IRC log started Fri May 30 22:02 Welcome to #Objectivism. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "Force vs Violence: Offence, Defence and Double Standards", and will be moderated by Bill Capehart. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Bill. Recent events in Peru, the UK, Israel and even the "Republic of Texas" have highlighted a trend where initiators of force are treated with kid gloves while those taking decisive defensive action are demonized or the rights of victims are ignored. I'd like to discuss the subject tonight, how this mentality penetrates society, the premises behind it, and their subsequent consequences. For starters, I'm probably correct in guessing that not every one has read "Cashing in on the student rebellion" in "The New Left," Right? That book isn't as readily available as the others. I've read it. I've read it, but not very recently. Same here. ditto read it long ago ead it ditto ihave read it , but also not recetly +R read it. read it. :) everyone;s read it then? Wow. does any one have a questions for the dennis miller show about drinking we have them on the phone rachie: through messaging, please. We're in the middle of a discussion. for starters shall those of us who have read it refresh some memories? oh sorry I did not realize it had started :( Go ahead and refresh them, Bill. What exactly was behind the idea of "Force"? in this context? i see the false distinction between force and violence raised at p. 40 of the paperback The idea is that "force" is good. Bill: she mentioned the tactics of Berkeley rioters and how the university caved in to their demands Your ideas don't need to stand on their own ... you force people to accept what you assert. in what way was force good? When the authorities respond, it's "violence", which is bad. that the students use of force was justified, and the admin subsequent use was characterized as "violence' (speaking from their pov, not mine) Force is what the poor students used to get their voices heard. Violence was what the big bad university applied against them. The end does not justify the means No ones rights can be secured by violating the rights of others Sube, so for example when one person took control of a building it was a noble act, n'est-ce pas? Force is when you block passage to someone. It is called 'violence' if the police remove you physically. Bill: They claim they were just getting attention to their demands. Sube: well, they got it. Yes Brad To make this distinction, requires a complete destruction of conceptualization, and a reduction of all human social concepts to the purely physical. And what was the premise of the people who were initiating the "Violence." BradA, the same "argument" is used by both sides on the abortion issue, too. Kpart, their premise is to restore the rights to those who have lost them to the thugs. they also claim that since they are/were students then the buildings actually belong to them (students) Brad, yeah, "property rights" if they exist are abitrary constructs the hippies declared that they had the right to occupy the biuldings and it became so. Tad: Right. Everything became their communal property when it suited them. so then is using force synonymous with using violence? I'd say it might be harder to kick the students out of public buildings (like schools) because they "belong to the people." the defenders of those using force completely blank-out the violation of rights being perpetrated, and decry the use of retaliatory force. And this was accepted by the onlookers? There was an element of denying not just the validity of property rights, but their absence. At Berkeley, "force" was refusal to observe property rights, the "violence" was when the admin stood up for property rights. Notice the same is said about Columbus when he arrived in America. When the admin used "violence" against the students' physical persons Jason, indeed. This happens quite frequently in Canada. Sundry Indian groups do this regularly, either blocking roads, or logging, or occupying govt. buildings. BradA: what is their justification? (and the Kent State incident became the straw man representing the normal stance of the administrators as well) Our Provinicial legislature was forcefully blockaded last year, and the response by police was described as 'violent'. Might there be a mind/body dichotomy involved here? Brad, over what issue, BTW Kpart: a similar event of blocking an entrance to the a university building occured at Arizona State. The response of the people in inside was to knock out a glass side wall and walk out that way. Force is directed at the mind, violence at the body. Tom: right. Property rights exist because of the mind. TomB: can you explain further? Therefore, it's all right to use "force," according to those who accept this view? good. Hold these examples you're giving too, I'm writing them down for the next part segelbe: They claim to have some form of right, or some grievance which justifies their action. Typically, they'll occupy govt. buildings to force some official to see them. And people accept these premises? I think it may be harder to make the distinction when we're talking about state-owned property. What is one of the ramifications of someone accepting the premise of the