Some Food For Thought

.
I predict that MORE Iraqis (a higher percentage, that is) will vote in their upcoming national election than Americans who voted in the recent 2004 national election. I will predict the turnout to be between 60 and 70 percent, closer to 70 percent, while the turnout for the recent American election was right at 60 percent of eligible voters.

No individual in a society is free.
We are constrained by our fellow members. I'm not talking about fatuous things like the freedom to kill our next door neighbour. But we all accept a curtailment in our individual liberty in order to live with each other. A society can be free, but an individual never can be.

Freedom and liberty are very ambigous words, even in modern democratic societies, they are continually examined. It's this process, that defines our society as 'free'. Since the process is gauge the freedom of the individual against the needs of the society of which they are a part.

With the above proviso, I agree with you entirely, but given this how can we justify the imprisonment without trial of suspected enemies. It's happening in both our wonderfully free democratic libertarian societies at this very moment. Judge them guilty of putting their individual freedom before that of our society, fine. No judgement and we are liars and hyprocrites.

...on social programs. Just know that I work for every cent, so you can understand where I sit on the spectrum. I despise social programs to the core, as I have seen first hand thier failures and shortcomings.

I'm with you on that topic. I'm being ripped off in a big way.

When and where did I say that people should be allowed to exact vengeance without proof (or, really, at all)? I rather think it will be a long, long while before you can answer that accurately without backpedaling, since as far as I'm aware the answer is "never". Do not (I say again [b]DO NOT[/b]) start pulling that crap I see all too often where people bullheadedly assume that refraining from acting like a jackbooted tyrant must mean you're some chaos-hungry might-makes-right anarchist. I'm not even an anarcho-capitalist, so you don't even have the excuse of confusing minarchist libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. One more time: do [b]not[/b] start confusing the issue with inaccurate comparisons, especially if you want to retain what respect I have for you.

Feel free to disagree with me, but don't try to use straw-man arguments against me. I will see through them, and the only result you'll achieve is annoying me and making you look like a complete arse. You remind me, with this post of yours, of someone I knew in California who in every political discussion eventually ended up yelling something like "Well, if you hat laws so much, go move to Somalia!" That falls far short of effective, valid debate techniques.

By the way, you make a whole lot of unsupported assumptions in your explanation of how taxes are "needed". Service fees can arguably achieve better results [b]without being confiscatory in nature[/b], for example. You so clearly have an ingrained, socially programmed expectation of what's possible, based on decades of living under an entrenched system, that you're unwilling to think outside that box, though.

Gah. To see someone that is usually very reasonable spew this crap is frustrating in the extreme. I'm going to shut up now, before I say something I regret.

Hmm Ever decreasing circles this.
How can you identify a value of liberty, without defining what liberty is.
If your definition does not agree with mine it's possible that this value will be identified differently.
It's up to you to define what your liberty is and me mine, and then if we want to live in harmony, compromise. That is indeed society, and if it's fair and equal we will both have to give up a freedom.

This should crease your head !

If I'm not allowed to violate your rights are my rights being violated ?

Tee Hee

.
....to literally VOTE themselves ownership of someone else's property. What's the difference if they take it by gunpoint or by popular vote? They still take something that doesn't belong to them. Unfortunately, it happens all the time in the "once-free" nation we call America.

Who was it that said, in a democracy, when the public realizes they can vote themselves favors from the public coffers, the democracy is doomed to fail.

.
Some people presume to take the moral high-ground when it comes to something insignificant like going a few miles over the speed limit or harmlessly accessing someone's wireless network, but they don't think twice about the legal theft of someone else's property - by popular vote.

We have subsidies big-time in the UK and I guess you have them in the US. As a fit, single, working, home-owning white heterosexual I don't think I get any and I don't think I've ever had any. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this though I reckon that as the causes get weirder I get more alienated.

We are getting a subsidisation mentality - that it is OK for someone elses cause to get subsidised provided my cause can be subsidised too.

Obviously I would be better off with a system which subsidises nothing - in which my taxes are simply given back. That isn't happening.

For most people there is a belief that the government will probably take the money anyway, so the best thing they can do is to fight for the subsidies. Strangely, nobody seems to vote against a government that subsidises something completely foolish, but they do vote against a government who refuses to subsidise their own foolishness.

Where does the US stand? These are probably common to both countries.

Biggies like state schooling and (for us) the NHS. Personal ones such as maternity leave and child-care. Obvious economic ones such as public transport, agricultural subsidies and industrial subsidies for ailing industries. Then the more contentious ones - civil rights, religious, sexual and racial groupings.

"Free child-care for black lesbians". They probably want it and probably get it in Lambeth (a left-wing borough in London).

The point I was trying to make is our rights are defined by our societies, and our societies are a consensus of the the beliefs/mores etc of the individuals that compose it.

The answer to the question
If I cannot violate your rights are mine being violated.?
Is no
IF you are both members of the same society !(because your rights are the same, well in a fair one anyway)
Which is the point I was trying to get across.

