when i brought in the student loan forms, the psychiatrist and nurse practitioner got into an argument as to who ought to fill them out.

i don't blame them. the language is over the top. i would have a hard time declaring myself "severely permanently disabled", as well. the truth is that i'm really just an anarchist.

i left them with the forms. i have no idea if they'll fill them out. and, to be frank, i would not begrudge them for refusing to.

i may have to get used to living on $60/month less. if i'm not smoking, that's entirely feasible.

i called the student loan people today and they extended the waiver, meaning i'm good for another two months, anyways.

the psychiatrist also claims that he can't fill out hormone prescriptions - i don't think that's actually true. the nurse practitioner will do it, but only on the instruction of an endocrinologist. and, i don't think i'm likely to get through to this guy in london again. he's going to look into it. i don't want to go to toronto, but if i have to...

i was hoping this would just be dealt with yesterday, i'll be back on the 15th and have to make decisions about things as they come up.

as i've posted here before, the feminizing hormones are kind of secondary to me at this point. the more important thing is that i'm able to keep taking the testosterone suppressors. i'm more into rejecting sexual identity altogether. it's not that the identification has changed, i will continue to identify as mentally female whether i'm on the hormones or not, it's more that i'm at a point in my life where i've accepted that my gender identity is almost entirely irrelevant, because i'm going to spend the rest of my life by myself in my bedroom. it's hard to care about how you present yourself when you're not presenting yourself anywhere. but, the testosterone reduction is very intellectually liberating and of extreme importance. i never, ever think about sex anymore. i'd like to maintain that. i'm not a sexual creature. returning testosterone levels are just likely to be an annoyance and a distraction.

worst case scenario, i could probably get the testosterone suppressors prescribed by carrying out some kind of deviant sex act, like hanging out downtown naked for as long as it takes to get arrested. it would of course be a non-aggressive act. just enough to get the prescription.

mmp has been thoroughly rejected by voters, and for good reasons: it creates party lists, which is really *less* democratic. this would turn the mp selection process into something similar to the senate selection process. it can maybe work in very small countries. like luxembourg. germany, even, is really pushing it. it makes no sense in canada. the entire political system would become a game of insider politics in ottawa.

i prefer the ranked ballots option, and would wholeheartedly vote for it. stephane dion was pushing this in 2008. it's probably what the liberals would come up with. but, i don't pretend it's perfect. after all, liberal party support for this is likely not coincidental; they would benefit dramatically from it, as they get disproportionately high second-choice votes from both of the other parties. then again, that merely suggests that the liberals are consistently the best compromise choice and the other parties have work to do if they want to fight that reality. and, there's not really a perfect system.

i'm somewhat of an anarchist; i'd ideally like to see more referendums - direct democracy. but, that's not on the table. or at least it doesn't seem like it is. trudeau's father proposed this early in his career. i think it will likely at least be discussed, and a little pressure could move on it. this would be a much bigger change, though. it would squeeze the individual mp out, between the roles of direct voting, the civil service and the executive branch. it's really the constitutional changes it would require that put it off in the distance a little. i would at least like to see it seriously analyzed. in the mean time, i'm willing to support ranked ballots ("preferential voting") and would not support any form of proportional representation, due to the party list issue.

something that would be very interesting in a preferential system is that it would reveal opinions that are currently kept under wraps. for example, an anti-abortion voter could rank the chp at the top and the conservative party second without fear that they're wasting their ballot. the resulting data would be immensely useful in setting policy, even if it doesn't elect anybody from the smaller parties - it would give the larger parties a better idea of where their voters really are and what's really driving them,

as stated, i'm an anarchist. i don't support any of the parties (i've voted for both the ndp and the liberals in the past for a variety of shifting reasons, and am undecided this election between the greens and the liberals; the ndp have taken themselves out of the running via their openly right-wing positions and their choice of candidate in my riding, who is basically a rubber stamp for the party). and i repeat that party lists are deeply undemocratic. you want mike duffy or pamela wallin in the house? that's what mmp will get you. it will reward party loyalty at the expense of independent representation.

it matters little whether you have an open list, a closed list, whatever.

there may be the odd example where a specific individual may rise up the list on their merits. elizabeth may might be such an example. these are going to be exceedingly rare. the way this would work in practice is that people will vote based on a party representative that is located in ottawa and serves the interests of ottawa. they will not take the time to sort this out. and the parties will quickly learn to exploit this.

advocates of these systems are the type of people that see a parliament as a collection of voting blocks that vote their respective party lines, rather than a collection of individuals. and, this is a fine system if that is what you want. but, if you're looking to break down the party system and reassert a more accountable parliament with more independent mps that more frequently vote against their own party, then mmp is a step in the exact wrong direction.

globalnews.ca/news/2196914/election-primer-what-are-canadas-electoral-reform-options-and-how-might-they-work/

this is such an absurd narrative. an election is not a soap opera, it is a time to discuss serious issues. and, we're frankly better off if the nature of the election turns the sports fans off. sorry: if you need a salacious story to get you out, you're not informed.

hey, it's not long before the puck drops.

this is really moaning by the media that they don't have the type of story that they want.

here's an idea: cover the issues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/john-doyle-we-got-the-election-campaign-we-deserve-bland/article26180279/

i called this. and, with 16% undecided, the liberals are likely doing better than reported.

these numbers suggest that mulcair's seat is in serious jeopardy.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/national/ndp-in-virtual-tie-with-liberals-on-montreal-island-conservatives-bloc-slipping-poll

there was a battles video a while back...

but i wouldn't want to be accused of missing the point, would i?

yes, that's gary numan ^.

"liberal party makes ad about income inequality.

twitter users make memes that demonstrate an inability to grasp the point."