protesters? To the extent that hippies believed the mind to be non-existent, or useless, or inherently subjective, forcing the mind didn't bother them. But to the extent they were materialists, violence against the body bothered them. KPart: The left here is upset about the allegedly right-wing Harris govt. -- they've been committing shocking actions like reducing welfare payments to the national average. Your std run-of-the-mill insurrection inciting stuff. true sarah but private propperty isn't immune from this sort of thing BradA: And usually they could have simply made and appointment to see the Govt. official. But then Appointments don't get coverage on TV so this is revoling around the right to civil disobediance correct? Kpart: As they view it yes. Exactly when did we grant the "right" to break laws? question: are lunch counter sit-ins a violation of private property? I remember hearing all about how non-violent this was in school. What is a "lunch counter sit-in"? OK I'd like to start moving onto broader examples.... see p. 38 of the paperback, AR addresses the civil rights sit ins directly I should think so, seeing as those who "sat-in" didn't own the property where they were congregating. BradW: A violation of private property. What I'd like to discuss tonight is the acquiescence to force, or to be more precise, an equal or even greater aversion to counter- or preventative force. Rather than focus on the rationalizations of the perpetrators, I'd like to concentrate on the observers attitudes. This exists in many arenas and scales. A few of the bigger instances have been in the news. the most outrageous was the blaming of the government agents for taking the waco compound yes tom To start off could we see some examples? Just examples please, don't elaborate on them. We'll do that next. KPart: I have a hypothesis for later: force can 'work' for all manner of groups today except one: those whose claim is a legimate expression of injustice. Hmmm... :-) You mgiht want to save that for later on this evening, Brad Don't be afraid to reach for some obscure ones if you can justify it. KPart: You listed many: PLO, IRA Wrong Brad! It's the P.A. now. SDS? I'm not very familiar with them but the description in TNL seems to work. Animal Rights Activists blocking department store entrances I'll reiterate my own: Native blockades of roads etc.; blockades of the legislature Union picket lines Kpart: 1. Israeli bombing of UN compound in Lebanon last year. 2. Israeli invsion of lebanon ('82?). 3. vietnam war (communists locate in civilian areas, draw US fire) One example is Israel being condemned repeatedly for trying to defend its citizens. Kpart: To continue an example that I used earlier, ASU not only didn't object to a building being sealed by a protest group but also real property damage to bypass it. in philadelphia, the police had to drop a bomb on the MOVE rowhouse to get them out; started a big fire; police got the blame Stephen: or animal rights activists setting the white mice with diseases free. Israeli bombing of Iraqi nuclear reactor good one I've heard of one case a few years ago where a Marine divorcee short her abusisive hiusband while he broke into her house. She tagged im twice as per her training and was charged at one point with murder Good Tym KPart: The same authority that has issued carte-blanche murder licenses against those who sell their property to israelis; the same PA that is censoring and shutting down newspapers that won't feed its own party line. Gulf War in general US bombing the bunker where dozens of iraqi civilians were invited to sleep (gulf war) (What started me off was when Israel was ciriticsed for human rights while the PA had an E-ticket that was before the press started waking up with fleas the past few weeks) E-ticket? Joe, Yes. That's a reach but and interesting one. free pass. how about the animal rights activists who harrassed the wife of the asst manager of the local Bon marche here in Seattle - at her home what about something as mundane as no-fault insurance? kpart: i wouldn't put i past Saddam to force civilian into the bunker knowing t was a US target. not force but certainly a get-0off the hook free card Lurch *nod* she turned the hose on em lol prolifers ? It's infuriating when the Arabs blow up women and children in Israel and then say, "Israel provoked us" -- and the press seems to think that's just fine. Tym - yeah. AND ws charged with assault tktad: Good one. joe, that or just using a c&c point as a civilian target. He did a lot of placing of items in civie areas do you mean, the person who causes the crash is viewed as less guilty than the person who wants to sue that reckless driver? Because they're *victims* The Arabs, I mean... Frode: maybe that's because lots of people have lost the ability to tell the difference between a terrorist and a minority? Tym: And the city tried to prosecute her. One hung jury, then declined to pursue. Jeepers Creepers boys, didn't anyone see the thing on OSG with the Peru rescue arguement? the fact that someone is not in the majority does not make them a martyr. (That was a very in your face example) Kpart: I saw it but didn't pay much attention. Kpart: What is there to say about it? Justified rescue mission.. And there has been little