]

Yeah, me.

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.

[Thorgnor]

I was only trying to pin prick the idea that because I don't support one party I must be coming from the opposite angle, when apparently the two are not very distant if we accept traditional definitions and foundations... They were sitting in the barn, I was the carpenter who made the seats but gets no say on the matter because of class... dig it?

I feel the co-opting of the term "Libertarian" has allowed the "bourgeios" (or wealthy and educated, if you will) to confuse anarcho-socialists (not communists) into colluding with them, therefore cutting their enemy in two by incorporating half of them. Thus the vast differences within the established political parties actually diffuse the power of the real political movements to coalesce at the community level. Authority has become entrenched even for those who used to espouse free market type values leaving a form of competitive economy where supposedly all humanity competes from an equal "creation" ("We are all created equal") point. This totally ignores the inherent inequity of a system that recognizes inheritance. One or the other boys. You're either the Bush's, concerned with guaranteeing your family's position, or your Warren Buffet, who told his only son that he was going to have to make his own fortune.

[Thorgnor]

Fascism includes coercion right?... yeah... I'm kinda hard to pin down.

[d_rawk]

I feel the co-opting of the term "Libertarian" has allowed the "bourgeios" (or wealthy and educated, if you will) to confuse anarcho-socialists (not communists) into colluding with them, therefore cutting their enemy in two by incorporating half of them.

That's an excellent point, and one I privately wrestle with as I find my natural allies scarce.

This totally ignores the inherent inequity of a system that recognizes inheritance.

Another source of internal struggle. It would be interesting to me (and only me) to plot my sentiments about this on a graph with the x axis being time and the y axis being certitude. The broader discussion might make for a great thread, actually. Maybe once all the election noise dies down? (You come and go, Trogdor. I hope you will be here post election(s))

or your Warren Buffet, who told his only son that he was going to have to make his own fortune.

As has his buddy Bill Gates, for the same reasons.

[Birdy]

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.

[Thorgnor]

Post-Islamic Old-Testament Hebraic Rastafari Animist/Scientist... doesn't help does it?

Let's call it Post-Humanism or Hip-Hop, whatever you prefer.

I rarely try to argue the "nature of man" because of the very reason that we all see nature as we define it. That's cultural bias. Our political spectrum excludes our First Nations for the very reason that we simply disagree on things like property and the "nature" of humanity... call me "Off The Spectrum".

Edited October 9, 2008 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/archive/canada_votes/stephen_harper_live.html

Paraphrasing Stephen Harper - "I think that releasing new ideas like that you're going to spend thirty days looking at the problem during a debate shows that Dion [panicked]"

Tuesday - Conservative Platform released... http://www.conservative.ca/?section_id=5317&section_copy_id=106960&language_id=0

Today - $10 million pladged for Pulmonary diseases... I didn't see that in the platform.

I'm not saying the researchers and hospitals don't need the money, but isn't that a little "no your the black kettle" of them?

Too little...

ps. okay maybe I'm paraphrasing Mansbridge

Edited October 9, 2008 by Guest

[Booche]

-The energy of Montreal! We're in the midst of a terrible financial crisis, and should elections in the coming months bring the same old faces back to power, there may be no hope for us…But walk around Montreal this year, put your ear to the buzz of Canadiens fans everywhere, feel the excitement, and remember that for 3 hours—every couple of nights, you can lose yourself in a hockey team that will make you smile more than frown.

[Birdy]

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??

I rarely try to argue the "nature of man" because of the very reason that we all see nature as we define it. That's cultural bias. Our political spectrum excludes our First Nations for the very reason that we simply disagree on things like property and the "nature" of humanity... call me "Off The Spectrum".

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.

[d_rawk]

The Conservatives were more about the individual announcement rather than the whole shabam this campaign.

Purely tactically, I think this was the right approach. It worked for them last time (they did the same thing) and why fix something that ain't broke. Don't - forgive me the crassness - blow your load all at once, so to speak. Keep the media and the people watching, wondering, waiting .. so every policy announcement (roughly one per day) is a big event. It isn't a big event if you've already published it on paper before the announcement.