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-escalator-ad-commercial-twitter-1.3212676

well, i took a look at the list of ridings, and it's all presented nicely in tabular form. it's a list of 51 ridings. but, they are further broken up into three categories, and the number that they estimate that they can seriously influence is much less than that.

it's hard to argue directly, based on the numbers provided. but a little caution is required.

for example, you could look at a riding that was won last election by 79 votes. could higher aboriginal turnout have affected the outcome? sure.

but, and i by no means wish to trivialize, the margin of 79 votes is small enough that mobilizing virtually any demographic could have been enough to swing it. the same logic holds whether the margin was 79 or 790 or 1790. and, then it gets a little too big

i stand by my initial points: the aboriginal population in canada is quite small, and scattered across the country in such a way that it would be unable to make a difference much of anywhere; there are a handful of exceptions in some remote regions. population growth is also higher in the prairies, but it's still not really at swing-level numbers.

but, sure. in theory. if a specific party that starts with a c won by a small margin in 2011, they could certainly wipe that small margin out, if they vote as a bloc with that purpose in mind - presuming all other things stay equal.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-assembly-first-nations-bellegarde-1.3212551

you know, i wonder if workers in bc's largest industry would actually prefer decriminalization to legalization.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-bc-sep1-1.3211266

the conservatives designed a system where they use targeted tax cuts to reward voters that vote for them and punish voters that vote against them. whether we like it or not, such a system now exists. the liberals are simply playing by the rules the conservatives put in place. and, the ndp will do the same thing, too.

hopefully, a liberal government will smash the whole thing to pieces, in time; you don't get to change the rules from opposition. but this is legitimately the kind of thing you have to do slowly. harper has set up a system of state dependency to socially engineer voting patterns towards him; it's an abuse of power, really. it's less that cutting the cord is going to make voters angry. it's more that it's inhumane to do it without easing it out.

in the meantime, this is in the rule book. so long as it's there, it's reasonable to make it more fair and target it at the groups that actually deserve tax credits, rather than use it as a way to bribe already rich people into voting for them.

i know that if we want to break this election down to a choice between tax credits for teachers and tax credits for ceos, canadians will overwhelmingly make the obvious choice.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-s-fuzzy-logic-on-tax-credits-1.3211998

white canadians simply don't understand the issues, and there's really not any use in trying to get them to understand them. they're so mentally enslaved that they're incapable of considering a reality outside of wage slavery. the only answer from their perspective is assimilation. and, one could expect little else from a population of brainwashed conformists.

i left a more detailed comment on the american site. it pointed out that white canadians don't understand this. we see conformation of this in these comments.

we've stolen their resources, tried to force them into working for us for a wage and then called them names when they reject the arrangement. and, we broadly don't understand what's wrong with this - because we can't see beyond the social arrangement we inhabit.

for starters, most canadians would be outright shocked if they knew the laws that existed as a consequence of the transfer agreements. these laws need to go. that would actually get us a good ways forward. second, do you have any idea what reparations would look like? i'd say that putting some services in place and having some respect for local sovereignty is a helluva bargain, in comparison. and, yes, the locals that want to take part will take part.

reparations in canada would not be billions.

it would be trillions.

trillionS.

access to services is the least we can do. literally.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/31/native-vote-canada-elections_n_8044958.html

do you not see somewhat of a problem with showing up from the other side of the world and forcing people to conform to an alien social arrangement, then calling them names when they don't do so?

did it cross your mind that the natives you refer to are not lazy so much as they reject the structural foundations of western culture?

show up to work? right. for whose benefit? you see freedom before your eyes and you are so unable to understand it that you call it sloth.

is reckless underrated? nobody talks about it. but, it really fits in nicely somewhere between billy idol and simple minds. it's not really the 70s rock people write it off as, it's more like post-punk stripped down to it's lowest common denominator. meaning, yeah, it's poppy, sure - but it's high quality pop.

canadian kid. of course. canadian broadcasters at the time had content requirements (i don't know if they still do) which required them to play a certain amount of music by canadian musicians. bryan adams really benefited from this. and, it meant he was on the radio all the time in the late 80s and early 90s. it would have been nearly impossible to avoid him, even if this record didn't sell well outside the country.

it could be a little bias on my behalf, but i do put my old tape of this on from time to time and the basic simplicity of it still manages to cut through like a...err...no...not doing that...

this was the biggest hit of 1991/1992.

not smells like teen spirit.

sorry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlwylYSqScA

sorry to burst your bubble of the 90s, kids. you might have never heard of this guy. but this was what 90s pop actually sounded like.

you're upset. i know. you've been lied to. you thought the 90s were the era of grunge and idm. it's at best a myth.

blame it on the rain.

top selling singles of the 90s. you've probably never heard most of them, and you're not missing much. that bryan adams song is the closest thing to grunge, and it's not very close.

1. "How Do I Live" - LeAnn Rimes
Hot 100 Peak Position: 2, Peak Date: December 13, 1997
2. "Macarena (Bayside Boys Mix)" - Los Del Rio
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: August 3, 1996
3. "Un-Break My Heart" - Toni Braxton
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: December 7, 1996
4. "Foolish Games/You Were Meant For Me" - Jewel
Hot 100 Peak Position: 2, Peak Date: April 19, 1997
5. "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You" - Bryan Adams
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: July 27, 1991
6. "I'll Make Love To You" - Boyz II Men
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: August 27, 1994
7. "Too Close" - Next
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: April 25, 1998
8. "One Sweet Day" - Mariah Carey & Boyz II Men
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: December 2, 1995
9. "Truly Madly Deeply" - Savage Garden
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: January 17, 1998
10. "Candle In The Wind 1997/Something About The Way You Look Tonight" - Elton John
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: October 11, 1997
11. "End Of The Road" (From Boomerang) - Boyz II Men
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: August 15, 1992
12. "The Sign" - Ace Of Base
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: March 12, 1994
13. "The Boy Is Mine" - Brandy and Monica
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: June 6, 1998
14. "Because I Love You (The Postman Song)" - Stevie B
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: December 8, 1990
15. "Whoomp! (There It Is)" - Tag Team
Hot 100 Peak Position: 2, Peak Date: July 31, 1993
16. "Rush Rush" - Paula Abdul
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: June 15, 1991
17. "You're Still The One" - Shania Twain
Hot 100 Peak Position: 2, Peak Date: May 2, 1998
18. "I Will Always Love You" - Whitney Houston
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: November 28, 1992
19. "Gangsta's Paradise" (From Dangerous Minds) - Coolio Featuring L.V.
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: September 9, 1995
20. "Nothing Compares 2 U" - Sinead O'Connor
Hot 100 Peak Position: 1, Peak Date: April 21, 1990

there may have been some specialized "modern rock" stations in larger markets. but, broadly speaking, 90s rock was really kept alive by classic rock programmers looking for something new. the rise of soundgarden and pearl jam had as much to do with the decline of led zeppelin and pink floyd as it did with anything else. they needed content, and could hardly keep playing wish you were here over and over again into perpetuity.