controversy about it that I've seen. segelbe: No, there is _no excuse_ for knowledgable journalists writing this kind of cr*ap. well I think we're collecting a goodly number of examples and I'd like to move on .... Odegard: exactly: when an israeli move like openiing a tourist tunnel is equatd with the subsequent rioting and assault by the PA police. segelbe: It's about making the defence of one's rights, particularly by using legal means, into an example of someone being persecuted for "political crimes" just because the alleged end served by the initiation of force is to get a political point across. Now with those down, I'd like to start calling out some of the underlying premises that could be behind some of these examples. segelbe: The public could be fooled, but the journalists are innundated with facts. Joe.. (that too but hold off on that for later maybe.:-) Frode: indeed. :) he way I'd like to do this is to first list one "mindset" (I have four up front here and we can add more should others want to present any), Kpart: Clearly it's "turn the other cheek." provide an example (such as the above samples we did), then discuss the pitfalls and windfalls (for the victim and perpetrator, respectively). not all frode Think of it as making a table sort of... :-) Kpart: Sorry, I typed before reading... too bad irc doesn't have graphics capabilities. :) no prob.. you'll be there soon enoiugh I have enough trouble with it as it is :) "Pacifism" ok frode :-) Right. any examples that would fit that? Peru springs to mind. Loving peace is a virtue, versus respecting rights. It works by thinking that the right to free speech means the right to override other rights. kpart: all of them. Kpart: Gandhi Perpertrator: No fear of retailation. Any college protest has this automatically. no from the observer, cjs i.e cave in to the perpetrator, and you wil get peace. Anti-nuke demonstrations come to mind. Draft dodgers (who did it because they were pacifists) "Violence never solves anything!" "There's got to be a better way" how about crime Advocates of the Israeli "Peace Process" Martyrdom, and being the big shot, for being "political prisoners", and "victims of persecution" good stephen... and right chouce of words too Tom B. I actually have one later that will fit the "pieces process" to a T But a stupid thought, it settled Hitler quite handily Kpart: midnight basketball What befalls the victim when he holds or is "made" to hold this view? tobe specific MADE to hold the view by society or such Sanction? kpart: loses right to self - defence. yes. is he still considered virtous? Invites his own distruction becomes a martyr? The main thing is property is not seen as part of a right. could he for example... have a claim on others (eg those that prevented his acting or having legal recourse) to compensate (perp. not included?) not making moral appraisal of perpetrators, eg any use of force wouldhave to be "on thier lower level' that's one way to see it Tom. Hence the "human rights" argument, right? To quote Miss Rand, "encourage and reward." Tom: getting thrown in jail, or cuts and bruises, and gains personal sympathy for it. is it concievable that there could be a victim compensation fund? kpart: do you mean, in a proper legal system? Kpart: only if it's funded by the criminal Wife beaters aren't criminals, they're "sick." we're not taliing a proper system if he cannot seek direct recouirse form the perp. victim compensation would be private charitable endeavor in good society insanity defense yes. Tom... But if he gets compensation has he lost anything "morally" (this is a touch of devils advocacy here) tkTad: schizos ARE insane. It's been abused tho or rather the abuse of a 'borderline' situation i'm lost I mean say he gets a replacement for say his televison that was stolen i'm lost too. we'll move on th ethe next for a second OK then we'll mvoe on teh the enxt ? What benefits does the perp get? that would be good. :) Kpart: even if replaced, his property rights were violated by the thief what do you mean by perp? The perpetrator is "seen" as applying his rights, whereas the property owner has none. sorry perpetrator disarming the victim(s) The criminal is given moral sanction, as TomM says. not necessarily. He could easily be seen as a rotter who can geta way (remember we're dealing from an eroneous stand point here) lets move on to the next one.... "Egalitarianism of Blame" example rich person getting mugged. Others? you mean, let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Leona Helmsley Stephen good. Yeah Kpart: women in skimpy clothing, but that doesn't work any more, not in the West anyway Milken, of course. How about a the Peru? the perpetrator may not be given free reign, but the erroneous view gives them at least a defensible position tk Good! oh, the "they had it coming to them" defense? the UK s stance in N Ireland is anpther... so to quicky fill in the blanks does the crook get off 100% (morally) there was an LA law some years ago in which the jury found an animal rights activist who threw paint on a woman's fur coat innocent for a justifiable action. After I was burgled 3 times, a friend (former) said, well they must have needed it more than you, and you're doing ok Kpart: It's only the labor government that's