[martin14]

raydan raydan:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Can we go back to talking about how smart I am?

A complete sentence without a spelling mistake... I, for one, am impressed.

It won't last.

[Lemmy]

Thanos Thanos:

I don't support the dummies, that's for sure, but I don't see how libertarianism can work anywhere. Just like anarchism it seems something that's only possible in a college chat session where it's real world effects can be happily ignored. Once it meets human reality (i.e. remove the rules off of personal behaviour and the maniacs and monsters are going to have a field day at everyone else's expense) and a concept that was created by sociopaths like Ayn Rand entirely falls apart.

Not trying to be a dick here but we're a species that desperately needs rules and codes of appropriate behaviour. Eliminate those rules and codes and the worst isn't merely probable anymore, it's fucking inevitable. And every bit of evidence about the human race since recorded history began absolutely proves it.



"You know the thing about a shark, he's got... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eye. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'. Until he bites ya and those black eyes roll over white."

- Quint from "Jaws"

Libertarians have never said we don't need enforcement of law. In Friedman's world, that was things like enforcing contracts and such. 50+ years later, libertarians recognize the failings in Friedman's philosophy. We recognize the need for regulations and regulation for public safety is not a contradiction of libertarianism.

I prefer the term "libertarian socialism", which is where we use the power of government to do the sorts of things that have positive external benefits or achieve economies of scale by doing so collectively (things like, as I said, regulation, but also public education, public works, fire departments, police, ambulance, healthcare and host of other things. But we need to draw the line and eliminate the many things that government does that only benefit a small portion of the population at the expense of the rest. Why do we need a Ministry of Agriculture, for example? It benefits farmers, sure, but no one else. The same could be said for most government agencies.

I'm not suggesting the 1960s world of Milton Friedman (like the notion of unregulated physicians he proposed in his dissertation) nor the lunatic blend of ultra selfishness and social Darwinism that Rand espouses ("Fuck you, you fucking secondhanding piece of shit".) What we 21st century libertarians propose is stripped down government and greater protection of individual freedoms. Really what we are are liberals, using the classic definition of liberalism. But when the term "liberal" was hijacked and became synonymous with "socialst", we had to invent the term "libertarian" for distinction. Now the term "libertarian" has been, likewise, hijacked as a synonym for "Randian", so we've had to come up with new jargon again. Hence the term "libertarian socialist".

[Lemmy]

martin14 martin14:

Lemmy Lemmy:

You don't know your own ass from a whole in the ground, dipshit.

That's the best you've got? A flying "w" on the keyboard is the best you've got? mod edit

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But we need to draw the line and eliminate the many things that government does that only benefit a small portion of the population at the expense of the rest. Why do we need a Ministry of Agriculture, for example? It benefits farmers, sure, but no one else. The same could be said for most government agencies.

Except that having a healthy farm industry benefits all of us. So we have to look further afield than just the immediate benefits, but the ones that spring from that. I can't say whether the Dept of Ag is a net gain or loss for the country, but just cutting departments like this without doing a clear cost benefit analysis doesn't make sense.

We do need govt, but geez there must be a way to change the culture of it, where govt treats it's money like its coming out of its own pocket. For instance, the govt took a bath on the GM bailout, because not enough protections were in place to make sure the money is paid back. Same with some deal in Quebec, where it sold property full of junk to some company that was supposed to clean up the site. The company stripped all the valuable metals etc off the site, then left it as an environmental disaster. Guess whos on the hook for cleaning it up now?

Govt has people from business in it - why is it that no govt, of whatever stripe seems to put the proper safeguards in place, that if it gives out money for bailouts or stimulate business it makes sure that the money will eventually be repaid. Or if they have bids for contracts, how is it the contract always go over - what's the point if having a contract in the first place. That's the area we can tighten up govt. But if we look at the piggies from all three parties once they get their hands on govt money, it's no wonder they just spend it like if fell from heaven. And we, the voting public, just take it and take it. Once in a while we throw the bums out, only to give another party a chance at the trough.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

It's a fucking sad day when speaking truths becomes defamation of character. What Ezra did was more along the lines of definition of character.

Let's face it, people don't hook up with the Canadian Islamic Congress because of its message of peace, love and harmony.
Let's take a wee look at Awan's involvement with the CIC.

"Awan testified that in 2006, he was the President of the youth division of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Under cross-examination, Awan said that he agreed that support for the genocidal, Jew-hating organizations Hamas and Hezbollah could be interpreted as being antisemitic and that he agreed with the Canadian government's designation of them as terrorist groups.

However during the time Awan was the President of the youth division of the Canadian Islamic Congress, that organization issued a press release condemning the government's terror designation of Hamas and Hezbollah, effectively providing support to the two terror groups.

Awan said that he was not aware of the CIC's position on Hamas and Hezbollah when they issued their support and only became aware of it some time later.
So Mr. Awan effectively testified that he, someone who was attending law school and was the very top person of the youth division of a national advocacy organization, didn't see an email of the press release from his organization and was unaware of one of their most important, controversial policy positions.
Under oath, Awan claimed his role as head of the Canadian Islamic Congress Youth was to encourage legal and political advocacy for Muslim youth. How exactly he could encourage political advocacy without actually being aware of the important political positions of his organization was not addressed during any of his testimony that I heard. But if true, it suggests the Canadian Islamic Congress had a grossly incompetent Youth President in the person of Mr. Awan."

So, based on that one can easily conclude that one Mr. Awan is either an incompetent idiot or a bold-faced liar. And since one of the things he took great exception to was publicly being called a liar and he insists that he isn't a liar, that only leaves us with the other alternative.

I sure as hell hope his clients don't mind having an incompetent boob for a lawyer, because if he can be "unaware" of a hugely major policy of an organization he not only belonged to but was a high ranking member of, what the hell kind of details is he going to miss while working on a case?

Did you reas the judgment? The judge addressed each of these issues exhaustively.

$1:

Judge Matheson said Levant's "... dominant motive in these blog posts was ill-will, and that his repeated failure to take even basic steps to check his facts showed a reckless disregard for the truth,"

So is the judge saying that Awan had nothing to do with the Canadian Islamic Congress, or that he genuinely had no idea what was going on within the organization?
The news link doesn't work for me so if you have a link to the "exhaustive" breakdown of those issues I'd like to read them.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

So is the judge saying that Awan had nothing to do with the Canadian Islamic Congress, or that he genuinely had no idea what was going on within the organization?
The news link doesn't work for me so if you have a link to the "exhaustive" breakdown of those issues I'd like to read them.

No, just the scribd judgment at th bottom of the National Post story.It's about 50 pages.