where i grew up, in ottawa, there were two classic rock stations (separated by .8 on the dial) and zero modern rock stations. i got my pumpkins and nirvana and cure and offspring in between shots of rush and sabbath and beatles and zeppelin and floyd. and, it's probably the reason i can have these conversations about rock history - it came at me as a whole, rather than as a generational piece meal sort of thing. that separation didn't exist.

but, it's important to understand that it wasn't the mainstream. if you tried to play something like that at a high school dance, the room would clear. the mainstream was entirely pop-oriented.

and, unless you lived in specific parts of britain, i suppose, idm was just obscure. you had to go combing through usenet just to figure out what it even was.

it's really not that different than today. twenty years from now, people will not remember today's pop icons. but, they will remember some of the music on the margins. muse will have a much longer shelf life than justin bieber.

the alcohol v marijuana part is the thing people need to get their head around. it's just a small part of it; you don't hear about violent potheads very often. if we were basing our policies on science, pot would be legal and alcohol would be banned.

these old chomsky videos are really refreshing.

the actual truth is that this is a good example of why gdp is a poor measure of economic growth. that doesn't mean harper's "strong leadership" has been good at "managing the economy" - far from it. we should have been diversifying, and his high dollar policy (whether actively or passively) really stunted that. but, when oil crashes in a petro-state, you get shrinking gdp. there's no way around this. and, his relegation of manufacturing to a second-tier concern should give ontarians pause as to where his priorities are. well, i say that like it wasn't already obvious...

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-recession-1.3210891

Arch from MTL
One step at a time. The Liberals will make huge gains back in Montreal.

They go from 7 to 21 seats they form a minority government.

Jessica Murray
this is likely not far from accurate. papers pessimistically yell that the liberals are only at a measly 25% in quebec. but they forget to mention that they only got 12% in 2011. that's going to be disproportionately located in montreal. and, if they're running in the mid to high 20s, they could also be competitive in some of the areas around ottawa.

the polling seems to indicate that ndp support is broad, but soft. it's less that the polling is wrong - if an election were held right this very moment, they could very well win that many seats. it's more that it's pragmatic in nature and could alter if the situation is seen to change.

the actual truth is that liberal support in the mid-20s suggests mulcair's own seat is far from safe.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-ndp-quebec-orange-wave-michelle-gagnon-1.3210553

listen. i try and be open-minded and everything. but i can't for a minute understand *why* she would think anaconda ought to be up for 'best music video'. it's just an absurd position.

that said, i don't think anything that was nominated this year should have been nominated, either. and i understand the culture has gotten very stupid over the last fifteen years. but, let's take a look at some of the videos that were nominated or won in the 90s:

smashing pumpkins - tonight, tonight
nine inch nails - the perfect drug
beck - the new pollution
foo fighters - big me
weezer - buddy holly
rem - everybody hurts
pearl jam - jeremy
peter gabriel - digging in the dirt

even acknowledging how mindless and stupid music videos are across the board nowadays, does she really think the video deserves that kind of recognition? due to what, exactly? the choreography?

if you're young, google some of those. that's what a 'best video' ought to look like.

www.ew.com/article/2015/08/27/miley-cyrus-nicki-minaj-vmas/article_2289513

molari smith
Typical HuffPost Liberal party BS partisanship..

She practically discovered that the NDP "will be" a prudent fiscal government when making budget decisions. lol

Can Huffpost get more ridiculous with more petty partisanship attacks against NDP?

Brent koroll
You should try living in a province with an NDP government. Saskatchewan was a nightmare with Thonson as finance minister. No jobs at all and pizza delivery was a quality job for the NDP. I had to work in Alberta. There is a reason why the NDP won't return to power any time soon in Saskatchewan and Thomson had a lot to do with that. He savaged public transit, leaving many towns without public transit, shut hospitals. if this is any indication on how Canada would be run don't vote Dip as the nightmare won't end.

jessica amber murray
brent is speaking the truth. we saw it with bob rae in ontario, they saw it with darrell dexter out in nova scotia: the ndp consistently governs on the far right.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/27/federal-election-2015-liberal-party-ad_n_8049954.html

--

Marcus r davies
Typical Liberal approach: mimicking the Con distortion tactic at their first opportunity. Are the Liberals saying that every single dollar in the Harper budget is sacred? If so, just sign on to it like you did C-51. What this experienced finance minister said is that if something isn't a priorty, then it will go in order to protect our priorities. For the Libs to say this means "massive cuts to health care" is the same kind of BS hyperbole Canadians are in the process of rejecting from Harper. Smarten up Liberals. You're supposed to wait til you're elected before you act like Conservatives.

Douglas Sinclair
I can think of a number of Conservative boondoggles to be cut to the tune of 100's of millions if not more. A very incomplete list:

- the monuments to 'Victims of Communism' and the "Mother Canada' monstrousity in Cape Breton
- F-35's
- most outside lawyers hired by fed. gov. (to fight constitutional and other challenges of abuse of rights and power)
- most consultants hired by fed. gov.- (often a consultant's first reccomendation is that you need more consulting)
- most gov. pre-election partisan advertising
- most of the PMO

jessica amber murray
the ndp is in support of an increase in military spending. this is just one of the many things about the ndp that is different this election, and that voters should take the time to inform themselves about.