You can't really have a society if theft is morally correct, or murder or any other form of gross reduction in the value of a human life, mandating those are why society originated in the first place.

So why was it your example, why not the right to bear arms , the right to a sexual orientation, the right to not wear clothes, to proselytize a religious belief, to dress in keeping with your culture.

None of these drastically reduce the value of human life but laws against them exist in several of our fair and free societies.
Them and Us, because Right and Wrong depend on where you come from.

So if you have the right to go armed and I have the right not to expect other people to be armed your right is violating mine.

If I have the right not to expect others to be armed ,so you can't be mine is violating yours.

Got sod all to do with stealing has it!

We all live in democratic countries where we have elected the leaders and leaders and lawmakers as a result of our choices. This is freedom, this is democracy this is what our nations have fought for so we didn't all have to be governed the same way.

Some don't like the way we can lose a vote when it comes to taxation and 'redistribution of our hard earned money'. Some just don't care that we are goverened by those we elected in our democracy.

So I say, lets vote on it? OR can we only vote on certain things in a democracy, if so, who decides what we can vote for? Should we take a vote on that?

Hmmmm. I sense a pattern here. Those who don't think we should vote on it, would need to rise up against the rest in these democratic nations and have thier say. Make it impossible to vote for such issues,thus creating a sort of private dictatorhsip of thier income, where THEY will decide how it is dealt with.
or
Maybe they can CONVINCE people to vote against it next time.

Perhaps it won't happen though and these people will use thier freedom of speech to shout it from the rooftops.

When that isn't heard, perhaps they can then start violent demonstrations, then perhaps a rebellion against the ability to vote. Guerilla warfare, left vs right, it's only a matter of time really. Who needs foreign enemies when we discount democratic choices?

So what is it, the democratic right to vote for EVERYTHING effecting our society and the way our taxes are handled, if not, who decides what social programs we should support without voting, and why?

Well I am sitting here with the Global News team, 'early' views of the election in Iraq shows a "dismal turnout at best' with an accounted 200,000 Iraqi's having fled Iraq (though estimated at double that number) they estimate the number of registered voters at 10%.

Turnouts have been minimal, small scattered groups trickling in to vote, no line ups.

22 Polling stations are at this time unmanned and not open, as they were refused security, those working in the stations refused to turn up for work.

Perhaps after some hours of peace pass, people will realize that it is actually safe to go and vote. Who knows, but for the present time, it isn't looking as promising as expected.

Anyhow, the show in Vancouver just finished so I am gonna hang with the meet and greets and see if anyone actually stayed behind. Most buses took off for Calgary within minutes, there were some REALLY bad technical issues between the broadcasters and live sound agents who in turn took flak fomr management and artists who were pretty pissed. Avril just about went ballistic over her match up for the encore, the mike was set to 5'9" and wasn't mixed. During the song they split up and foud better mikes but it was after her verse so it didn't go too well.

Oh well they raised a few million so that's good enough fo rone show.

Damn, these two girls from Global TV are sitting beside me and firing off press reports at what must be 120wpm, clickety clickety, clickety, to my tap tap tap.....backspace, tap, tap, tap. LOL! Sounds like flight of the bumble bee or something!

ewcnyoqrp94w8nmw4cpytp 9hnvsfd8zysgcm;oviwtv6np

Just wanted it to sound good, shhhh!

to hypothesise about the value of the elections in Iraq.

Give it three months, six months, or a year, and THEN you can make a decision as to whether the cost in human lives has been worth it.

If a stable democracy can be established, well then that's great.

But if America's (and certain allies') attempt to impose democracy in a part of the world where this concept is quite foreign, then I would say that much blood has been shed in vain.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not commenting on your premise, but making what I consider to be a pragmatic statement of the viability of the exercise.

is the right to vote some of our rights away. I was suggesting to Max that we do indeed vote ourselves ownership of other peoples property.

Our Welfare State is an example of society voting away its own individual freedom to spend all they earn by handing the government the power to tax and spend more than is absolutely necessary for the governments basic responsibilities such as defense.

We then get back one of Tony's points that "our" current idea of what rights and responsibilities and contraints makes a good, free society and good government is not necessarily what goes for that in the US and certainly isn't that which will apply in Iraq.

What they want first is freedom from car-bombs and then freedom to get us out and get on with whatever suits them.

Because ideas and expectations of "freedom" are so culture-specific and because the UN (with its perspective of all the member states) is not sufficiently involved then I fear that the imposed democratic process in Iraq will not be right for them and will prove to be too alien.

Just because the Iraqis will all vote doesn't mean that what the Iraqis think they are voting for is what we think (hope?) they think they are voting for.

After reading this, those of you to whom this doesn't apply will know I'm not talking to you.

