Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

More by Paul Wells

Harper in China: Beyond the sea of troubles

Underneath all the hype something real is going on between Ottawa and Beijing, writes Paul Wells
Time out: New art in Beijing

Thursday in Beijing. The Prime Minister had pooled events for the first half of…
Harper in China: rules of the game

Paul Wells on why we should file the trade agreement between Canada and China under “might help; can’t hurt”

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Is it possible to have some sort of libertarianism without a soul? True libertarianism, at its core, is all about the soul.

Katherine

Is it possible to have some sort of libertarianism without a soul?

Yes. Rand. The ideology of selfishness based on despising the non-rich as weak and therefore useless.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Yeah, Ayn Rand I believe her full name is. A few years ago I did read up on her somewhat but then started digging further, and came to the conclusion that Rand's thoughts are not deep enough for coming to understand fundamentals.

In order to go deeper we must be able to hold within a much wider scope. The inclusion of science is of the essence as well as the inclusion of religious thought simultaneously. That doesn't mean one has to be a scientist perse, or adhere to one religion or another, but just basically include more than just the apparently visible. Perhaps our human minds will never be able to reach that far and wide, which would mean that we keep on trying. That's not a bad thing.
http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

What's a poor person ever done to deserve a soul?

Herb

Loved Harper's lip service to "personal self-restraint"! Pity this "policy" has no place in the Neandercon political "process", just like any other human or religious values.
Mulletaur

I love how, in Harper's twisted vision of our democratic society, individual freedom is a core value, but individuals are only allowed to exercise that freedom to the extent that it does not impinge upon traditional conservative social values. Stevie is trying to ride in both directions on this one.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Skinny_Dipper Skinny Dipper

I remember UWO in the late 1980's. UWO had its own Model Parliament one weekend each year. There were three parties: the Progressive Conservatives, the More Progressive Conservatives, and the New Star Trek Party a.k.a. the NDP. The last party was way out of this world!
am2010

It is truly unfortunate that this man is leading our country. The “modern left” did not oppose the war in Iraq because of some sort of consensus that dictatorships are morally equal to democracies. On the contrary, the “modern left” (and I am assuming he means NDP and most Liberals) opposed it because declaring war in this way ran counter to the body of morals being built by the international community. It is not the “moral nihilism” of the “modern left” that Harper hates; it’s the progressive “morals” of the modern left that he and his literalist church-group supporters despise.
peter

I support the man and his vision, by and large, but I would sure like some solid clarification on his views on 3Ps given the paper by Manning and Harris on their virtues. As well, some clear guidance on personal choice and health vis a vis the corporate cronyism so prevalent in the delivery of health in Canada…with a clear statement on who owns my most precious property, my body, and who is the arbiter when nanny-state functionaries try and tell me how to maintain my physical or emotional health.

I'm not going to jump off the bus on minor points, but these are game breakers for me and many other from the libertarian stream of non-state society. Not the ill-understood post-modern nihlism so naively embraced by so many commenters in these pages. In other words, how are we working toward an ideal that embraces personal freedom while respecting the rights of others in their private spheres.

freeman

> these are game breakers for me and many other from the libertarian stream of non-state society.

How can you even feign to be a libertarian and in the same post say you support Harper? Oh the double-think is strong with you peter, and all so-called “conservatives” who long to bring further authoritarianism to Canada.

Holly Stick

I usually assume that "libertarianism" means selfishness, which fits in quite well with Harper's authoritarianism if the self-professed "libertarians" believe they can be on the authority's side.

peter

you just have to do some reading dear. I don't think you understand what I am saying. Being selfish in protecting my personal freedom (as long as it doesn't harm others) is the basis of all freedom.

Holly Stick

Patronizing and pompous. Ooh, that's persuasive. Yeah, you're a Harperite alright.
JamesHalifax

Holly, perhaps if that polly-sci course you took included a section on Libertariansim, you would understand what Peter is talking about.

Holly wrote:
"Patronizing and pompous. Ooh, that's persuasive. Yeah, you're a Harperite alright."

And it is clear you are deluded and arrogant….which could make you a Liberal or and NPD'er. If your delusions are greater than your arrogance, then that would make you more of the latter than the former.

Keep up the good work, Holly. The more you express yourself, the more you convince the undecided that your Liberal line of thought truly is bizarre and unrealistic.
Holly Stick

Silly person, you contradict yourself even in the same post. You guess that I may be a Liberal or an NDPer and then accuse me of having a Liberal line of thought. I don't identify slavishly with any party, but I prefer reality-based thinking to Conservative Fariy Tales.

peter

Because I am a pragmatist. Because I have become friends with many CPC MPs. But, most importantly, because there wll there will be a government and I find the CPC far less odious than the only other alternative. The philosophical appeal of libertarianism is tempered by my personal experience with nasty bastards who would turn us into proles. As I have maintained for years, freedom is a process, not a destination. Participating in the process is what I consider to be my contribution to freedom. Personal experience with the "victim class" has led me to believe that a signifcant percentage of our population wants to blame others for their own failings and the centre/left coalition of the usual suspects is more than happy to exploit this. Am I happy with all the CPC policies? cont.

peter

Not by a long shot, but I have come to understand that a minority PM has a fairly limited set of policy options available and accept that it will take generational change to get us back from the brink of disaster we have been poised upon. Look at the long knives in recent media coverage compared to the rather prosaic agenda being forwarded, read the rabid comments here. If you believe in peaceful change toward freedom, I am curious how you expect it with the LPC and or coalition of well-intentioned but hopelessly naive cannon fodder who have a belief that the only way out of our hole is to keep digging.