softening up, though. The British public would never stand for a direct moral capitulation. segelbe: aggh luckily the judge set aside the verdict. hello Betsy Stephen , you mean you had more money than you deserved... ;_0 Bingo Most of these protestors are hippi-ish, and don't respect property rights. As this notion took hold, they had a lot of sympathy. but in this case as tk said, the villian is not made squeekuy clean but HAS a beachead on "morality," No? BTW I earned $12,000 that year. Obviously rolling in dough Stephen: but you earned it, so that doesn't count ;) ;) kpart: or: the victim is partly immoral (eg has money) and must attone for it joe, yes. The victim is smeared the perp. gets a slight leg up/ Oh. Nobody is really virtuous. Nor is anyone really vicious... Frode: speak for yourself. :) Wonder how much *he* evaded on taxes this year. now the next one is a little tricky.... it may be at first hard to tell it from egalitarianism turning a blind eye to the entire act. example? mother who sees one kid hit another and does nothing? Well this applies to all the left wing south american rebels: sure they carry out terrorist acts, but they're oppressed Tom, yes that's one clinton and hong kong "I'm just a scientist, not a politician" joe that may fall in to the previous one kpart: bombing abortion clinics comes to mind. Not much of a moral outcry against that. kpart: sorry, i was behind pretty much denial that the event is happening... Tom: or teachers who tell the students to "get along" and not "cause trouble". sarah you might like the next one then... Blanking out, really cjs: ? simpson jury Steve good. the idea is that the rottter gets off TOTALLY free. and the victim is ignored totally evading morality wink evading justice peroid. But justice depends on virtues and values being objective. "Two sides, Right, Wrong and then there's the middle, which is always evil." "justice only applies in need of it, not those who deserve it"? justice depends on morality (right frode) according to their morality, they are not evading, it's just that property protection has nothing to do with morality. China takeover of HK. Syrian takeover of lebanon. PA's death penalty for selling land to Israelis. tk is that a real quote? from whom? not a quote , just the erroneous view Sounded like something Rawls would say Joe. that second one's good. that one slips alot of mind (and mine when I was joting down exampels before this) what is PA? Palestenian Authority. The former PLO? Arafat's personal dictatorships but that's my bias :-/ Joe: well, you know, the Syrians were "stakeholders" in Lebanon ;) what i meant was it seems the erroneous takes justice as a floating abstraction , vaguely meaning that which the courts pronounce Kpart: as I recall the lebanese were even condemned in the press and by most countries for resisting. No for the last of mine and a few of you have already identified this one... I was looking for a good term for this one byt te best one I could come up with is the sound byte... "Can't we all just get along?" Ugh. Ugh is right. but I'd rather have an example or two the simpson evasion, marching to the tune that justice lies with race Well, there's the person who said it on TV. whining refusal/reluctance to see the results of injustice in action handing eastern europe to Stalin after ww11? There's Jesus. King's comment was uttered after the riots "No peace, no <"social"> justice" Gandhi Love thy neighbor. Now some of you have already mentioned "Peace Processes" IMHO that is where this ine really can fit nicely they = thy King was trying to say, "can't we have causes without effects?" the simpson case is egalitariansim entering the American mainstream. er other way around Jason : independent of that neighbor's character. Just as a principle. TomBowden: BINGO. What does the initiator gain in this? Correct! TomB: back up a sec: MLK or Rodney? A moral sanction to *anything*. Can't we have racial hatred without street violence? segelbe: Rodney Kpart: gets elevated toequal moral status as other side (see ME peace process) Rodney King (he's the one who said, "Can't we all get along?" after the riots erupted ok just checking. :) Joe, yes! Tom: MalcomX for example the hostile side can stop hostilites to get to a table then when he cannot negotiate an item... what? M.L.King Set off bombs in London' he's blamed for being obstructionist ... ? not that that's the good guy these days :-/ well that would be true of you saw it as Nicole on trial and the jury saw that OJ DID kill Nicole but steve has it there. Then all he has to do stop again and then what? good side then has to compromise more? Food and poison. the villain becomes the peace maker how so? He keeps all he's acquired, and when he needs to set off more bombs he moves forward. Each time insisting that his previous behavior not be counted against him Like Arafat? IRA arafat won a nobel peace prize!!! yes, but I'm happy to say that the press is getting wise (since he jailed one of their own) ho chi minh got a peace price price = prize Clinton Wasn't that like in the book _ta_Ta_Tan_Tan_ -- the Red Chinese strategy of "fight fight talk talk." TomB: so did Le Duc Tho (sp) right, and kissinger ... ? betsy I've never heard it described so ... colorfully In the 1948 Begin