--

Dm
Folks, remember, Mr. Mulcair was very fond of Margaret Thatcher style of government. Thatcher, Mulroney and Reagan were quite fond of crippling the middle class. You want that, vote for Mulcair.

jessica amber murray
the thatcher comments may be silly to jump on too strongly. but, his admiration for tony blair is something to really draw attention to. this is exactly what tony blair did: he swung labour a smidgen to the left of the thatcher tories, then carried on with thatcher's programs. everything seems to suggest we can expect this from the ndp of today, down to mulcair's explicit claims that the new labour government is the model he's using to reposition the ndp. is that really what ndp voters want? recycled new labour thatcherite neo-liberalism?

they won't even vote against free trade anymore....

you could use harper's gesture to demonstrate how much further to the left of himself that mulcair is trying to position himself.

yup. same old slash and burn ndp.

he'll reverse the cuts a week before the next election - or, if he thinks he can get away with it, make it a promise for the next election.

the ndp is very good at cutting services to balance the budget. they've cut more services and balanced more budgets at the provincial level than any other party. you can believe him.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/27/tom-mulcair-health-transfers_n_8049768.html

Anthony Serocco
Imagine an army of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens. That's the NDP. 

deathtokoalas
+Anthony Serocco
that was the ndp in the 70s.

nowadays, they're closer to "if rand paul and hillary clinton mated".

a lot of people are arguing that the liberals are consistently to the left of the ndp at both levels, nowadays. the last provincial election in ontario was probably the first election i've seen where it was obvious, to the point that there was a mild uproar, with prominent people writing open letters mourning the death of the ndp. i think it's laying itself down, however slowly, at the federal level, as well.

which is not to suggest that the liberals have become socialists. it's more a commentary on how dramatically far to the right the ndp has moved, and pretty much across the board.

somebody like jill stein would actually be a better representation of a canadian liberal. warren would be on the left of the party, but firmly in it. sanders would have never been a liberal, here, always a dipper. the idea of comparing the liberals to the democrats is really very badly off-base.

it's real simple:

energy in - energy out = energy stored.

therefore, if you're active then you need to eat more. and, if you're not so active then you need to eat less.

the advice provided in this article is not science-based, either. you need to think of your stomach like it's a giant pit of acid - because it is, actually, a giant pit of acid. it doesn't really matter what you throw in there, it just gets broken down into the same constituent parts. your body then takes those parts and puts them back together in order to make different molecules.

the actual reality is that your stomach is unable to determine the difference between these different types of fats. your body will metabolize them in different quantities, but it has to do with things like your liver and your pancreas. you may very well have too much bad cholesterol, but it's not because you ate too much of it - it's because your body synthesized too much of it.

you need to make sure you're getting certain things that your body can't synthesize. and, your stomach can pull some stray sugar directly out of your stomach. but, besides that, it's really just all broken down to the same handful of molecules.

there's a saying: eat food*. not too much. mostly plants.

*food may not be defined as most north americans imagine it is.

www.cbc.ca/news/health/eating-fat-makes-you-fat-idea-debunked-dietitian-1.3206180

well, getting ahead in ontario is certainly necessary for the liberals if they want…if they want to avoid being obliterated, really. but, you’d be wise to maybe pull those results back a little to the margins, given that they’re non-standard. just let me check what that is….

oh. right. there is no margin of error. because online panels are not polls.

www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/abacus-poll-election-race-tightens-as-ndp-support-dips/

i'm not particularly upset by it, but health care fraud from americans coming over and using our system is absolutely a measurable phenomenon.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/scott-walker-canada-u-s-border-wall-worth-considering-1.3209152

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.

"liberal" may very well be the most complicated word in the english language. it means so many different things that this question is very hard to answer.

in the united states, "liberal" tends to mean almost the opposite of what it meant two hundred years ago. and, if you take a detour a little bit north to canada, the liberal party - which has run the country for most of it's history - is probably the closest thing to a social anarchist party in the history of the western world. this is for the precise reason that it sticks closer to the old eighteenth century ideals that liberalism and anarchism both developed out of. if you swing down to australia, the liberal party is a bastion of right-wing extremism. in russia, "liberal" tends to actually mean "nationalist" - and often borders on fascism.

if you want the strictest definition, "liberal" and "anarchist" are essentially interchangeable. worse, keep this in mind: marx never called himself a marxist. he always called himself a liberal. and such is also true of a wide swath of thinkers that we give all sorts of other titles to, retroactively.

to co-opt a famous canadian saying, one could say something along the lines of that anarchists are liberals in a hurry.

don't interpret that to mean that anarchists will support political parties that call themselves liberal parties - we usually will not, or will only do so very tentatively. this, however, has less to do with anarchists disagreeing with liberals and more to do with liberal parties generally not being very liberal.

http://anarchy101.org/4250/do-anarchist-agree-with-liberals

Fa
@dtk: "if you want the strictest definition, "liberal" and "anarchist" are essentially interchangeable."

from merriam-webster's dictionary (since you mentioned "strict" definitions):

a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties;specifically :  such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

aside from the "autonomy of the individual" - which conflicts directly with the clear desire for "government" (to, i guess, enforce that autonomy?) - there is nothing anarchistic about that philosophy/position/political perspective. at least not to this anarchist.

i don't see any way that individual autonomy can coexist with the concept of "rights". for reasons articulated pretty well below by rice boy.

deathtokoalas
that's a definition that is lacking, though. it's less that it's wrong and more that it's kind of over-specific. and, in the end we're talking about splitting hairs. when you talk about "using government to ameliorate social inequalities", it's not clear what that refers to: parliamentary democracy, workers co-operatives, council democracy. if you restrict it specifically to parliamentary democracy, you get the kind of liberalism that exists in canada. if you're a bit more broad about it, you're constructing anarchism.

i consider the opposition to rights, as articulated, to be marxist, not anarchist. i'd actually point to this as one of the differences between anarchism and marxism, and why anarchism is superior.

nor do i think it's off-base to suggest that anarchists are hegelians or that they believe in the inherent goodness of people.

to me, the only serious defining difference has to do with private property. liberals are, of course, advocates of private property; anarchists are generally not. but, there's a spectrum, there, and degrees of support - enough that if you want to be as general as possible, it sort of fades away.