The reality is, nobody reads platforms. I mean, some of us poli. geeks who frequent politics forums might, but we are hardly representative. Generally people don't really care, or know, about platforms until someone points them out.

But if you release one, that gets rolled up into an article in the daily paper that people *do* care about and *do* read. So prevent that news cycle from taking place, until it suits your schedule. It's not a bad idea.

Convention is moving towards the practice being releasing a platform early (as you mentioned earlier, Birdy, this probably really got rolling with the Red Book) and I think that will catch up. Eventually it will be inescusable to play by any other standard. But between here and there, the Conservatives actually have it pretty well figured out, in terms of maximizing campaign exposure.

[phishtaper]

I'm muffling a scream with my hotel room pillow.

Birdy! I thot that was our little secret!

[Birdy]

hahaha... oops!

[Birdy]

Today - $10 million pladged for Pulmonary diseases... I didn't see that in the platform.

From the Conservative platform...

Supporting Research and Improving

Treatment for Major Diseases

The Conservative Government is proud of its record in working to fight some of the

gravest diseases facing Canadian families like cancer, spinal cord injury and mental

illness. We established the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and the Mental Health

Commission of Canada and supported the Spinal Cord Injury Translational Research

Network of the Rick Hansen Foundation.

A re-elected Conservative Government will continue to take creative measures to tackle

major lung, heart and neurological diseases.

We will also work toward bringing an end to discriminatory life insurance practices.

[Thorgnor]

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.

That's exactly what I'm saying. No matter whose or which research you rely on to constitute your argument of humanity's origin and therefore our nature, you choose particular biases. My origin (as imagined and therefore as it impacts my behaviour) is my context, it informs (sometimes through the actions of others due to their percetions of my identity) my understandings and interpretations of sensational material reality. I am a result of my context and my agency within my frameworks of understanding. Identification with any myth of origin is a claim to truth, not evidence of truth. Therefore the truth of our "origin" is effectively synonymous with the word itself. The logic is circular. Any Empirical research on the problem is bound by it's Empirical frameworks. The political implication is that a researcher is legitimised by being "right" about our origin, therefore the process is legitimate. Conclusions become unassailable on the grounds that the "origin of man cannot be refuted as this guy said..."

Admittedly I learned these ideas from my surroundings and I surmise thery are as circular as any other story that people tell...

that is all we do... tell stories... it's all we are.

I hesitate to claim any political identity because the need for leadership must be contextually tempered against my individual ability to agentially effect an outcome in the real world. Situations require different types of leadership and some Politics are far more concerned with behavioural control than with control of the material circumstances that effect my life. I would far rather pay taxes, in this context, to a government who is willing to spend on health, education and even bail-outs than more judges, police and militarism. More individual freedom will not flow, IMHO, from the barrels of proliferating arms.

Violence causes escalating violence, greed causes escalating greed. Xenophobia causes escalating autophagy... this rule by fear cannot sustain itself.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Guest
I am not absolving the Liberal party, they are complicit but IMO the lesser of two...

[d_rawk]

Admittedly I learned these ideas from my surroundings and I surmise thery are as circular as any other story that people tell...

that is all we do... tell stories... it's all we are.

I've been saying this forever .. where were you when I defended my identification with Christianity by putting forth "well, I rather like the story. And, besides, all we really have is a narrative."?

[Thorgnor]

Probably taking a dump.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Guest
some are more relieving than others, but somehow the poison remains

[phishtaper]

i have no idea what any of you are talking about ...

[Thorgnor]

Never heard of takin'a dump?!?!?!?!? Balogna!

[bradm]

i have no idea what any of you are talking about ...

No, it's more that the cultural context in which you were raised formed (and informs) you to think you believe you have no idea what any of them (or us) are talking about.

I think.

Aloha,

Brad

[Thorgnor]

Well said sir...

Edited October 9, 2008 by Guest
share language, share understanding... each one teach one ;)