helped blow up the King David Hotel, in the late 70's he's feted, go figure. so does anyoje esle have any "mindsets" (from the observers) stand point that would lead to a insistance that a victim couldn't seek redress? by that same logic, an arsonist should get a civil engineering prize when he stops burning buildings down, and serial killer should get a prize in medicie for stopping his killing. :) what about no-fault insuracne? Those who are opposed to the death penalty who say the government shouldn't be "in the business" of "murdering" people. What is no-fault insurance? I thought that was an actuarial decision. actually sube you're probably right./ Jason: let's please not get into that?? not if it is state mandated These days, lawsuits are expensive. no fault insurance means that the victim of the accident can't recover damages for pain and suffering against the person who caused the accident to that extent, it's unjust -- denies justice to the victim is one of the premises there that you cannot prove who is to blame? It's all determinism. not that you can't prove who's at fault, but it doesn't matter. no I thnk the premise is that coverage is cheaper if you agree not to sue for damages , if you happen to end up on the victim side It's all insurance, they say. What does it matter whose insurance company pays? Why tie up the courts deciding? Kpart: Isn't i the premise of no-fault that it really doesn't matter who's at fault? Judge not ... Kpart: tort caps...which the AMA is now going along with :/ that's the one of the impressions I have, betsy is that another example, Tym or a premise (that you cannot get redress so why bother?) Typically, surgeons pay $100,000 - $150,000 a year in malpractise insurance. Kpart: example ah our tort system is turning all providers of goods and services into insurance companies anyway I want to close with this last part If you're concerned about the other guy not having insurance, buy uninsured motorist coverage. That's what I have. So do I. It's the law in IL. Kpart: the iddea is to arbitrarily cap malpractise and product liability suits because they're "too expensive" Sube: yeah. One of the things that prompted me to do this discussion was about four instances indifferent areas where I saw those four mindsets in action. Tym: arbitrary caps are unjust arbitrary *anything* is unjust. Tom: yup true; but it might be possible to construct a rational cap the idea being that one shouldn't give into "violence" (even to save ones own life!), that the victim was tainted somehow, rational caps would require a hands-off stance from the govt. 'arbitrary ' is outside the realm of moral judgement Shawn Kemp is leaving the Mariners because of the baseball cap on saleries sonics total igrnoraing the action and demading that someone be force to compromise wat what could be figuratively called "gunpont" Good for him. He's not been called selfish yet? (kemp) basically what I want to close with is this... "How do you deal with these folks?" (The people who tollerate what are essensially acts of aggression regardless of scale() You haven't read the papers here in Seattle he's been called a ton of other things, but not selfish, that I've heard I'm sure he will soon. Has there ever been a private road system in a large area? Kpart: deal with them by pronouncing judgment. OK... Rich: some woman in DC opened up a private stretch of highway some years ago. ? Kpart: unfortunately, these peole are nothing more than accomplices to the crime. Private road re Insurance Kpart: By not becoming one of them and not counting on them as allies when you need help. You'll never convince them. (what do roads have to do with this?) You need to find allies among the silent watchers. sarah - yeah - toll road, parallel a large heavy use "free" highway. Charged exhorbitant tolls, I believe. winkrich: the road system on any large subdivision or private site, such as universities, large factories, etc. Also, the stairways/hallways/elevators are private virtually everywhere, and that seems to work just fine. Kpart: By explaining how their sanction is self destructive; Of which I find many in daily life. :) Point out that whenever they subvert justice in favor of peace or anything else, they're on level with the criminals. You don't see people climbing up ropes, because some evil capitalist monopolized the elevators and stairways in a hirise. Bill they have aright to discuss whatever they want, don't badger them into discussing YOUr agenda :) I do have some good news on that front. A while back I know someone who was big on NorAid. what's that? Isn't the discussion still going on? the bagman for the IRA Subetai: Most of these people have the mentality of a thug: they think their cause is righteous, and they can trample other people's rights to achieve it. (in the IU) in the US basically he had the oportunity to see a visit by their rep by ... get this. the PSU chapter of Amnesty international But the influence of these people is immense. For example, isreal being forced into its current position, or the US being disarmed in vietnam/indochina. ::guffaw:: Yeah Stephen I did that too. That is what we saw here during the blockade/attacks on our provincial legislature -- hysterical protestors and their spokespersons, belligerently