Words have specific meanings. The word "liberty" doesn't mean "the pillaged riches of my enforced sense of entitlement". Going around saying you "can't be free" without stealing that which others have worked to produce doesn't make it true. Social norms don't define liberty, period. Liberty is a term that has a meaning and, in ethical terms, is not a colloquialism used to describe the miserable privileges dispensed by the welfare state. Nobody's liberty consists of another's slavery, no matter what your accustomed social traditions may be. If a society somehow operates on the assumption that "good" can only come about at the expense of confiscatory coercion, that is not a free society.

Anything that condones or, worse yet, mandates a form of slavery is not free, and protects no liberty. Anything that forces someone to work four months or more out of the year for no reward is slavery (and the average number of months' wages per person confiscated by income tax to fund the welfare state is more than four).

As for compromising on the meaning of liberty, I offer this Ayn Rand quote: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

Ethical actions never conflict. If you do something that causes your perceived rights to conflict with another's, someone has acted in a manner that is unethical. You do not have the right to act in a way that abrogates another's rights. Your rights, therefore, consist of nothing more than the right to be free of an initiation of force (violence, threat, or fraud).

The notion that a majority vote can somehow justify violation of individual rights is patently absurd. Nobody has the right to give up a person's rights other than that person. You can, by word or deed, give away your rights, but nobody else is empowered to give them away. When voters, legislators, judges, juries, and executive powers remove the rights of any individual, those who thus act are simply wrong. It is only when someone demonstrates clearly that he doesn't value a right, by communicating its forfeiture or by willfully violating the rights of others, that his own relevant rights are null and void. This capacity of a person to demonstrate a forfeiture of rights by violating the rights of others, by the way, provides the ethical justification for a system of law enforcement and jurisprudence.

Another important and notable quote, this time by PJ O'Rourke: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislators, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." This brings us nicely into the matter of things like corporate welfare, price controls, governmental involvement in labor unions, social programs, and so on.

To try to justify any of the above by pointing out the popular stamp of approval granted by democratic vote is to subscribe to the notion that might makes right. Granting the ability to "society" to determine the meaning of terms like "liberty" and "rights" is, again, to subscribe to the notion that might makes right. When a majority number, representing a force that can overwhelm the opposition in any contest of attrition, gets to set the rules by virtue of those superior numbers, a state of fiat by power is in effect. That's no way to run a "free society". Democracy never made the US great: only the Bill of Rights did that, including references to privacy, property, defense, expression, belief, and so on.

If consensus grants any definitive answer to what liberty is, someone's going to have to explain how enforced slavery, murder, and rape can be wrong. I don't know of too many people that think slavery, rape, or murder is ever right, and yet the same people that agree these things are wrong will often hold that consensus makes for the only useful measure of right and wrong. Somehow, the fact that consensus has created institutions of accepted slavery, rape, and murder for tens of thousands of years.

It doesn't matter if the culture doesn't want individuals to have various liberties. Only an individual has the ethical right to give up liberties, and then only that individual's own liberties, never anyone else's. Granted, "democracy" doesn't really qualify as rights and liberties; it's just a system of governmental decision-making that is often equated with the ability to exert one's will over oneself.

This "democracy" crap, in my opinion at least, is just a political expediency. Giving another country "democracy" doesn't mean anything without the ethical legislative controls needed to guide the capabilities of democratic processes. In the United States, we have the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, there are other parts of the Constitution that allow for legislative nullification of some aspects of the Bill of Rights through normal lawmaking, or actual elimination of any part of the protections provided by the Bill of Rights through amendment to the Constitution. This sort of thing is the reason the country consistently seems to be going downhill: these loopholes build upon each other, so that each new one used produces the foundation for the next. Still, the Bill itself is of critical importance, so long as it remains intact.

Without equivalent guarantees, Iraq's putative democracy is screwed, blued, and tattooed, one way or another. I agree that liberty should be disseminated to the world at large, but the job being done of it in Iraq right now is broken, at best. Part of the reason for this is the government's susceptibility to popular opinion, particularly since "popularity" is no guarantee of "quality".

In any case, Iraq (like every other nation on Earth) needs liberties.

both collectively and individually. That's why we form groupings such as "society" so we can let someone else tell us what to do. Al of the things that we should do for ourselves, we have this sneaking suspicion that someone is doing it better than we. We're all afraid of personal responsibility and we wouldn't know what to do with "real" freedom so we give it away. We're not bright enough to fully manage our own lives. One man, one vote and you'll get the tyrany of the masses.

OK. So it's not right. What do we need? "Enlightened self-interest" or which 'ocracy would suit the UK, the US, oh, and Iraq - which is what this is about after all? And, once we've decided what suits us best, how do we get it?

I can assure you that the people with who I'm going to have a beer this lunchtime will NOT be discussing the ethics of liberty. The conversation will be on whether Man U have left it too late to catch Chelsea - they have.

.
I made a grammatical error AND failed to capitalize a word beginning a sentence. I would like to edit that, but how would people know that I didn't edit the content? They wouldn't. So I guess I'll have to live with my errors.

