Mandos: "Horror! www.poshtots.com"

Chris: "This ... evil must be cleansed."

Mandos: "It may require something ... drastic."

Chris: "One round of THERMONUCLEAR ANNHILATION, on the house!"

Mandos: "In particular,
http://www.poshtots.com/pt/catalog/product_detail.asp?category_id=1105&heirarchy_id=58&product_id=391"

Mandos: "They spelled hierarchy wrong. Geez."

Chris: "No, it's subtly intended to convey that you can only do right by your heir by purchasing their products."

Chris: "Is there no end to their perfidy?"

Mandos: "None!"

Chris: "Methinks that even THERMONUCLEAR ANNHILATION may (gasp) be insufficient to cleanse this creeping evil which is more reminiscent of a Liberal seeking a new brothel whence to creep than of mere occult Lovecraftian horrors from beneath the deeps."

Mandos: "Fie! Let us not be so uncharitable. Perhaps it has redeeming qualities. Perhaps it can be ... subverted."

Chris: "And a $89 surcharge for assembly? Are these nefarious evildoer imperialist pigs of the capitalistic front insufficiently oppressing their sharecropper-manservants that they find it necessary to prevent their peons from engaging in honest manual labour?"

Mandos: "We must raise the prices! Heighten the contradictions! Then the heir-spawn may revolt (they are revolting, no?) and overthrow their oppresive parents."

Mandos: "Then we can raise them in a properly communal environment and train them as our armies!"

Mandos: "Armies! Of the Revolution!"

Chris: "They may not only revolt (us) but engage in revolt, indeed. Only when the dialectic reaches its zenith can the masses be properly enlightened and then, with the Armies! of the Revolution! will the cronies of capitalism be the second up against the wall!"

Mandos: "We shall punish them with fitting and exemplary punishments for the masses to understand the depths of their erstwhile oppressors' depravity and the extent of their Glorious Liberation!"

Chris "They shall have fries with their punishments, and they shall enjoy them! Let me be clear: this evil cannot and must not stand. To the battlefields, whence these fiends shall be destroyed and soak our fields with their execrable blood."

Chris: "O! Ye Citizens! Look upon PoshTots and weep, for it is your children, all of America's children, who suffer so long as we suffer it to exist. As Future President(TM) Obama noted, if there's a child on the South Side of Chicago who can't have a mini-Ferrari, that matters to him, even if it's not his child. If there's a grandmother who can't provide her grandchild with a Hawaiian Tropics outfit, that matters to him, even if it's not his grandmother."

Mandos: "Down with their theme rooms! Down with their mini-Ferraris! We shall use their own exploitative depravity against them!"

Mandos: "There are two Americas, my friends!"

Mandos: "One America of the mini-Ferrari...and the other ground under their wheels!"

Chris: "Choose Your America!"

Chris: "There is clearly only one man who can stand in the way of the lurking evil that is PoshTots embodying the corrosive division which Republicans seek to further their nefarious aims. That man, my friends, is none other than ..."

Mandos: "BOB SAGET!"

Mandos: "He who has shown us the window into the sad, sad state of the common man!"

Mandos: "He brings the storm! The storm of Freedom!"

Chris: "It is a perfect storm indeed, and only He, my friends, only He can save us from the despair which even THERMONUCLEAR ANNHILATION — heart-warming though it is! — itself cannot destroy. BOB SAGET single-handedly liberated Berlin from the evil forces of the Love Parade. BOB SAGET showed us His courage by hosting America's Funniest Home Videos, my friends, in that inimitable way in which only He could have."

Mandos: "With his rapier wit, He has shown us the way!"

Chris: "Send BOB SAGET! Thank you, and God ... Bless ... William Shatner!"

Mandos swoons at the NAME.

Chris: "Hallelujah! Praise The Norm!"

The fallacy only exists if one childishly believes that uncommented blogs, etc, are a violation of some existing quasi-legal right. On occasion, a webboard must ban an abusive member, and sometimes his/her allies scream bloody murder. This is, obviously, silly; the proprietor of the board can enforce the standard he/she designs. Likewise, I am not questioning blog owners' right to set their policy.

But it is not fallacious to discuss how blogs and other Internet materials should behave given the technological environment in which they have developed. To disconnect the fact that "the adoption of the technology en masse outstripped the development of any enforcing mechanism" from the moral and political opportunity this brings in providing "this purported 'freedom of speech'" is also to admit that we should not seize the liberating aspects of technology when they arise and grasp them as though they are our right, but instead let them slip between our fingers when cruel reality catches up. Then the Luddites and sundry are correct, and we should simply break the machines and return to our caves. This is the end result of Nicholas Tam's thinking. But I say: carpe diem!

In the most general sense, these have to do with what could be termed the maturity of a publication - particularly one comprised of multiple contributors, each fully capable of responding between and amongst themselves. A publication that adheres to the oft-abused conventions of the proper use of journalistic English should demand the same calibre of linguistic competence from its respondents. A publication that discusses topical matters with focus and depth should demand the same quality of thought from its readers. With an open commenting system, there is no method by which we can enforce either. Thus, we disallow open comments just as print magazines only publish and respond to a limited selection of letters to the editor. The seeming infinity of bits and bytes as opposed to expensive column inches is no excuse for relaxing this restriction where it need not be relaxed.

If I wanted this false "maturity," I would read a newspaper, where the hypocrisies of journalistic authority are reflected endlessly as in a hall of mirrors. Indeed, I do read newspapers regularly, and I can certainly be as snobbish about language and quality as the best of 'em. But to me the most important characteristic of the Internet that should be reflected and ingrained in the ethos of its participants is its fundamentally dialogic nature. That and the freedom we have seized on the Internet offers us an opportunity to put reporter and reader on a nearly equal footing. It allows us to take the reporter down from his pedestal of alleged authority and objectivity.