asserting their 'right' to attack our democratic system, because *they* thought reducing welfare rates was some grievous evil that sanctified any scale of response. It's like I said before: Their brand of righteousness does not include respect for property rights. basically my collegiue, who's a brit... ok a scott. Was there and he and one of his countrymen baraged them over and over again with some rather embarasing questions or any other rights and anyone who stands up for principle is condemned as "self-righteous" Brad: Right. But I'm also thinking about the average people not involved in these things who'd rather the thugs get what they want so that peace will return. Legendre: that's perfectly true, though not in the sense they mean! That person no loinger gives to NA and avocates that others do the same. So what Tom waid a while back may notnecesarily be true It is (nominally) a serious criminal offense in Canada to prevent elected officials from travelling to/from the legislature -- yet that is what the goons did. It wasn't just a noisy protest, it was physical force used to block democracy. segelbe: :) Right on, sister! Leg, they got some grief there that night for being self righteous (I only wish I had been able togo to that one) later lurchie Subetai: Ah, the cult of compromise. Another issue that superheats my blood far past boiling. CSPAN 2 was replaying an interview with Molly Ivins, and she used a great expression. She wasn't even aware of how damning it was. She said she had finally become comfortable with her combination of ambivelence and contradiction. That's the additude that feeds the problem Scheduled part of the discussion is over, folks. Please continue. Stephen have you ever read her columns? And thanks, Bill. :) ambivalence and contradiction are extremely hot items right now. Kpart: I think that kind of condemnation comes from the perception that the "Self-righteous" are "close-minded" - which really means that there are those who stand up for their own interests, for principles, and who judge ideas rather than give all of them equal consideration all the time now my fingers hurt thanks for the disc., Kpart You really typed up a storm today, Bill. for the humor value, and to get my ire up. Although she sometimes is great at skewering buttheads I'd like to discuss my hypothesis: almost any group can employ force today and get away with it (in the narrow sense)... *except* anyone whose cause is legitimately just. She is a *particularly* drippy liberal... and that was 9-5 today sube I at least could cut and paste for part of this one Ex: nationalist or racist separatists could use force to try to get their way, and might eventually win concession. But if those fighting for individual rights tried this, it would be rejected. is that the quebecious? This is just a hunch, more than a reasoned hypothesis. quebecois The'd be perceived as fighting for "selfish" goals Brad, I think you couldbe on to somethign Brad: It's like environmentalists "love every living thing except man" or multiculturalists "tolerate everything except the rational". BradA: seen the Pauline Hansons kerfuffle going on down here (in Australia) right now? Legendre: No. Subetai: I've seen that in so many people! I think part of that is that the "good" people ought to be above that sort of thing. almost sundering the intellectual mind from the body that's getting the crap beaten out of it. (now that the disc is over I can vent spleen with the lot of you_) BradA: the "anti-racists" and multiculturalists are attacking Hanson supporters, throwing tomatoes etc, blocking paths think part. (that was interesting) Who is Pauline Hanson? (hey, tomatoes cost money) Jason: An Australian MP who wants to put a total halt to the immigration of non-whites and a waste of dinner Legendre: We have a federal regional party here called Reform, whose leader, Preston Manning, while highly flawed, nevertheless has more common sense and lucidity than probably half the world's politicians put together. Her reasons are? Legendre: sounds like Ms. Pat Buchanan. BradA: Her party is "One Nation" The alleged justification is our 9%+ unemployment rate He advances the hideous idea that before the next Quebec referendum (last one was 51% no, 49% yes), the feds should outline the ground rules of separation. Is she similar to the Front National in France, headed by Jean-Marie Le Pen? and what sort of rules does he recommend He also opposes the so-called 'distinct society' clause which the Quebec nationalists want, which they want so they can *further* violate minority rights. The unemployment rate has been around that for 10 years now, and the easy target is Asian immigration He is being derided as a 'hate-monger', a 'biggot and all manner of other hysterical and insulting labels, that are absurdly off mark. BradA: same the Pauline Hanson, who repeatedly states she is not racist. She probably believes it, too. BradA: I hope you don't mind an opinoion from south of the border, but if Quebec does secede, they'll be back in under a decade, or they'll be appealing to be the 51 state. He is very religious, but he doesn't thump religion politically, so he can't be faulted for that. she sounds rather like a segregationist. Notlike there's a idfference, though. :/ Many people today