i'm not sure how it is that our response in this case became some kind of debate (do canadians no longer support freedom of the press?), but let's look at the two possibilities of what we're seeing here.

1) these posters are paid conservative trolls designed to alter public opinion. now, i'm not saying that's true in this case - although we all know that all the parties do this. and, if that is true, then what is one to conclude, when combined with the passage of c-51? can we expect somebody reporting on the war crimes in israel to be charged with "reporting false news", charged with hate crimes and thrown in jail? or, might that be a punishment more reserved for somebody critical of harper's time in office? for the government to go out of it's way to try and alter public opinion in this specific way is really quite disturbing.

2) these posters are not paid conservative trolls, but merely reflective of where their base sits. they very rarely address the actual issue. nor is their argument isolationist. rather, it's meant to enforce the idea that he's "not canadian". and, on what basis is this? there's really no secret what's driving that.

it's a sad reflection of the state of affairs, either way. and i do hope that the cbc continues to remove these discussions. they have no place in a discussion on this topic.

that said, kenney is probably correct. public opinion in egypt is a hard thing for canadians to understand. i'll leave that analysis out of here. but, the double whammy of releasing a traitor and capitulation to the west is likely to harden rather than to soften them, if it becomes an issue in the court of public opinion. egypt is a country that has strong leadership that is tough on crime. i otherwise don't have enough details to further comment intelligently.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/mohamed-fahmy-case-ndp-liberals-say-harper-should-do-more-to-free-jailed-journalist-1.3208922

Censoredagain
Why is that? Because they don't agree with your?

Jessica Murray
no. because they're racist.

it's really very thinly veiled.

Censoredagain
Because they don't agree with your point of view. So, if someone disagrees with you, they should be censored.

Jessica Murray
i'm very tolerant of other opinions. but, racism is not an opinion. and racist comments should be removed.

i don't think i've had any difficulties expressing myself. if you're having difficulty understanding, i would suggest that the cause is a low level of intelligence on your side.

i'm glad you did this. now, let's see how close you are...

q1: "How involved should the Canadian military be in the fight against ISIS?"

see, this is a bad question to start off with. i know that if i say i want to be more involved, it's going to tell me to vote for the conservatives. but, i want to be more involved in a way that is very different than what the conservatives are suggesting.

isis are bad guys. really bad guys. but bombing people isn't how you get rid of bad guys in this area of the world. it's how you create blowback.

i certainly don't want to be less involved - i'm not an isolationist.

so, i'll have to say "i don't know" - even though i know exactly what i want.

q2: "How supportive should Canada be of Israel?"

this is again a very badly worded question. but, in this case, constructing the context means i definitely want to say "much less" - even though it's not technically, exactly true.

q3: "How much should Canada spend on foreign aid?"

well, quantity is less important to me than quality. we need to manage this better more than we need to just increase the number. but, broadly speaking, i think we can do more - even if that doesn't mean spending more.

q4: "Quebec should be formally recognized as a nation in the Constitution."

i don't know. ask quebeckers. seems irrelevant and sort of childish.

q5: "Quebec should become an independent state."

well, definitely not. i realize it's not my choice. but, i'm willing to try and plead with them that this is not in their best interests.

q6: "First Nations should have more control over their ancestral territory."

absolutely. but, this is not an election issue. it falls entirely to the courts due to what is a jurisdictional hole after patriation.

q7: "How much should the government do to make amends for past treatment of First Nations?"

again, this is an issue for the courts. broadly speaking, they should do more.

q8: "To what extent should law enforcement be able to monitor the online activity of Canadians?"

without a warrant? they should not be able to monitor any online activity at all.

q9: "Longer prison sentences are the best way to prevent crime."

this is an empirically false statement.

q10: "Handguns should be banned in Canada."

i hate guns. but i know that gun control is largely a canard. i'd support very stringent licensing requirements that are restricted almost entirely to employment purposes. and, i wouldn't include police officers in the list of exemptions, either. but, it's the very first steps towards coming to a real solution, not the solution in and of itself.

q11: "Government workers should not be allowed to strike."

lol. they're not trying to pretend they can pass that without the supreme court striking it down, are they?

q12: "How much power should unions have?"

this question is incoherent. you don't allow entities to have power. entities take power. this is a perpetual struggle.

q13: "Canada should introduce a publicly funded childcare program."

i like the idea of publicly funded ece, but i don't think that's on the table. daycare, itself? i don't care.

q14: "No new oil pipelines should be built in Canada."

strongly agree. and, they should keep it in the ground, too.

q15: "The Canadian government should put a price on carbon."