to clarify a little: what i'm trying to get across is that anarchists would support and uphold the idea that people have the rights to certain things like food and shelter, that's the entire point of abolishing capitalism and private property, but they would also argue that the state acts to restrict rather than uphold those rights. so, the idea of having this constitution that says what rights we have and don't have would strike us as the wrong approach, sure. but we do agree with the idea that these rights exist, we just don't agree the state can do anything but interfere in them.

it's marxists that look at the situation and declare the whole thing a "bourgeois fantasy" and throw it out the window in favour of some pseudo-fascist, collectivist concept of contributing to the whole - creating untold human misery.

so, it's one thing to point out that anarchists are generally going to look at the idea of a constitution upholding human rights and say "no. no. this is all wrong.", and it's another to suggest that they don't accept the existence of natural rights - of course we do. we always have. it's the major reason we're not marxists.

Amorfati
'rights' don't have anything to do with anything. in terms of food and water, for me it's about opening up the possibility that i, and others, can obtain them in a far more direct manner than we may currently under this oppressive system.

Fa
you obviously speak for yourself, but you do not speak for me or most anarchists i choose to associate with.  i do not accept the existence of "natural rights", any more than i accept the existence of some universal morality, or "god".  i surely can't "prove" those things don't exist, any more than you can "prove" that they do. it is irrelevant to my life.

i also agree with amorfati's comment above.

in the spirit of clarity, let me point out that there is no single, universally accepted "anarchist" perspective. as evidenced by the existence of folks that identify as anarcho-capitalist and others that identify as anarcho-communist. (just to point out how wide the spectrum can be, in the minds of some).

a number of the regulars on this site tend towards a perspective that diverges from the classical (radical) "left" that anarchy clearly shares some roots with. there are surely some core tenets that any conscious anarchist would acknowledge, but "natural rights" would not be one of them. being against all forms of government, and capitalism, and any other institutionalized hierarchy, would be.

edited to add: an obvious problem, from my perspective, with the concept of "natural rights" is this:  who determines what those natural rights are?

deathtokoalas
natural rights are inherently atheistic. they're erected on the framework of reason and logic, in opposition to written laws that were seen to be the results of supernatural dictates. and, historically, that's how they've been used: to overrule positive and theistic law.

again: the purpose of anarchism is to remove the state and capitalism because they infringe upon people's rights. liberalism seeks to use the state to enforce rights. anarchism claims that is impossible. but, there is no disagreement on the existence of those rights.

but, of course natural rights don't actually exist. they're just the arbitrary rules we make up and agree to abide by, because we want to, not because we're forced to. that underlying system of morality (derived through reason) is what separates anarchism from barbarism.

if you want a reference, it's basically the social contract, as articulated by proudhon. but it's really rather intuitive. and, i would claim that anarchism could only be barbarism, otherwise.

or, to put it another way: without a near-universal, willing adoption of the principles of natural rights theory, hobbes was right, and we are wrong.

Amarfati
the framework(s) of reason and logic are supernatural dictates by definition precisely because they're axiomatic, that is, they are believed worthy and fitting prior to any exercise of reason and logic. circularity ensues since one would have to 'prove' them as actually worthy/fitting by the very framework they provide!

deathtokoalas
i guess you can think what you want, but you have no right to call yourself an anarchist. anarchism is a philosophy in the tradition of locke, paine, proudhon and kropotkin, all of whom placed enlightenment principles at the core of their thinking. you cannot be an anarchist and reject the enlightenment at the same time. it's like claiming you're a socialist, but don't oppose private ownership of the means of production. it's a position of utter nonsense. you need to come up with something else.

i suggest the term "lout".

traditional societies generally have very clear concepts of natural rights.

but, of course, let's remember that anarchism is not rooted in engels' racist romanticization of traditional cultures. again, that is marxism. what we call "anarcho-primitivism" is just a nonsensical stringing together of words that do not make sense together. anarchism is not and cannot be primitivist - it is the search for civility. advancement. it assumes mass societies of the type that exist in europe, and is void of context when removed from such a thing. it is not a plan to abolish society. it is a theory of how society may function without centralized control.

(deleted nonsense)

see, this is a symptom of the general problem. the principles of anarchist thought are laid out in two hundred years of writing. and, for all your own language aside, none of you have provided me with anything worth responding to further.

one of the principles laid out in anarchist writing is that we get to figure shit out as it's coming at us, relative to a set of ideals. and that's really just democracy. saying that we're not willing to write down an authoritative plan is not the same thing as rejecting the principles that have led us to that position. this is the same point as seen elsewhere: it's not the abolition of principles, it's the abolition of enforced rules. the rejection of arbitrary restrictions. it's not a total absence of thought, but a rejection of all authority in controlling that thought. if we don't have a set of ideas, we're not proposing a real system of thought. we're opening up space for ancaps and other people that would oppose our basic values. and, that's inevitably just a hobbesian world of neo-liberalism that pits everybody against each other.

but, all i'm getting at is that you're reinventing the wheel where you don't have to. all of these ideas have been worked out elsewhere. you're not going to get anywhere novel by starting from first principles. taking the time to read through the existing arguments can only broaden your understanding of things, by drawing attention to things you hadn't thought of before and presenting arguments from perspectives you hadn't previously contemplated.

making every generation start from scratch is a surefire way to get absolutely nowhere.

and, if you're going to call yourself an anarchist, you really ought to have defined perspectives, at the least, on what property is, on mutual aid and on distributive justice. otherwise, it doesn't mean anything.

do you really think the bank of canada has ever seriously been entirely independent of the pmo?

i think that the independence of the bank of canada functionally refers to the ability of the bank to reject decisions that are clearly wrong, rather than the ability to evade any political influence.

i mean, i know what's supposed to be true. but it's really never actually been true.