are infused with the spirit of social construction: if we say it then it will be. Stephen: more likely they'll be eating rotten cheese and congratulating each other on their high culture. Brad: right. Manning is the same as the others in that he would give "distinct society" powers to quebec - except he would also give them to every other province as well. Don't they do that already? if you build it, they will come? (sorry) Legendre does she draw support from ppl espousing " purely economic' grounds ? People get all riled up emotionally over something, very likely can't even identify the cause, then spout all kinds of hateful venom and untruths. Segelbe: right. She thinks that different racial groups should not exist in the same country. The "anti-racists" are misrepresenting her. She thinks that Japan, for example, should have a "Japan for the Japanese" policy to match the White Australia policy. I'm not keen on the idea of immigration quotas So she IS like Le Pen. Not race based quotas, but education, or skill, perhaps immigration quotas are a bad idea all the way around. No way, no day. tkTad: I think so. Mostly the immigration, but also because we have such a dismal savings record, we have to rely on foreign investment heavily, which causes more resentment Good evening. New venue, I see. KPart: He wants the process whereby separation would take place to be outlined, and specifically wants the feds to refute the notion of unilateral secession, with which I enthusiastically agree. TkTad: and also because different cultures do not mix, she says she said, eating apple pie after a dinner of sushi. So much for the melting pot... Legendre actually they don't , aye ? The position of his enemies is that if we (the rest of Canada), assert our rights (and those of the minority of Quebecers), then this somehow 'provokes' the separatists. TkTad: that's why we're sort-of between a rock and a hard place wrt that. So: the way to prevent the mugger from stealing your wallet, is to not let him know you have a right to it. sarah, you don't eat people. (at least it;'s not a very healty thing to do) BradA: will somebody please mail his enemies copies of Rearden's defense statement? TkTad: oppose racism, and you are considered a multiculturalist and not a patriot. Attack MCism and you are lumped in with racists and anti-immigration groups The rest of Canada should be tired of grabbing their ankles everytime Montreal issues a new dictat. Legendre: I don't make a habit of it, no. ;) Legendre ic,,rock you are hard place :) Stephen: I disagree. They would rather starve to death. Also, there is perhaps a mistaken premise in your assumption. Being part of a larger or smaller country has little effect on your standard of living. It is government policy which affects that. Stephan: quebec city, not montreal. Montreal island is heavily federalist. segelbe: I oppose both racism and multiculturalism - the latter partly because it is a species of the former pardon moi I hope no one is wanting to emulate the U.S. mistake of 135 years ago and force Quebec to stay if it keeps electing politicians who want to go. Stephen: je t'excuse. mencken: it wasn't a mistake. joe: Mannings' proposals to give provinces more power is one (of the many) bad things about him. But it is vastly more logical than giving one province some special powers to violate minority rights, which is what no one ever admits is the aim of the distinct clause. Mencken: them's fightin' words. TkTad: it doesn't help that the group grabbing the limelight for being "antiracists" are the socialist student group "Resistance" Why was a Union at gunpoint so important? (Slavery was the post-facto rationalization; Lincoln admitted it.) I'm just talking about a _war_, folks. Not worth that. Mais oui, madame. J'ai oublie' That, and the almost sickeningly puerile need for some official stamp of approval for French culture. It is more than I can bear to contemplate sometimes, it disgusts me so much. Legendre ( other than youself) is there any rational voice? mencken: Back then, the USA was more concerned with retaining individual rights. to have let the South seceed would have been saying they didn't care about rights. I heard it throughout the four years I lived in Quebec City. TkTad: not that I can see, no. None of the four main political parties down here are worth voting for. Brad: exactly right that everyone evades (but undestands) the fact that giving a province "distinct society" powers = power to violate individual rights. however i disagree with you that there is any difference between manning wnating to give it to all the prov.s, while th eothers want to give it to quebec only TomM: I'd try to unpack those assumptions, but I see "Discussion in progress," so will not annoy the moderator any further. it's my impression that Canada as a whole is much more province-oriented than the US. If all Western countries opened up for unlimited immigration, most of the world would become freer at such a dizzing rate that you would scarcely believe it. er, that is, many Canadians feel more strongly about their province/state than they do about Canada the country. The biggest support that repressive and expropriative regimes have today is there is nowhere to go. European class system mentality so strong