it depends. carbon trading is a bank scam, but carbon taxes are potentially a good way to change behaviour, if targetted at corporations rather than consumers. i don't think anybody's talking about carbon taxes this time around. so, again, i have to say "i don't know" - even though i know exactly what i think.

q16: "How much should Canada do to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions?"

all the things.

q17: "How much tax should corporations pay?"

about twice as much. seriously.

q18: "How much should wealthier people pay in taxes?"

well, corporations are people, right? so, they should be taxed like people.

q19: "Abortions should be allowed in all cases, regardless of the reason."

my technical position is that it's none of my business.

q20: "Terminally ill patients should be able to end their own lives with medical assistance."

none of my business.

q21: "Possession of marijuana should be a criminal offence."

of course not.

q22: "How much of a role should the private sector have in health care?"

this is again a very badly worded question. the private sector does almost everything in health care, but they charge a series of insurance monopolies. so, i'm going to assume that they're talking about private insurance, and say absolutely none at all. but, that doesn't mean i'm opposed to a private office that only accepts the provincial health insurance.

q23: "Illicit drug users should have access to safe injection sites."

this reduces health care expenditures on related illnesses.

q24: "How many new immigrants should Canada admit?"

i think that the policies should be more directly targeted towards social needs. it's not a question of more or less. it's a question of better management.

q25: "How much should be done to accommodate religious minorities in Canada?"

courts.

"Canada's budget should be balanced no matter what."

this is absurd.

"The most effective way to create jobs in Canada is to lower taxes."

this is also an empirically false statement.

"Canada should end its ties to the monarchy."

yeah. i'd rather get rid of the governor-general than the senate.

"Only those who speak both English and French should be appointed to the Supreme Court."

this is a functional job requirement. they're required to look at issues in both languages. how is this an election issue? it's basic common sense.

"The Senate should be abolished."

no. we need to reform it to act in it's stated purpose.

yeah, this is awful. voter be very aware.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-2015-canada-election-1.3204489

obgii
Always appreciate your posts and the reasoning you give behind them. In this series, can’t say I agree with all of them, but that’s as it should be, we’re not all clones. If you care to, I’d like to see you expand on your #14; ie.:

q14: "No new oil pipelines should be built in Canada."

‘strongly agree. and, they should keep it in the ground, too.’

Questions I have for you are:
- Are you interpreting “oil” literally or do you include other petroleum products such as natural gas in your objection?

- Since oil is used in the manufacture of plastics, fueling virtually all of modes of transportation right now, home heating, etc., I take it your objection is an aspirational goal, not absolute and immediate. Is that correct?

- Are you also opposed to existing pipelines?

- Unless we are in a completely petroleum free environment, which we aren’t at the moment, the product must be transported. In that case, do you prefer rail transport over pipelines?

- I fully understand the objection to putting pipeline depots in and through sensitive areas (Energy East insanely wanted to place a terminal near Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park). Someone once proposed approving and creating a single corridor that all such things would have to pass through (eg. hydro transmission, rail, pipelines, etc.) to contain them in a very limited spot. Would you objectto that?

Probably more I could ask, but that will do.

Jessica Murray
the tar sands are a particular carbon nightmare due to the carbon cost of production. and, with the price of oil the way it is and likely will be for some time, we have an opportunity and an obligation to abandon the project altogether. that doesn't imply an immediate, overnight end to all oil production - just an immediate cessation of this particular dirty type of oil production. we could very well have more than ten years to play with before the price of oil comes down to the point that this source is even economically viable again.

plastics can be made with sources other than oil. oil is really just a bunch of carbon and hydrogen in a bubbling, soupy mess; anything that you can create with oil, you can create with renewable plant matter, like hemp.

the solutions to moving away from a carbon economy are widely available and widely understood, so i don't feel the need to go over them here.

(sorry. that's badly worded. the decision to produce will come down to profitability, which requires the price of oil to go up.)

Thomas McClung
The NDP can lead right up to voting day but when time comes to cast a ballot most canadians will not support a socialist, isolationist, union controlled party. They will turn away from the NDP because they know and have seen what a party like that does to a province and or country over the long run. That and the fact that Mulcair rejects free trade, the military, and that he advocates for a palestinian state and of ignoring Israel. These things in the end will cause many a canadian to simply say no to the NDP.

The NDP have voted against all free trade deals, the NDP have no policy on the military except for vague statements such as you mentioned, and the NDP support the establishment of a palestinian state and that all arabs in Israel should have a vote which would turn Israel overnight into a muslim state. The unions do still support all socialist parties since that is what their organizations are based on, socialism. They will support and expect support from the NDP, always have, always will. Proof is in the voting record of the NDP the past four years, the support of all union initiatives and rejection of union accountability acts, and the entire policy of the NDP on the middle east. That you are blind to this is regrettable. The NDP are a socialist, no trade, high tax party that I believe most voters as they always have in the end will reject pure and simple.