.
It's said that when there is an irreconcilable difference with two seemingly valid arguments, then you should back up and consider the premise. In this case, which is the tangent of welfare, taxation, social programs, etc., one argument states that a government of a truly free people should not impose various transfer-of-wealth programs because the practice, by definition, infringes on the personal liberties of those from whom the wealth is taken. That sounds like a valid argument to me (especially since it's mine). On the other hand, those in favor of such practices suggest that they, too, have a right to define the kind of society in which they live. (I think I got that right, in a simplistic kind of way. If not, please correct me.) And I suppose I can agree with that as well. After all, if the Amish Community, for example, wants to live in their own kind of structured society, who am I to tell them otherwise?

When it comes to the transfer-of-wealth proponents versus the individual-responsibility folks, the answer, in today's society, seems to be elusive. (I might note, however, that the answer was not elusive at all in the early days of our republic.) Therefore, if both sides of the argument claim that their "individual liberty" will be threatened by advancing the others' desires, then we apparently have a difference in interpreting the definition of individual liberty.

I might suggest that a person's right to individual liberty stops at the door-step of infringing on the individual liberty of another. In my Amish example, for instance, they sure do have a right to live however they please, but that right to self-determination stops if they try to assimilate me into that lifestyle. But they don't do that at all. They simply say, you live how you want, and I'll live how I want. I can not only live with that, but I fully concur with that.

So when we step back and really look at the transfer-of-wealth proponents versus the individual-responsibility folks, we see that the former cannot advance their desires without the latter. But the latter could get along just fine without the former. It seems obvious to me whose individual liberties are being infringed upon.

But that's using my definition of individual liberty. What's yours?

(I posted here because the "tangent" thread was taken to its reply limit.)

Somehow I knew that YOUR attempt at backpeddling would include comments about me backpeddling, you set it up in your last post. HOw stupid do you really think people are?

!) Believe what you want, don't flatter yorself into thinking I was replying to you though. My comment was just another view based on what Tony had said.
Nothing to do with your owm comments which did nothing to interest me in posting a reply.

2) I have no reason to deny anything I said, especially as countered by yourself because I wasn't replying to you. I would have posted a NO POST link and corrected it, but didn't think you would see it as a reply to yourself when it clearly fts elsewhere, plus the subject didn't interest me enough to repost anyway. It's not a problem I see or feel is an issue, this would be YOUR concern not mine.

3) As you said, whatever. Propagate notions of the righteousness of coercive actions??
Using carefully constructed sentences, thanks to a thesaurus, is not a way of making a moot point impressive.

Believe what you choose to believe, it's not my problem. Actually that IS your freedom to enjoy all by yourself, as you have clearly demonstrated here. Just don't expect me to listen to it when you can't see the reason for my post and if you think it was your own comments, once again, don't flatter yourself.

I may have changed sentence structure after reading my post and finding out it was confusing or misleading, I didn't change the context. If it APPEARS to you that the context was changed, perhaps you had the wrong impression in the first place and thus it is an even better reason to reformat a sentence to reiterate the intent.

Anyhow, ferry is docking and i have to split but if you were to stop your constant character sassumtptions and actually think about what people are saying instead of trying to dissect what people say, you'd find more common ground with more people I am sure.

And I will continue to submit spinelessly to the whims of the UK electorate. Although I agree with a lot of what you say, I'm about as political as a marshmallow so I only get what I deserve.

If anything good from your crusade spills across the Atlantic then, seriously, thank you. I fear, however, we are all stuck with our present systems of government until something REALLY bad happens.

Neil

:-)

Regardless of what person it was to whom you were replying, or what edits you make after the fact, it is still true that what you said directly contradicts some points of basic logical validity and suffers the shortcomings I pointed out earlier.

Backpedaling (I've typed this word how many times now, and you're still talking about selling from your back rather than backing up?) is not what I've done. I would think you're not dumb enough to think I have, but I guess you might simply not know what backpedaling is. If that's the case, I recommend you look up "backpedal" at onelook.com at your earliest convenience so you'll know exactly what specious argument it is you're trying to construct in the form of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Trying to insinuate that I'm some kind of moron without a firm grasp of the English language trying to impress some wannabe socialist by picking words out of reference materials is a pretty egregious bit of argumentum ad hominem. Not only do I not own a thesaurus, but I haven't met one I liked. Furthermore, I've only pointed out the flaws in your reasoning here and your inability to pay attention to what's being said, and yet you've tried to drag this debate into the realm of petty bickering about irrelevancies that aren't even logically supportable with available evidence. News flash: The fact that you have to look up words when reading my posts isn't proof that I'm a moron. Perhaps you should (warning: upcoming pun) fsck yourself.