how come mencken? And oddly enough, BradA, when last in France I heard two funny Quebec jokes. The French view the Queb. as tres provincial, new world bumpkins who don't speak francais correctement. BradA: one of the most touted anti-immigration ideas (for *any* immigration, not of any particular race) is the idea that the land cannot support the population. It has been estimated that Australia should only be supporting 10 million rather than the current 18 million. I'll see you later. Off to other aetheral spheres. Stephen: We have traditionally had very nice relations between the French and English. For example, most of our PM's (by number and duration) in the last 25 years were Quebeckers from Quebec. BradA: of course, imports are not even considered...... BradA: imports "baa aaa aaa aaad" :) But people are getting sick of it. There is growing hostility. Many people have been quoted in this election as wanting to vote for a non-Quebec PM. The Liberal and PC party candidates are both Quebeckers. I was referring to how the French, I've met felt about Queb. Yes, I have heard that many times, too. But I've heard similar comments about Belgians. joe: The difference is that equal powers are defensible in law and justice; unequal powers are indefensible, would lead to envy and resentment, and endless bitterness. Legendre: The last I looked, it was Australia with 29 million, and Canada with 18 million. Mencken: are those estimates for support, or actual figures? If actual figures, then they're the wrong way around Brad: the power to violate individual rights are indefensible, regardless of how equally they are distributed. BradA: Oh, it's so terrible down here. Jeez, you walk just one mile and there's another person! Sheesh, it's hard to get some privacy down here! mencken: wrong: the opposite. Brad: and anyway, is it not better to have nationalist rights-violating policies limited to one province, and not the whole country? joe: You focus on one attribute only. Most referents in reality possess more than one attribute. Australia's pop. as of 1992 was 17,486,000 My point of all that was, that the anti-racists were initiating force, a la Berkeley, and getting public support for it, because they are politically correct. That's what the media tries to portray, anyway. And, convention centres are being allowed to cancel her bookings without being taken to court for breach of contract Claiming "misrepresentation" and "fear of violence" mencken: Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party launch mencken: she wants to put a halt to non-white immigration to Australia Legendre are ther large or at least significant #'s of whites immigrating? Doesn't sound racially unbiased to me. Any good reason offered for that? TkTad: I don't know actual figures, but various media estimates are around 10% of the population is *actively* in support of her. How many would vote for her and her party members at an election is unknown Same size but one-15th the population of the USA and some in Oz are worrying about immigration . . . I'll never figure politicos out. Sorry, make that 1-10th :) We have a fractured landscape here. The polls indicate the Liberals will win a majority on Monday, with the lowest popular vote ever for a majority. No, sorry, was right the first time. Beg your indulgence. My dream-of-dreams is Reform winning large in the West, the PC's winning in the East, and gaining some seats in Quebec and Ontario, the NDP stealing a few seats from the Liberals... mencken: the excuses used are that Asians are too different from whites to be able to assimilate, that there is unemployment that has been over 8% for a decade, and there's too much foreign ownership. brb ...with the result that Reform and PC together had *more* seats than the Liberals! That would pave the way for an interesting possibility: the PC's and Reform forming a coalition, and tendering a request to form the govt to the Governor General! My ideal outcome (which is unlikely) is that a large number of people spoil their ballots, indicating their disgust with all the parties. I wonder what he would do!! Sounds like the "No Jap Haircuts Here" mentality once prevailing on the West Coast, before it became a trader with the Pacific Rim. back Legendre: Those complaints would be perfectly valid, if 'assimilation' was desirable ('assimilation' -- into what??; of what??), and if foreign ownership was bad. BradA: A coalition probably would get as far as Gingrich and the Republicans got here, make a lot of noise and then lose all its nerve. BradA: "assimilation" is the idea that everyone who doesn't take on board the dominant culture is Bad(tm). mencken: The Conservatives and Reform could get along swimmingly. They are appealing to essentially the same electors, with some differences, which is why they split the vote so much in, ex. Ontario last time. Brad: no matter what the dominant culture happens to be PC+Reform votes outnumbered many Ontario ridings last time, but the Liberals took all seats but one Reform, and an odd NDP (I think) -- no PC. Legendre: We have entire tony suburbs here that are almost all Chinese -- the strip malls have all Chinese signs and stuff. These neighborhoods look just like all the others. Xenophobia is so ugly. IRC log ended Sat May 31 00:07