"Although the Bank enjoys substantial independence, the Bank of Canada Act gives the finance minister the right to issue a formal, written policy directive to the Bank of Canada if, after consultation,  disagreement on policy persists. It was the resignation of Coyne in  1961, over differences with the government, that influenced the introduction of the legal provision clarifying that ultimate  responsibility for policy rests with the government."

i think this is important in regards to the dollar. of all harper's failures, that is the one that hurt us the most - he did nothing to slow the dollar's rise. that killed the export economy, made us dependent on imports and is the ultimate cause of the inflation we're dealing with at the moment.

that oil is stranded, and harper seems to actually be the only party leader that realizes it. so, *now* he's pushing the dollar back down. it's too little, too late. and, it's left a mess.

and, you know, i'm going to be pissed if he starts taking credit for this - because he's spent the last ten years blaming the decline of the manufacturing sector on the ontario liberals', when it truth it was a failure of his own monetary policy.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/canadian-keynesian/2015/08/harper-jeopardizes-conduct-monetary-policy

i'm not comfortable with the liberals' position on this bill - i think they should have voted against it. but, it's disingenuous to not mention that:

1) it would have passed had they voted against it, and
2) they claim that they'll follow the recommendations of the lawyers you speak of in amending it.

the liberals actually have a pretty good track record on this issue - when they pass these kinds of laws, they insist that it's a reasonable response to an imminent threat and they insert things like sunset clauses so that the increased powers run out when the imminent threat has resolved itself.

they clearly screwed this up - it's widely acknowledged that this is the primary reason the ndp are leading in the polls. but, they claim they'll change it. and their track record on this particular issue suggests you can believe them on it.

further, it's worth noting that mulcair has since moderated his position to align almost identically with trudeau's.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/kgrandia/2015/08/why-privacy-matters-this-canadian-election

acs
Put them in power, and the Dippers will NOT repeal C-51. They may give another go at the 'lawful' language, which the Chretien Liberals also tried to sneak in, with their post-9/11 legislation. Only Freemen, right wing extremists, or some other bogeymen will replace the Islamists of Stephen Harper's narrative, if/when we have an NDP government. All three main parties advocate a corporatist managed democracy, along the likes of Singapore. Anyone who puts their faith in a new government to protect civil rights and freedoms is seriously deluded.

deathtokoalas
see, the thing is that we really have nothing to base any projections of ndp legislation on this topic on. there's no provincial legislation from either the ndp or mulcair. but, i really don't think it would look very different than the typical trudeauvian post october crisis language of limited action and sunset clauses. that's really my point - there's not an *actual* difference between the two parties on this issue, it's just a shady political ploy.

Content Disabled
". . . with the Conservatives winning between 92 and 132."

It is truly disheartening to think that there still people who support this crooked, fascist regime.

Jessica Murray
they have roughly 100 safe rural seats. i'm starting to think they may poll around 20% in the end - and in that scenario i'd *still* give them around 100 seats.

meanwhile, the liberals could poll at 30% and win 20 seats if the ndp are ahead of them across the board.

it's just how the vote is distributed. if you want to take this party down, you have to find a way to compete in the sticks.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-aug28-1.3206184

i wouldn't be surprised if you see the greens push ahead of the conservatives in the *next* election, but it requires two pre-conditions:

1) the ndp has to break it's base, pushing them into the greens & liberals. i think this is almost a given. if mulcair hangs on long enough to form the first ndp government, it will almost certainly be the last ndp government. this is the overriding trend in areas where there are three parties - they get one chance, they prove themselves conservatives and they obliterate themselves. mulcair has a lot in common with bob rae.

2) the conservatives need to get stuck in an existential struggle with the christian right, which will force them to swing right on social issues. of course, the party heads will seek to avoid this at all costs. but, if they do poorly enough in this election, they will have no choice. they've been told to be moderate, and wait it out. if they get beaten down to third this election, that strategy will have clearly failed.

in such a scenario, the conservatives would move back into their previous place on the spectrum before the tory-reform merger as a minor party on the far right. this is the place in the spectrum that the social credit party occupied for many, many years. this party has been all but forgotten, but it was an integral part of the canadian spectrum for 40 years. it didn't disappear so much as it eclipsed the pcs in importance. but, it created a lot of confusion as to what the merger was - it's inherently unstable and must eventually fall apart.

the greens would move into the space the ndp used to occupy.

and, here's the counter-intuitive part: the ndp would move into the space the pcs used to occupy.

only the liberals would remain in place on the spectrum.

of course, harper will no doubt be gone by then. it will be left to somebody that is more socially conservative, like jason kenney, to deal with the resulting mess.

--

Cayyce
Not only is it not working, this negative strategy and "nice hair though" commercials couldn't be a bigger disaster and are driving voters away in droves especially women.

Jessica Murray
it's ok - they'll bring them back with a puppet show that inconceivably suggests that trudeau is some kind of hopeless alcoholic. where'd that even come from?

you'd think they'd have learned their lesson with the attacks on chretien's face. trudeau needs to be waiting, tactically, to pounce.

--

Cayyce
And because these polls rely on traditional ways of contacting the electorate, specifically land lines, they're samples are more than likely to be biased in favour of the Conservative so it's potentially even worse than it currently seems.

Jessica Murray
it's kind of complicated, but it seems to balance itself out relatively well. they weight the results via the census, so if they get less young people in actual results they inflate their weight before they publish. that said, there's a growing consensus that they need to stop weighting under 34s relative to the census because they vote in lesser numbers. most phone firms claim they're doing that now....

i want to update my understanding of the ongoing realignment mildly. i think that the broad, general idea is correct - and that what we're seeing in the election polls up to this point is broadly consistent with the conveyor belt i've described. it seems as though the ndp are going to take a large amount of voters away from the liberals, and that the liberals are very solidly solidfying the red tories as their own - and perhaps even eating into traditional urban conservative support, leaving the conservatives as an almost solely rural party. this is maybe a bit faster than i expected. the conservative--->liberal support is probably being exaggerated by disgust over the duffy scandal, but if the conservatives swing right on social issues under new leadership with a purely rural base then this could end up setting in permanently. it sounds like a dumb strategy, but the mps have to represent their voters. and, if it ends up that badly for them, they're going to see increased competition by entities like the christian heritage party. as soon as they lose power, all their moderating arguments collapse. there's going to be thousands of people that pumped thousands of dollars into the party, and didn't get a single thing out of it - and they're going to be upset about that.