Jessica Amber Murray
listen: i actually *am* a communist, and i'm so disappointed in the ndp's positions of being in favour of free trade, military jingoism, pipelines and budget cuts that i'm probably going to vote for the liberals out of protest (or maybe the greens, that's a local riding choice).

the spectrum is realigning. and the ndp are falling in as a "progressive conservative" party, while the conservatives get pushed back out to their socred roots.

the ndp are not in the the process of becoming the new liberals. this is an easy trick, and i initially fell for it, too. rather, they're in the process of reconstructing the old tories.

we consequently might want to consider ndp-conservative government arrangements in the list of likely outcomes.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/29/election-2015-seat-projections-ndp-liberals-tories_n_8059864.html

Dennis Schmunk
Social Democrats have done wonders in places like Norway. No deficits. No wars. Billions in the treasury. All with universal health care, education, day care and good sound pensions.

Why would anyone in this day and age vote for Lib/Cons who ignore them after elections?

Jessica Amber Murray
the ndp have recently taken down their party convention policies because they felt they were misleading voters. they renounced socialism in 2013. judging from mulcair's actions and statements over the last few years, i think you're going to be very disappointed in how right-wing their platform is, when it gets released.

mulcair himself has suggested he wants to govern in the mould of tony blair - a thatcherite. and a war criminal. if you want a scandinavian type welfare state, the ndp will move us in the opposite direction.

i think that a lot of people are missing the point on this one.

i'm not a religious person, but one could view anarchism's critique of liberalism similarly to jesus' critique of the jewish law. liberals have this wide swath of rules meant to govern how states and people interact with each other. anarchists would say that there is but one simple rule, articulated in a wide variety of manners, but here in the old english saying: 'an' it harm none, do what ye will'.

but can any of us cite an example of a human right (not related to private property, in a traditional socialist definition: means of production, land, etc) that we explicitly disagree with? i would claim that we mostly cannot.

regarding natural law, let's take a step back to where it came from. we've all become very confused about this. for, aquinas would never have claimed that the natural law is an ethereal force or an authority. to the contrary, he would have claimed that it is to be arisen at individually through reason. aquinas' concept of natural law - which early liberal and anarchist thinkers wholly adopted - most closely resembled what we today call secular humanism. anarchists may be moral nihilists, but it is merely a step in reasoning rather than an end of it. we may reject absolute morality, but we would not reject our own logical intuitions as to what is just and what is not. we just claim that it is a human construction, arisen at through reason and carried out not because we are forced to but because we want to.

there are two kinds of rights: rights that individuals have in opposition to the state and rights that humans have in opposition to each other. in the first case, the fundamental issue is property. the right to food is about property. the right to shelter is about property. after all, the purpose of the state is to protect property. anarchists are consequently going to have a hard time with these kinds of rights, because we neither believe in the state nor in property. we would rather abolish both, and the rights laws that come with them, than accept the hierarchy they put in place. but, none of us would claim that we are not all entitled to food or to shelter.

in the second case, a moment's reflection is required: we would not have so many court cases in front of us that attempt to rule on human rights if we did not have so many violations. and, the underlying issues are often very deep seated. i think that anarchists should view this class of rights as an experiment. what it's doing is slowly putting in place the framework that we will one day adopt, when we are ready. it would be nice to claim that we do not need this - but, unfortunately, at the moment, we clearly do. we cannot abolish hierarchy overnight. there's not really a way around this in the short run - an anarchist society would need a tort-like system to deal with personal conflicts until the proper behaviour becomes enforced as social norms.

so, it's really a very subtle point. and it reduces mostly to the issue of property.

anarchy101.org/453/why-according-some-anarchists-is-the-concept-rights-mistake

dot
i would absolutely say that people are not entitled to food or shelter. where does such "entitlement" come from? who determines it, and where do they get their authority?

deathtokoalas
we would provide the entitlement because we want to. it doesn't come from a greater source. it doesn't have to. this is a strawman argument. we have the right to make the rules that we want. we don't have to draw from an authority. this is the point.

these are the kinds of arguments you get from 12 year-olds that base their ideas of anarchism on sex pistols records.

why exactly is it that you wish to abolish the state, if it is not to create a system of distributive justice? if you don't believe people have rights, why not just leave the state in place to continue to enforce barbarism through property relations?

there has never been a literary form of anarchism that denies the rights to food or shelter through a fair distribution of resources. if you don't accept these principles, you are not an anarchist. you are merely a barbarian.