In case you haven't noticed, I have zero tolerance for people that think it's "right" to point a gun at my head and demand my money. While you may not be doing so directly, you and your spiritual brothers are doing so by proxy by supporting governmental systems that use coercive means to extract the means of my livelihood and impose unnecessary restrictions on my daily life. If it weren't for the initiation of force that would be used to put me down in retaliation, I'd take advantage of my ethical right to defend myself from coercion, with force if need be. Being outnumbered by millions of thieving little nematodes with a disproportionate amount of destructive force at hand and no compunction against using it to victimize others, however, I have to toe the line.

I'm not keen on being a slave for the first four or five months of every year. Why are you?

"can assure you that the people with who I'm going to have a beer this lunchtime will NOT be discussing the ethics of liberty. The conversation will be on whether Man U have left it too late to catch Chelsea - they have."

I think that's what amazes me the most here, how some are absolutely infatuated with politics, individual freedoms and rights, Liberty and justice for all etc.

Have you EVER had such a conversation with your mates? EVER?

Yet the people inaftuated with politics, that segregate between themselves due to political affiliation and beliefs are the same people who swear they have the most freedom in the world?

Have you EVER really pondered your freedoms?

Have you ever felt inclined to or seen teh need to?

Have you ever really NOT felt free?
Beyond the typical, "damn taxes, the government gets everything it seems, ha ha ha , another pint then?"

Di dyou know that you live in what many consider one of the most repressive and tightly controlled socialist systems in the world? YOu should be ashamed according to some, you should be rising up and fighting the authority that squelches you ability to grow as an individual!

If not, it's easily concluded that you are just jealous. :D

Anyhow, no time for now, but you are seeing the same thing I saw a few years back. Just get used to it, don't try to fight it, because you ARE wrong.

I actually agree with your estimation of the likelihood of an improvement in circumstances, neilb. That doesn't stop me from at least trying to prevent further decay of my rights, of course.

In any case, a "marshmallow" who doesn't grant license to unethical governmental practice is at least one less person I have to fight tooth-and-nail to keep what liberty I still have.

EDIT: Nice work, Oz. Trying to turn an amicable "Well, I'm going to continue to not be terribly worried at the moment, though I see what you mean," into an agreement with you that people concerned with the quality of their own lives and the ethicality of the manner in which they're treated must be some kind of nutters is pretty friggin' asinine. Why don't you let him speak for himself without trying to tell him what he thinks?

Oh, that's right, you seem to lack some basic respect for the rights of others. I almost forgot.

If you want money stolen from me to give to others, you should just come to my house with a gun and do it the old-fashioned, more direct way. Sending government to do your dirty work for you only compounds the unethicality of the act, though it does insulate you from the consequences of trying to steal from someone that prefers to keep his rights intact.

as I've never addressed "personal liberty" before. I think our perspectives on this may be further apart than you think.

First thoughts. The fact that we are a monarchy may have some influences on how we perceive personal freedoms, liberty or whatever whether or not Her Maj has infringed on my rights.

Actually, I would quite like an elected non-executive president as I think Charles is a prat and the class-system in the UK still has an undue influence - but thats a whole other ballgame.

All of our culture from the Magna Carta onwards has been the case of the rights of power groups, mainly the Monarchy, being restrained and the last of this was around 1650. We, the peasants, have NEVER been given rights of any sort. The nobility just no longer have the right to work us to death or sleep with our wives on our wedding night.

You, on the other hand, have the OPPOSITE situation in that your constitution and its amendmends sets out where you stand.

It does make you a rather litigious lot, though. Just like the old Wild West, somebody steps on your rights and whoever draws the fastest lawyer...

God, you can argue!

(Quick, change the subject and put him off). How's the romance going over in Evolution? We're all trying not to watch...

Neil

:-)

I'm of the opinion the Kurds should have autonomy anyway, as long as any Kurd that wants to opt out of Kurdish government has the ability to do so.

It's really a shame that there are people out there willing to impose their political will through the intentional murdering of civilians in masses, though. It's the very definition of terrorism: killing people to serve as an example to others.

That is the first time I have ever heard the two words used together.

How do you suggest we pay taxes? Just pitch in a bit in the bucket on payday....IF we want to?

WHat I find most amusing is how you all get so riled up abotu the government redistributing your income throughout your country.

Yet you never mention why you wouldn't want to help those it supports and even moreso, how do you focus on such small issues when your government spends more money on War than any other fund it has EVER taken money from it's citizens for?

This has NEVER been raised here, nobody has ever said, MY country spend all of my money on a poorly justified war in foreign lands? NO t one person has said, HOW MANY MROE JETS DOES MY MONEY HAVE OT PAY FOR!!!

NObody has said, geez that last 80 billion the president asked for is coming out of my pocket, why am I still paying for my medical insurance?

Why can't you take care of US before you blow THEM up?

As for protecting your great nation from threat of attack, that never was and still isn't a reality to support such an argument.