however, it's becoming increasingly clear that the ndp want to leapfrog the liberals to the right. and, while the federal party has historically stayed to the left of the liberals, provincial ndp governments have often been to the right of their provincial liberal counterparts. added to this mix is the fact that thomas mulcair came out of a quebec liberal party that is the major right-wing party in that particular spectrum.

i maintain that we're realigning, and that these are the four ingredients that will stabilize in the new system. however, i think that it is becoming clear that the ndp will fulfil the role of the centre-right party in this new spectrum, while the liberals retain their place on the centre-left.

the election has only just begun. but, a clean sweep by the ndp would have the following ramifications between 2015 and 2019:

1) the ndp would lose it's left base to the greens, as i previously postulated.
2) a rump conservative caucus would place them in competition with openly social conservative parties, and force them to the right. such a rump caucus would be more concerned with it's own existence in the short-run than retaining power in the long-run.
3) a rump liberal caucus would be progressive by nature and force them to oppose the ndp on the left. this will allow them to regain some of the votes they have lost to the ndp as of the moment, and place the traditional red tories back between the ndp and the liberals. they will need a new name, of course.

so, the duffy thing may be acting as a catalyst of unknown strength. and, it seems as though the ndp and liberals are changing places on the spectrum. but, i otherwise hold to my theory - and think it's actually proving rather predictive.

that means my new prediction is as follows:

quasi-fascist ("conservative party"): 20%
*moderate conservative ("ndp"): 40%
left-leaning centrist party ("liberal party"): 25%
**left libertarian party ("green"): 10%
others: 5%

* the ndp's place on the spectrum will not be understood by most voters at the time of voting.

**the new left is not really going to be a social democratic left as it was in the past. we're moving out of the era of industrialized labour. a lot of the policies are similar, but the core principles are at times drastically different. it's something i overlooked previously for brevity.

i can't see them settling somewhere in the low to mid 20s. the strongest argument they have for voting for them is that they're in power. as soon as that begins to erode, the whole stack of cards falls apart. and, you have to understand that the conservative party *is* a stack of cards.

they've never polled under 27 since confederation [if you add up reform & pc support in the 90s]. it's stretching credulity.

if they can keep the glue together, they'll poll closer to 30. i've changed my electoral predictions downwards, but i'm forcing myself to do it - i still can't really actually believe it.

if they start to unravel by consistently polling in the mid-20s polling, they will plunge towards the teens - because they will start to leak on all sides.

liberals won't vote for the tories to keep the ndp out, or at least not in measurable numbers. but, conservatives will vote for the liberals to keep the ndp out - because the conservative propaganda is surreal.

and, if they're no longer seen as seriously vying for power, the argument they've been pushing on their base for years - "patience, minions" - will not just erode, but evaporate. the floodgates will open, and you'll see movement out of the party to their right.

see, you have to understand that stephen harper is a very bad reflection of the people that fund the party. they've got all this money, right? it's not really coming from corporations, like the left likes to imagine. we've got laws against that. it's coming from private citizens that have an agenda for right-wing social policies. the single, biggest driver is abortion. that's not fantasy. it's the blunt truth.

now, suppose you're one of these donors that's been giving this party thousands of dollars a year since 1985 for the sole reason that you want action on abortion. you could very well have sunk upwards of $50,000 into this party. and, what did you get for this? absolutely nothing. you're bound to be irritated, and not likely to want to play this game of pretending to be moderate in order to reposition the spectrum anymore.

so, it's this one way or another thing. they will perform around their historical floor if they can get the perception out that they're still in it. but they can't hold themselves together if they're not competitive - they will collapse into whence they came.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-aug28-1.3206184

those job creation numbers seem slightly exaggerated. 17,000 construction jobs? really?

see, it's probably calculating spin-off jobs and keynesian multiplier effects. the right may be broadly clueless on economics, but the left simply does not understand that keynesan theory assumes a closed economy and collapses under the reality of free trade. that is absolutely imperative to address.

i don't know how many construction jobs the plan would create. that part is valid. the rest is using a 20th century model for a 21st century economy, and needs to be re-examined to take into account the consequences of living in an open, global economy.

if we want this kind of analysis to work, we need to get rid of free trade.

if we want to keep free trade, we need to leave keynes in the past.

there's no middle point. it's a hard choice.

you can have multiplier effects or you can have free trade. you cannot have both.

experience is good and all. but the economic policies of the continent were entirely shattered by nafta. and while it may seem like good politics to reassure voters of steady hands, the liberals really need to be looking forwards. what worked in 1995 will fail today.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3206550

Cayyce
....conventionally 1.5 to 3.0 multiplier, is that consistent with your understanding?

Jessica Murray
the multiplier effect relies on forces, like tariffs, to contain things within boundaries as they spread. an open economy doesn't reverse the idea of a multiplier, but it distributes it outside of the country.

let's look at what actually happens in 2015 when you hire construction workers to build a bridge or a road or a monument to the people that built the monument or whatever else - although we have plenty of infrastructure issues, and arguments about holes in the ground and bridges to nowhere as "make work" are currently not well utilized. there's plenty of things to do.

first, chances are the worker has some debt. credit card debt. maybe some loans. a student loan, maybe. that's likely to be the first issue to be dealt with. and, the numbers suggest that this is a pretty big issue right now. so, you have to acknowledge a lot of it gets eaten by the banks right off the bat - it's as dead as an economic driver as debt repayments.

but, if you stick with it, that goes away, eventually - or is at least minimized. and, we're all better off with less people in debt.

so, our construction worker has made positive movement on their debt. what's next? a trip to walmart, of course!

and, where does the multiplier from spending at walmart come from?

the theory suggests that spending at the local hardware store will lead to further purchases from the local hardware supplier, will allow them to expand production, which creates more jobs and etc.

