Mike11

My apologies for hijacking this thread from Selene but my point is to stress how hypothetical scenarios and abstract moral systems can allow the dominant society to justify itself with an "absolute moral law". As Phillip and others have said, these issues often come down to who has the most guns and elegant excuses. When we talk about these issues I think we need to stay down to Earth with concrete situations, it keeps us self critical and cuts down on the excuse making. I have seen many people over at OO.net starting with Man qua Man, progressing through inane abstractions and ending with "and that's why the Muslims have no right to life, as such." I am not accusing Selene of any dishonesty or maliciousness. I simply want to stress how easy it is to make these debates entirely self serving. Eurocentrism does exist, often is a problem and needs to be kept in check.

MSK, I agree with basically 100% of what you have written. I did not mean to paint the Avatar picture of the Canadian aboriginal, my intent was just to show how Canada's ideology of property rights (derived from Locke and other European thinkers) and betrayal of treaties were used to strip aboriginals of their dignity, lifestyle and self determination. The Canadian aboriginals were people like anyone else on the planet. Hell, even before the Canadian government turned treaties into systematic plans of mass starvation the prairie aboriginals were killing each other.

There are a few relevant examples in Canadian history to this debate. When treaties were struck between the Federal Government and the Aboriginal tribes (Cree, Blackfoot, and others) they had different understandings of their meaning. To the Federal Government it was a one time transaction - some developmental aid in return for ownership of the West. To the tribes it was an offer to rent their land in exchange for permanent support. Some have claimed the aboriginals did not understand the idea of selling their country. They understood the idea but simply believed they had not sold it so much as agreed to rent it. Needless to say the Federal government's narrative was the dominant one. Canada also has a history of using different levels of development as a reason for theft. Our earliest history, during the settlement of Mount Royal (Montreal) the French assumed only they had property rights, despite the aboriginals' superior numbers and urbanization. Peace was kept simply because to much theft would spark an aboriginal uprising. In Manitoba the mixed blood Metis population was pushed out by Ontario farmers. The farmers insisted their agricultural way of life had ontological priority over the Metis semi-nomadic lifestyle. Property law was altered to strip the Metis of their land titles and acts of out right theft and extortion were common. In British Columbia aboriginals were simply assumed not to own land. Despite the aboriginal history and numerical dominance they were seen as squatters who occupied land until a white wanted to use it. The aboriginals generally were considered without collective land rights, their reservations moved as resources dictated. Any reserve with nearby resources was simply moved to make way for white settlement. This is why I am suspicious of Locke's ideas. While they work well for developed societies they seem an excellent excuse for the above shennanigans.

The following is not trolling, it is an honest question on my part - In the Canadian prairies during the nineteenth century there were roughly 30 thousand aboriginals stretched over about a tenth of the continent, hunting the buffalo, their sole resource. They had no permanent settlements in the prairie, living a completely nomadic life. Just how much "mixing your labour" is enough? I think its a stretch to say so few could own so much but to say they had no property rights (as the ARI crowd love to harp on about) seems equally a stretch.

I am up for this. 1) Where online is this happening? 2) I am not, by any stretch, an objectivist, can I still join?

Occasionally I troll OO.net, where this quote will get you nailed for not being roidian enough.

I troll Objectivists online because my life is boring and empty. Someone email me a woman.

If you are ever in Brantford (just outside Hamilton), drop me a line eh?

"Who is John Galt?"

Most Objectivist websites cause the blood to rush from my brain as a defense mechanism, this is not like the others.

Leafs suck. That is all. Habitants! Habitants! Habitants! Habitants!

QFT I just ripped Pippi a new one but Nanook would not have approved, so I took it down. While still quoting Pippi.....

Let me quote that before you edit it into oblivion. Thanks for the quote. It will likely be one of the few left standing given her editing history.

There was a time in this fair forum when the Carol did not post When the wild and crazy antics lacked a Canuck twang Long before the Pippi and long before the Jac When the nutty yanky doodles had yet to meet their match But the world has no edges and the Web has no bounds As to this sleepy forum she posted all around She posts about the Muslims and she speaks about Obama Showed her wit, wisdom and tenacity for the good of us all! Its great to have you back Carol!

Definitely crosses the line. The University's rep is going to take a while to recover - I hope.

1) Daunce was great, I hope she is able to get back. I miss her wit, her wisdom, and that she's from down home too eh by? 2) I love how practically everyone of pippi's posts are edited. She should control her tongue more.

I always though the song had a violent, triumphant sound. I literally have no way to troll this, there are so many options. Like the sound of hard long shafts of granite pounding against soft, yielding and submissive ground? Like Wagner's Lost Symphony? Like something me and my friends really, really want to ... march to?

redacted, no desire to get into it with a Pam Geller clone.

MSK I'm sorry I could not find links but I distinctly recall that during the Olmert corruption trial riots broke out across the middle east. The Arab and Muslim world saw that in the Evil Zionazi State corruption gets dealt with and rioted against their own leaders.

This is more common than you would think Michael. I can't think of any examples right at the top of my head but when civil unrest breaks out over there Israel and its media actually becomes fairly popular. It is pretty big in Palestine (obviously) but gets a lot of exposure when the Arabs get fed up with their corrupt and incompetent leaders. On a side note the Iranian equivalent of Rolling Stone is taking a lot of heat this month. The band on its cover is Israeli.

The baby should be allowed to live out its last days with its family. As far as the technical and political spin all I can say is our death panels are world class and we will rejoice when America joins our Stalinism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLMkV7VyPns

How is America crying to it's Galtian betters to complete their emasculation specifically? I agree re: the outsourcing, chickens coming home to roost indeed. Very sad. If we can just completely deregulate the banks, our natural betters will run a perfect system. If we can just completely remove all the labor laws, our employers will be unshackled to pay higher wages. If we can just privatize health, fire and police completely everything will be better for all of us. If we can just allow 8 year old kids to work in the mines...

Honestly if Pat Robertson croaked tomorrow I would not cry. If Peikoff died then I'd feel terrible. Honestly. The comedy line up in Canada right now is really sub par.

WSS, One thing I can NOT for the life of me understand about Americans. We learned everything we need to about Labour and Business in the Winnipeg Strike. Americans, after downsizing and outsourcing have wrecked their country, cry to their Galtian Betters for their own complete emasculation. Its mind boggling.