.
All events of the past 12 to 24 months clearly showed that this was inevitable. Predicting a 70 percent turnout was, in my opinion, a no-brainer. But the general public, whose only source of information seems to be the general main-stream media, has been given the impression that the country is in total and utter chaos. There were people (including some of my TR peers) who predicted the elections wouldn't even take place -- and as recently as four weeks ago. They were, as usual, wrong. But they will not admit it; instead they will do whatever necessary to discredit the process. It would be refreshing to see even one of them (and they know who they are) just admit that they were wrong, and that they concede things are going better than they were led to believe. But I won't hold my breath.

PUN? How is telling someone to f**k themself a 'pun'? Were we discussing sexuality and the pun fell into place or something? I thought you were trying to instill your political beliefs on me, thus removing my own right to my opinion.

It seems your country is divied within itself, you have problems locally without worrying about what Canada and the UK does. And should it 'rub off on you' then perhaps you were wrong and the other half of America was right all along?

I will completely diregard all of your insunuations and 'ad hominem' comments as they simply don't hold water. I will ignore you condesentions and I will ingore your attempts at an eloquent flame.

I will also ignore the fact that you feel your views should be heard by all and anyone who disagrees is a moron.

I think all in all I will simply ignore this discussion as you have blatantly taken a mispost and held it as your own. LIke I said in the first place, I wasn't talkign to you, I hadn't realized that you would even THINK it was directed at you as it had norelevance or reference to what you had said anyway.

THis is not backpeddling in anyway, it is just your inaiblity to accept that maybe someone posted by mistake and wasn't interested in having the converstaion with you to begin with.

But flatter yourself all you like, as long as you have a good day in the end,perhaps call a few freidns and tell them about how f***ed up this Canadian guy on the internet was because you misunderstood his post, you could easily turn a few friends to hating Canada (if they don't already) and praising your own country for it's ability to waste your tax money on things other than it's own people.

This is all non issue, you have responded incorrectly to the mispost with your own 'ad hominem' argument.

When you THOUGHT I was posting to you, even after stating how you never said any of the things I referred to in my post (a good indication it was not directed at yourself I would think), you replied with a rude and uncontrolled rant on ME (this would constitute ad hominem) and my views. You BEGAN your post by saying it made no sense and you had never said that, will you ever realize you didn't put 2+2 together and think it MIGHT not hav ebeen dorected at you to begin with?

Or would that just destroy your own credibility with yourself that you could make such a commonly human mistake?

If you are reading through Neil;

See what I mean? You can talk rationally to these guys about ANYTHING but politics and freedom. Yet half of their country thinks the absolute opposite to what the other half thinks, they are used to these issues in the forefront of their day as everyone they meet is sniffed for political affiliation and then either accepted or rejected before a word can be spoken.

Your political views define what form of a man you are, now THAT'S SAD!

This is the water-cooler - you are amongst friends. Metaphoric (or in my case literal) beer - San Miguel - in hand, chewing over the woes of the world. At least that's how it should be.

Keep putting your posts in however you please. I find the [Edit] is so useful for correcting typos and just plain idiot word-order and will continue to use it without accepting censure from the unelected post-police. Although I give up the right to completely change the point of any post and maroon a reply high and dry I reserve the right to edit any post that makes me look more of a prat than I really am.

As a similarly unelected member of the post-police, I give you permission to do the same.

Neil

God, anything to cut down on your typos! :-)

Max is the most educated and correct perons to ever enter a keystroke on tech republic, his ability to show his true intellect certainly overshadows anyone so small as myself of possibly uttering a correct word.

MAxwell is so absolutely brilliant in all of his comments, it astounds me that we don't see such intelligent and informed individuals outside of America.

If I was ever lucky enough, I would leave my retarded education and this terrible country that I am forced to live in, for the brighter and more educating pastures of America, should I be lucky enough to be accepted into thier vast land of true awareness.

I am but a small man from a foreign country, I could never possibly be correct so I amuse the educated by spewing lies and then covering them up, because I am too stupid to understand context.

Max well IS the most intelligent person I have ever encountered, it is no wonder other countries don't stack up against the US in anyway, they simply do not educate and produce such inteligent and aware creatures when compared to the USA.

What do I know anyway, I am just hiding in a wannabe country that runs at the first sign of conflict. When we followed behind America to the World Wars, we should have learned then and there
that we had met our match. People in the US simply cannot, have not and will never be wrong. That's everyone else's problem.

I don't even remember the wild west suggestion, BUT I will agree that if we are simply allowed TRUE freedom, it will be no different than the wild west.

Then again, is it someone else's right to decide if that is wrong or right?

I would think not. HALF of your country would go ape if people tried to instill their form of government on you. The other half may embrace it.

You may have 150 million people show up to vote for the new government, especially with a growing distaste for Bush within your own. This would then be a clear indication that you DO want to adopt Canada's principles after all, wouldn't it?

Sorry, I tried to mimick your third party converstaions that you have when you are trying to upatage someone by draggnig out a popularity contest, but I forgot and titled my post to you directly, instead of using something like "Here's what people think of Max" or "Look everyone, Max is saying something I don't like, I am seeking like minded opinions please"

So transparent, so common and so characteristic.