(deleted nonsense)

i think it's clear that i'm dealing with a collection of ancaps, randians, thatcherites, primitivists, thoreauvians, "lifestyle anarchists" and other people that throw the word around without a clue as to what it means. so, i'm going to be going away, soon.

hopefully i've got a bit of a trail here for random onlookers.

but, the term "distributive justice" is as fundamental to anarchism as the term "anarchism" is itself. it's really not possible to begin to have a discussion about anarchism and rights, or anarchism at all, without bringing in this concept.

unless you're taking some thatcherite position that "society doesn't exist" or something, which it seems like some of you are. but this is not anarchism in any literary sense. it's a dictionary definition used to construct what is essentially status quo neo-liberalism.

anarchism does not just pre-suppose a society, it is a set of rules for people to live by to ensure that such a society can function without the need for centralized control. that is not what it says in the dictionary. but it is the crux of the philosophy called libertarianism that came out of the left of the french revolution.

but, the question of who the "we" is does bring up a fundamental point, one that would be well understood by the people that are posting here if they'd actually ever read any anarchist philosophy. anarchism is a social movement; again it does not just pre-suppose society, it is a means to transform society. so, what do you do with the people that disagree? this is the challenge in getting there. an anarchist society could not function if it needs to be policed. there's a place for freedom of association; it needs to be taken for granted that anarchists would use the tool of ostracism to prevent capitalist or hierarchical systems from re-establishing themselves. to boycott capitalism itself. and, this would be relatively easy so long as property rights are abolished. but, it requires a majority adherence to function. we cannot have anarchism if anarchists are only a minority. we can only have anarchism if the majority accepts the moral principles underlying it, without the need for any police to enforce it. i share the viewpoint of many that this could be accomplished relatively quickly, with the need for minimal institutions to resolve conflict resolution. most conflicts are about property.

when i say a literary form of anarchism, i mean the type that exists as written expositions. this is contrasted with something like lifestyle anarchism, which is generally written off by actual anarchists as "dumb hippie bullshit".

Fa
“how, exactly, is the "we" that you refer to, not a "greater source"? it points directly to the generalized concept of "society", which pretty much by definition takes precedence over any individual. which, in turn, completely negates any possible claim to "individual autonomy."  (from the dictionary definition of "liberalism," which you - in the other thread, i think - basically equated with anarchism.)"

deathtokoalas
see, you're getting lost in this insistence on nothing. anarchism is not nihilism. it's not the absence of anything. that is neo-liberalism. anarchism is the abolition of authority. if you and i get together and decide that we're not going to kill each other because it's in our best interests, that's not an appeal to authority. that's just a social contract between us to agree to abide by rules that will make us both better off. we don't need to appeal to any source. we can just decide this is good for us. *and this is the epiphany that is anarchism, and which you are completely missing*.

the abolition of authority does not lie in the absence of rules. it lies in the absence of the enforcement of the rules. if we all agree to the rules, there is no enforcement and consequently no authority. there are simply people agreeing to rules. and we can talk darwin on that, if you want. dawkins is a good introductory source for this; he made multiple videos explaining the concept of reciprocal altruism.

there's not a contradiction there between the individual and the collective. again: your rejection of society is status quo neo-liberalism. there is no anarchist theory that would adopt this. anarchism seeks to bridge this gap by understanding the individual and the collective as a holistic whole that cannot be separated into parts. we can only truly have individual rights with collective rights and vice versa. liberalism is certainly a different spin on this (it usually pulls a state into the equation), but it's not fundamentally different.

fa
no doubt you will find some intellectualized rationalization for the contradictions in your ideology, probably by quoting some 19th century greybeard (as if that makes it fact), to whose ideas yours seem to be tethered.

deathtokoalas
well, it's a nineteenth century philosophy. and, you know, some of these people were pretty smart. you might try reading some of what they wrote.

human
I don't understand how I have a right to food, shelter, and water? How does that work without someone enforcing that?

deathtokoalas
so, anarchism is a left-wing idea. like all left-wing ideas, it seeks to place property in the hands of people through the abolition of property rights.

consider the current system. a farmer owns property. they grow food on that property. they sell the food. so, in order to gain access to the food, you have to perform a task for some other person to generate the income to buy the food. it is this specific social relation that anarchism specifically and totally rejects. we do not distinguish between wage slavery and actual slavery. anybody that is working in exchange for a wage is a slave. and all slavery must be abolished.

our solution is to seize that property. is that violence? no. what is violent is trying to prevent the seizure. the theft and violence and exploitation is in owning the property. abolishing that property relation is a process of liberation. and, because the state exists to prevent people from abolishing property, the state will need to be abolished, too.

now that property is abolished, and the state along with it, the better question to ask is who prevents us from eating? we may all go to the fields and pick the fruit as we choose. the abolition of property allows us to exercise our natural rights.

modern technology provides for a lot more possibilities than existed in the nineteenth century. but the basic idea remains the same: by abolishing property, you abolish the relation that *prevents* people from accessing what they are entitled to. this is the anarchist concept of the right to food - and the reason that we seek to abolish the state.