Holly Stick

What hole is that? The dreadful increase in equality and tolerance and social justice?

peter

Do you honestly believe the fiction? Just because the sharpies have cornered the communication market and the educational curriculem doesn't mean life is better or more fair…the collectivists just have better PR than 40 years ago. We all have rights…it just seems to mean that the corrallory of responsibility has been lost. WE have obligations to OUR communities personally. Should we choose to make our communities less poverty stricken we should take personal action…not hire bureacrats to steal from the better off to dispense to the less well off as long as they jump through the correct secular hoops. Everything we have that is good is the result of someone's hard work and personal sacrifice. People may wish to believe that you can get money for nothing and that a moral society can be legislated, it's just that 3,000 years of human history that argues against it.

Holly Stick

It's not so much legislating a moral society as it is protecting society against greedy immoral SOBs; you know, like Ayn Rand and her ilk, and Conrad Black and his ilk, who certainly try their best to get money for nothing, usually by vicitimising hard-working people. Ayn Rand wrote fiction; do you believe her fantasies? Do you think her selfish destructive characters are the good guys?

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Holly, take a philosophy course. It might do you good in trying to understand not just the world around you but yourself included. Do it, it might work.
peter

I dont' know Conrad, but I do know that he studied the rules and created a system that created a tremendous amount of wealth for himself and a boatload of people. I do not know if his lobbyists changed the laws that allowed him to thrive, but i do know that after his departure his company fell apart and his shareholders lost nearly everything…activist investors cut off their noses to spite their faces, kind of counter intuitive don't you think?

I do find it interesting that Atlas Shrugged continues to be a best seller (hundreds of thousands units per year) all these decades later, but I lean more towards Rothbard's work as the ideal to strive towards and find his analysis more rigorous, tons of his work is available at mises.org.

JamesHalifax

Holly asked:
"What hole is that? The dreadful increase in equality and tolerance and social justice?"

Holly, let us dissect what you mean when you discuss:

Increase in Equality
Part One – Could have several meanings, let's discuss a few of them.
"Equal pay for work of equal value" – Sounds good, but what does it mean? It means some women in traditionally "female" jobs aren't paid as highly as men in traditionally male jobs. Holly doesn't like this, believing that the woman who works as a receptionist or office clerk deserves the same pay as the highway worker or high-rise steelworker. Sorry Holly, but there is no comparison. Someone sitting at a desk doesn't deserve the same pay as someone in a hard-labour trade. The physical labour and risk involved is not comparable, and to accomodate that risk, employers need to offer higher pay. Besides, women in these trades get the same pay for the same job. That's fair.

chocosoph

I think I remember seeing this before. Nothing new to me.
JamesHalifax

Equality Part Two – Some men in certain occupations get paid more than women in the same occupation. That is not Equality to Holly's way of thinking. What Holly fails to consider, is that many of these men making more money than women in the same jobs, simply work harder than many of their female compatriots. It's a fact. Get used to it. If for example, a female lawyer doesn't make Partner, to Holly the only answer is deiscrimination and inequality. She fails to consider that perhaps the men are willing to work 80hrs a week, and women are not. Those women who do, make Partner. If you have a law firm, you want the lawyers racking up billable hours to profit your firm. For the most part, that means men. Live with it.
JamesHalifax

Holly's quote again:
"What hole is that? The dreadful increase in equality and tolerance and social justice?

Tolerance – Yes, Holly, the tolerance you show for opposing views is laudatory. Tolerance does not simply mean that Canadians have to accept every behaviour as equally valuable, as some is clearly not. Instead of aiming for tolerance, perhaps a better word would be acceptance. Accept those who are different, but expect the same respect in return. Consider the muslim woman in Quebec who expects Canadians to accede to her every demand, but is willing to make no compromises herself. If she does not like Canadian society and its norms, she is free to return to where she came from. If she doesn't want to be in the presence of men, then by all means, stay at home. Don't expect the men to avoid you simply because you don't want to have them looking at you. Tolerance works both ways.
JamesHalifax

Holly quote:
"What hole is that? The dreadful increase in equality and tolerance and social justice? "

Social Justice – (save the best for last)

The idea that we are all in this together and need to help each other out when some of us falter or hit hard times. That's true social justice, Holly. We have unemployment insurance and welfare for that.

What folks like Holly and others' on the left believe, however, is quite different.

Here's a Liberal/NDP view of social justice:

An idea that those who actually work and produce something in Canada are somehow at fault for the poor and that those who prefer not to work or produce something of value are "owed" a living. Social justice, is the idea that a woman who has 4 or 5 kids by 4 or 5 different men by the age of 30 are somehow disadvantaged because of discrimination, racism, or sexism. The don't for a minute consider that those women are poor because they make the worst choices available to them.
Holly Stick

Sorry, don't have time to read your boring posts which probably make all sorts of inaccurate statements. More conservative Fairy Tales.

http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

Mr. Halifax accepts your concession.

Holly Stick

Hah, looks like I have a stalker!

Holly Stick

The word "stalker" was a joke, really, but JamesHalifax's post was filled with insulting personal remarks and unwarranted assumptions about my character and situation.

Next time, JamesHalifax, try arguing the issues.
Holly Stick

The word "stalker" was a joke, really, but JamesHalifax's post was filled with insulting personal remarks and unwarranted assumptions about my character and situation.

Next time, JamesHalifax, try arguing the issues.