.
SACRAMENTO (AP): A group of environmental sympathizers blew up a Sacramento polling place yesterday, killing 34 American voters, in an attempt to disrupt an election that has several significant environmental issues on the ballot, election officials have reported. "They are hoping to squash the voter turnout in order to influence the outcome", this unnamed election official said.

Clashes had erupted between the environmentalists and local police in western Sacramento. And in Sacramento's mainly Republican area of Pebble Creek, the neighborhood's four polling centers did not open at all because of the threat of violence, residents said. A low Republican turnout could undermine the new ballot issues and worsen tensions among the country's business and environmental groups.

A Web site statement purportedly from the group, Earth First Liberation Front, claimed responsibility for election-day attacks in Sacramento, although the claim could not be verified.

--------------------

What if it happened here?

Would we tolerate it?

Would we excuse it?

Yes neil I know. I can't type worth a damn. I have terrible typing skills, my hands are all over the keyboard and I never took a typing class (NOOO!) or studied row placement or whatever it is called.

I am also using an IBM latptop and the keys are allsquished together. I think my biggest issue is the space bar orphaning letters or missing spaces.

As for edits, I edit almost every post.

I will read it as I post it, but the post window is too small and gets frustrating. Then after hitting submit I will reread and notice mistakes, sometimes from changing ONE word, the whole sentence loses context and need to be rewritten.

Or when you change a sentence and laave a word from the last comment in place that completely screws it up.

Either way I fumble through until I have had enough correcting my own mistakes and then leave the rest as is.

In the case of this morning, my computing is rushed and sporadic. I didn't have tim eot edit one post because the ferry was here. Then the bus was loading baggage and I was typing while on the bench at the terminal, etc.

This is just my time waster for the most part, something to do while my thumb is out of my arse.

You'll get used to it though, I have had other say they don't even spot my typos anymore because they read right through the 'orphans' and 'dyslexic typo' style.

It is absolutely hysterical that you commented about post police, I'll have to peermail you that one sometime. What a riot! :D

Max is ALWAYS right, didn't you read my last post.

He is American, how could he POSSIBLY be incorrect about anything in the world, especially grammar and the English language? It's the rest of the world that has it all wrong, thank you all for being so patient!

How often do you come into conflict with your constitution written or otherwise. How often have you had to bow to the majority.

Until you have your freedom, however you define it, challenged, you barely notice it's even there.

This is the UK right now.

Is it right for my government to deny me a trial by my peers, on the basis that the reason I'm in court is not enough to warrant it.
Given that this is a right I have now and the 'majority' wish to take it from me and that as a minority representative I have no say.

Have my rights been violated or simply changed ?

Has freedom been redefined by my society, does it now mean something different ?

Are the definition of a concept and it's application one and the same thing. ?

I loved the bit about words having a specific definition by the way. Indeed a word is defined by other words which also have a specific meaning, which is words ...
LOL
All words are defined in context. Context depends on who, what, when and where you are at the time you are asked for a definition.
It's called semantic freight.
The more similar our freight the more we agree on the definition.

.
You said, "in fact nobody said anything ot (sic) the effect that my comments SEEM misleading."

But in another message you said that you, "may have changed sentence structure after reading my (your) post and finding out it was confusing or misleading."

So on one hand, nobody told you they were misleading. But on the other hand you, yourself, recognized that they may be misleading. I suppose I should have known that you were typing something that you, yourself, would later find to be misleading....but I should have known that.....

Wait a minute, before I try to figure out that logic, I have a square hole and a round peg I've been trying to match up.......

But it was a point that I think had to be made and you did give me the obvious place to hang it. It brought back some memories - my desk (12th floor) was in pieces in the dock - and maybe I snapped a bit. I do agree with everything you've said on the subject of terrorism.

It's so easy for people and groups to get a bit detached from terrorist acts when they don't happen in your backyard and that's what happened with NORAID. I'm ashamed to say it but a tiny part of my brain said "NOW they know" when 911 happened.

The IRA's terrorism - which we all lived with for many years - had a target that we could at least understand. You could understand the motives of the Oklahoma City bomber.

Terrorism like 911 and the Spanish train have no easily identifiable motive, however, and thats where it differs. I do not believe that there was ever a link between Iraq and terrorism but, unfortunately, there is now.

At the moment the violence is directed inward at the fledgling government and I can see neither how to stop it nor where it could end if we don't. There are people who will use the Iraq invasion to recruit terrorists in our backyard. It's not over yet. We have to succeed in getting some form of stable government - even if it's one we don't like.

Neil

about the bombing.

But Max's post was the obvious place to make the point. The still-vivid memory of staring at what was once a 15-storey building that I worked in made me a little brutal. Eighteen months before the building was liveable in. The one next door is still a shell today and the one across the road was demolished.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is still as true today as it's ever been.