(deleted nonsense)

you're describing classical liberalism. neo-liberalism is focused much more on the abolition of connecting social structures, in favour of total atomism. thatcher famously stated that society does not exist; no classical liberal would hold that position. classical liberals naively thought that everybody focusing on their own self-interest would benefit society; neo-liberals deny that such a society exists, and instead elevate selfishness to a virtue (via ayn rand). for example, the idea of converting housework into wage labour is staunchly neo-liberal - despite being argued by many on the left. classical liberals would not have argued this.

as i've stated repeatedly, rights do not need to have a source. that is a strawman argument.

if we get a room of people together and decide that we have a right to cake on sundays and will all work together to ensure we all have cake on sundays, then we have a right to cake on sundays. we don't need some magical source. we can just make shit up as we please. and that's the epiphany in abolishing authority, rather than some neurotic insistence on doing everything possible to reduce it, which is in truth some kind of liberalism.

(deleted nonsense)

rights are never anything more than collective decisions. this fantastical idea of them existing in some ether is just that - a fantasy. i've gone out of my way to reject this, yet you continue to come back to it. but, they need not be determined by states and enforced via violence. they may be determined by popular will and enforced by choice.

(deleted nonsense)

you just presented the same strawman i've been pointing out repeatedly, again, as you claim you're not presenting a strawman.

and, neoliberalism - like liberalism - relies on state subsidies to exist, because markets are silly, imaginary things that do not actually exist in reality. the point was that neo-liberalism is entirely bereft of any concept of morality. it's ethical component is objectivism, which is entirely nihilist.

nor have i even discussed my own ideas of anarchism. i'm going to avoid doing so, here. i'm really just laying down the 101.

and, this discussion has become very trite.

(deleted nonsense)

you continue to erect a framework of rights that no rights theorist ever would erect. it's a strawman constructed by karl marx.

no rights theorist has ever argued that rights are ever anything more than decisions. and it's very ironic that you're not able to get over this requirement that a right be an authority. i'm not answering your questions because they have absolutely nothing to do with any concept of human rights that has ever been seriously articulated. it's like asking me why flowers decide to eat people. you can't answer this.

a right is *not* different than any other decision. it's arrived at through logic. it's decided upon collectively. it's enforced through choice. and, despite these marxist strawmen, the reality is that no rights theorist - *ever* - has argued otherwise.

i need you to understand, and demonstrate that you understand, that your entire concept of rights theorists is a strawman before this can continue. we cannot continue further so long as you insist that rights are some kind of magic, entirely on the projection of your own imagination.

(deleted nonsense)

we don't speak of rights differently. but, we may speak of them specifically for the simple reason that they're a category of decision, one that comes in force under the person-person social contract that was described by proudhon. that doesn't mean they're inherently different, or exist with the force of some greater authority. it's just convenient to pull together certain types of agreements and talk of them in the same breath.

and, of course, there are certain rights that really do rely on a state. property rights are impossible without a state, as they directly contradict other types of rights and consequently must be enforced through violence.

your sarcastic examples describe why anarchism understands itself as a social movement. should individuals start making decisions that are outside the public good on a large scale, then a truly free society would reserve the right to expel those individuals because it would not be shackled by an ideology (like liberalism) that restricts it from acting in it's own interests. on a small scale, reciprocal altruism would put these people at a disadvantage that would face them with exclusion and ostracism. note that i have not claimed that rights are inalienable. and, this is where logic asserts itself. we may imagine that there are endless possibilities. but, in fact we do not have these endless choices: should we choose to be irrational, we will be excluded, so long as there is not a system to uphold our irrationality (as there is today). those who share will be more successful than those who steal. those who collaborate will be more successful than those who compete. etc.

again: this is anarchism 101. and i'm wasting my time.

in theory, there is nothing preventing any group of people from deciding that they have the right to kill each other. that has nothing to do with anarchism, rights theory, constitutions or anything else. obama could introduce that to the house tomorrow, and if it passes it exists. but, such a society would not be very successful or last very long, for the precise reason that this is entirely irrational.