in reality, spending at walmart does not help local suppliers. walmart will not hire more workers, they'll make customers stand in line longer. it may increase production, but production is out of the country.

rather than a multiplier effect, we should be talking about a vacuum effect: all of the money that we print gets sucked out of the country.

in order to get that multiplier effect back in place, there has to be barriers in place that keep the circulation local.

it's free trade or multiplier effects. you have to pick one. you can't have both.

see, the mild green boost after the debate was predictable - but that it would come back relatively quickly was also predictable. and, that it will slowly bleed back (i wouldn't expect to measure it week over week) over the next several weeks is also predictable. mulcair still has lots of time to piss of his base, and he will. it's going to be a series of "last straw" moments had in sequence as, one by one, people burst veins in their head and fall out. it probably won't cost him the election. and it probably won't win the greens any seats. but, it will be realigning for the protest vote minority. protest voters are not swing voters; they don't come back. they vote with their hearts, not their heads. it's the price the party pays for moving to the centre. i don't think they'll hit 10. they might get close.

it's that liberal/conservative swing that you can tie to the scandals, and these are all conservative voters moving out. it's various degrees: the red tories seem almost fully swung, now, and it's traditional conservatives that are lending their vote out because they've just had enough. even while this is happening, the liberals are probably not done bleeding to the ndp - although what's left to go will likely be strategic. this might not be thought out well, because the liberals will become more competitive in certain ridings as upset conservatives vote liberal by default, and out of spite. the result of this kind of strange voting pattern (where liberals vote ndp strategically to beat the conservatives, while conservatives vote liberal or chp out of disgust) is not something i want to predict.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/28/ekos-poll-duffy-awakening-slumbering-electorate/

steal?

i admit i don't watch much (any) tv, but this makes no sense to me. i've always assumed that the conservative base is primarily composed of social conservatives and that, if you were to measure it directly, you'd find out that they are the least knowledgeable about basic economic ideas and terminology. the exception to this comes in the form of certain types of investors and just flat out upper class earners, but they're certainly not interested in "jobs and growth" when they vote for the conservatives on "economic issues" - they're concerned about markets and tax rates.

conversely, liberal party supporters tend to actually mostly vote on the economy - it's their primary vote driver.

i've posted about this elsewhere, but i just don't think we can draw much out of these polls as we think we can because we can't really determine what the respondents actually mean. when you have a government that is constantly barraging people with ads that claim they're best at "managing the economy" (which is an absurd concept), it should come as little surprise that they rank highly - not because people like their policies, or even understand them, but because it's what they're bombarded with. the polls become a measure of the effectiveness of the conservative advertisement. and, sometimes you have to wonder if it's even intentional - the poll questions are worded almost identically to the ads. it's the same thing with the leadership question.

so, when the polls shift, then, what are you seeing? ideological shifts? the onset of the ultra-paradoxical phase, where stimulus leads to rejection? collateral damage from something else?

essentially all data you could construct from any source at all suggests the liberals should be blowing away the competition on anything remotely related to the economy. it's really not debatable. it's in the realm of objective fact. and, my experience has been that pretty much everybody that i've ever actually *talked* to has understood this - even very solid ndp and tory supporters.

i'm just not sure this is actually what people care about, or if it's what they've been told they should care about; and i'm not sure that people actually support the government's economic positions, so much as they're constantly being told they're the best on the economy. and, if you unravel the situation with this in mind, and then you look at the polls, you're left to conclude that the opposition parties should be focusing on everything *except* what the narrative has been defined as.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/27/can-progressives-steal-the-jobs-and-growth-issue-from-the-tories-absolutely/

jh
Interesting analysis. Im going with collateral damage for something else. For example the cons marketed two things which have benefited the NDP. 1st -"Liberals have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. They managed to balance a budget on the backs of the most vulnerable and then pretend they are progressive. Of course it boggles the mind at why people aren't worshipping the Liberals!"

2nd- Liberal performance on managing the economy is very much debatable. They did balance the budget, but how they did it it, and at what cost is what people may remember. Did the actual Canadian economy grow and jobs increase? Were people better off ? Maybe on paper but most are not going to look that up. They are thinking what they are experiencing day to day.

Arrogance, deception and corruption scandals is what led to devastating election results the last time around. This was marketed very well by the Conservatives so uninformed people did buy into that narrative.

deathtokoalas
yeah, this is another media narrative that i'm convinced is wrong.

if you look at the combined pc & reform vote in 2000, it was 38%. in 2011, he managed a hair under 40% in an election where a lot of liberals stayed home. he got 38% in 2008 and 36% in 2006 - and 30% in 2004. the reality is that he's been spending the last 15 years hanging on to the progressive conservative vote for dear life, and he hasn't cut an inch into liberal support. so, where did all these liberal voters go, when he made a big stink about the scandals?

well, they went to the ndp, eventually, although a few seem to have parked with the greens on the way there. and, if you ask them about this directly, they won't tell you anything about scandals. they'll tell you that they didn't like the idea of electing paul martin (due to his budget cuts in the 90s) and didn't like ignatieff for his foreign policy views.

i'm less pointing out the objective supremacy of the liberal economic record in the sense of it being spotless, and more comparing it to the conservatives. harper & mulroney have both been just atrocious on any metric you could possibly pull out. it's just not a comparison.

i do think the scandals may be swinging some red tories to the liberals.

but i'm broadly leaning towards the ultra-paradoxical phase to explain the polling. you have to keep in mind that harper's economic competence (in the polling public's mind) has generally outperformed his polling results. people will repeat the ads, say the economy is most important and then tell the pollsters they're voting for somebody else. it's like the information sinks in on the surface, but doesn't *actually* sink in in the sense of forming voting intentions. how ads effect us is kind of weird, right? we sing major brand jingles and refer to products by their trademark names (like "mayonnaise"), but, at the end of the day, we buy the better bargain.

i think he may have over-advertised, to the point that now people just get irritated by the ads. and, the more he spends all that money, the harder hit he may end up.

maybe he could try flooding the lab, or something. i'm not giving him any ideas, though.