Neil

As for the wealth distribution, I am coming to the conclusion that an English Socialist is two things so far from anything that some (most?) Americans can understand that we might just as well be foreigners. Oh, we are.

This is in reply to Max's comment.

I believe that there is a common cause to the aspects of US society that bother us both.

The growing use of situational ethics in everyday life.

I don't mind or disagree with the first few levels of situational ethics where one makes a personal sacrifice for the benefit of others. I suspect that you also fully accept the upper levels of situational ethics.

We have divergent views on the value of some forms of the middle levels of situational ethics where many make a small sacrifice for the benefit of "Society".

I have much more of a problem with the lower levels of situational ethics where one stretches the code of ethics for personal gain.

Be it traffic laws or business, as one stops following the ethical guidelines, it becomes easier to justify actions that cause greater and greater harm to the whole.

Be it Enron, Tyco, or World Com, the disasters that befell investors, customers, and employees alike all started as a small breach of ethics for personal gain.

I think it is high time for our society to return to a high standard of personal ethics.

We need to start asking ourselves what is the most ethical choice.
NOT, which option has the most personal gain for me.

Chas

.
The (WMD) reason was the only one harped on by the media -- and the political opponents -- so it's no wonder people believed that was the only reason. However, since you have an obvious interest to look these things up on your own (which I think is great, by the way), if you feel so inclined, spend a little time to look up everything said by Prime Minister Blair, President Bush, and Secretary of State Powell. An interesting way to approach it is to do so from the position of looking for support. You will find no fewer than a dozen different reasons that were given for taking actions against Iraq. Look for those dozen (or so) reasons, and it will make you wonder why everybody only harped on one. (Another reason, for example, is that Saddam Hussein ordered the assassination of a former US president; but the attempt was thwarted.)

I will admit, however, that the WMD reason was the one more strongly emphasized; but still, it wasn't the only reason. Moreover, if you really look into it, there may be more to the WMD story than we're privy to. I, for one, don't believe we are being made aware of all the details. For more on that issues, read what Lt. General Michael DeLong has to say about it. It certainly will make for some interesting "food for thought".

Max,

I generally accept and agree with your comments.

However, (you knew there would be a however) I don't fully agree that the insurgents main goal is to stop democracy.

There are at least 3 levels of insurgency in Iraq:

The ones attempting to stop the election are more opposed to change than democracy itself. We oversimplify the situation if we believe that this group is just against freedom.
They are against any change except to a strict Theocracy run by their sect.

A few are remnants of the Iraqi armed forces and think they can somehow return to power through intimidation.

The bulk of terrorists in Iraq are opposed to the US occupation of "Holy Lands".

Personally, I suspect that the terrorist leaders are using Iraq as a testing ground for new recruits.
Those that prove to be competent and loyal will be sent to sleeper cells in other countries.

I fully expect that there are sleeper cells in the US waiting for their chance to strike at our country.

Chas

It was the outright nutters who thought he was a good candidate. If the tories had n't all sh*t their brains down the commons toilets so they had an extra place to store money, I'm not sure labour would ever have got back in power. I love seeing them in a similar position, they've learnt nothing.

I doubt americans have the same opinion of Marx as we do, Mr Foot would be unexplainable. I can't see american society producing anything like the loony left. If they'd have got power there would have been an Atlantic Wall.

.
You said that you, "have never understood the argument (the personal liberty argument) myself (yourself). You went on to say, "NO matter what you say on the subject it is seen as an absurdity, perhaps because the topic itself is so absurd to me."

Okay, you don't understand the concept of individual liberty, but you still find it absurd. How can a concept that you don't understand be either absurd or otherwise? And why do you continually attack a concept that you admittedly don't understand?

The USA was founded because people wanted to implement a concept of individual liberty, but the Brits had a problem with it. Apparently you still do. But wait, you're not a Brit, you're a Canadian - except, of course, when it's convenient for you to be a Brit. It's obvious to many that you don't know what you are or what you stand for.

Again, how can a concept that you don't understand be either absurd or otherwise? And why do you continually attack a concept that you admittedly don't understand?

You know what, I usually don't voice such strong opinions against something that I don't understand. I think it would make me look rather foolish.

Nobody ELSE had said anything about my post being misleading. When I read it I found it to be misleading because the context had changed twice in one comment. A result of retyping or refinishing a sentence only to find it didn't make sense afterwards.

In the short time it took me to edit and rewrite it, you had already posted a reply.

This is not MY problem,for trying to make my point clear, it would be the person who jumped to the conclusion and posted hastily afterwards. If your comment then no longer makes sense, it owuld be up to YOU to ensure your retort aligns with the post. I fixed my end and even admitted and explained why, what did you do other than bitch and whine?

I have no obligation to post according to your expectations. I have no obligation to stay fast on a comment that I think is voiced wrong. I have no obligation to explain it to you either. But I did as a courtesy, if you don't like THAT reply, put it in your pipe and smoke it.