Commentless blogs reflect an apparent desire on the part of their promoters to return to the pedestal, or at least to play pretend. A million wannabe media monopolists. Indeed, the entirety of Nicholas Tam's post consists of a plea precisely for that in his appeal to "maturity" and his desire to control the content of replies as a newspaper controls the Letters to the Editor section. It is unmistakably about power and control. Marc Dumouchel is right to complain that "the way POI does it, it forces their agenda on other blogs, should those they choose to comment on want to reply." It tries to force everyone who wishes to participate onto pedestals, culminating in the spectacle of a circle of pedestals talking past one another.

Nevertheless, Tam continues:

Mandos refers to threaded conversations on bulletin boards as an ideal to which weblogs should aspire. This is a curious observation given that much of the success of weblogs has rested on it being a reactionary medium with tighter regulations. Even the publications in weblog format that features comment threads spanning several hundred posts claim the advantage of the discourse being restricted, in that only those who post on the website proper can begin topics and determine what is to be discussed. The result is more focus and less clutter. It is not too difficult to see that the next logical step in maintaining a controlled degree of professionalism, especially on a high-traffic site built around politics (a personally sensitive subject to surprisingly many), is to treat the privilege of being published as exactly that: a privilege.

Tam is right to suggest that the focused nature of blogs is part of what has allowed them to achieve as much media prominence as they have (which is to say, much less than what bloggers like to think they have). This is primarily accomplished by using cheap tools to emulate/supplant traditional media. Nevertheless, it is possible to go to far so that emulating traditional media becomes such an end in itself ("professionalism") that it starts to denigrate through conceit the liberating opportunities that the Internet ideally should provide. Rather, it should seek to lead us out of the media Egypt both materially and in our attitudes towards communication. To make political publication seen as a right rather than the dismal status of a privilege. To this end, I very much like the route that the Daily Kos and Free Thought have taken.

As Mustafa correctly points out, many, if not all of the contributors to this site will gladly post and/or reply to items that arrive in our inboxes if they have something substantial to say. This permits us to edit them in non-substantative ways for structural and grammatical correctness, as the last thing the Internet needs is the continued sodomy of language. It also opens the door to something that cannot be done with comments: directing the readership's attention towards the best and most insightful of the lot. It is for more than mere convenience that all of our e-mail addresses are listed by our names in the "Honourable Members" column to the right.

As far as pretension is concerned, there is nothing the Internet needs more.

And I say, let the reactions flow freely, with their irate !!!! and .................. and ?!?!. Let the bearpit brawls commence. Let people trust that their voices will always be heard and not policed, even to force them onto their own undesired pedestals. I didn't care for my email address to be listed on the right (a forwarding address is, since I choose to remain somewhat pseudonymous, partly as a matter of principle); people should be able to trust that their reaction, no matter how infantile we on our pedestals see it, would be recorded as part of the dialogue. The "sodomy of language" be damned; I am as anal-retentive as the rest of you, barring typos, but I do not really believe that the feelings of language can be hurt.

Pretension, phooey. Heaven forbid that we should be so base as to aspire to ape the New York Times.

Numerous factors determine whether or not a weblog should have a commenting feature, the most obvious of which is the whim of the overseeing administrator, others of which are matters of principle. In the most general sense, these have to do with what could be termed the maturity of a publication - particularly one comprised of multiple contributors, each fully capable of responding between and amongst themselves. A publication that adheres to the oft-abused conventions of the proper use of journalistic English should demand the same calibre of linguistic competence from its respondents. A publication that discusses topical matters with focus and depth should demand the same quality of thought from its readers. With an open commenting system, there is no method by which we can enforce either. Thus, we disallow open comments just as print magazines only publish and respond to a limited selection of letters to the editor. The seeming infinity of bits and bytes as opposed to expensive column inches is no excuse for relaxing this restriction where it need not be relaxed.

Mandos refers to threaded conversations on bulletin boards as an ideal to which weblogs should aspire. This is a curious observation given that much of the success of weblogs has rested on it being a reactionary medium with tighter regulations. Even the publications in weblog format that features comment threads spanning several hundred posts claim the advantage of the discourse being restricted, in that only those who post on the website proper can begin topics and determine what is to be discussed. The result is more focus and less clutter. It is not too difficult to see that the next logical step in maintaining a controlled degree of professionalism, especially on a high-traffic site built around politics (a personally sensitive subject to surprisingly many), is to treat the privilege of being published as exactly that: a privilege.

As Mustafa correctly points out, many, if not all of the contributors to this site will gladly post and/or reply to items that arrive in our inboxes if they have something substantial to say. This permits us to edit them in non-substantative ways for structural and grammatical correctness, as the last thing the Internet needs is the continued sodomy of language. It also opens the door to something that cannot be done with comments: directing the readership's attention towards the best and most insightful of the lot. It is for more than mere convenience that all of our e-mail addresses are listed by our names in the "Honourable Members" column to the right.

As far as pretension is concerned, there is nothing the Internet needs more.

1. Comments make a horrible interface. One has to scroll through the site looking at every comments link to see if there are any new comments. Of course, most of us don't remember how many comments there used to be, so the number of comments displayed doesn't help us. We acutally have to click the link, wait for it to open, and scroll through to the end to see if there are any unread comments. This is annoying and time-consuming. This is especially troublesome for those who use RSS readers if one's comments aren't syndicated (which ours likely wouldn't be, and I'll note, yours aren't either).
2. We want to control the quality of what's posted here. Internet communities are regularly taken over by unintelligent rabble who degrade the quality of the community and eventually destroy it. There's a reason Chris and I haven't been on the SU webboard since April. And I believe Steve doesn't visit much either. There's just too much content on the SU webboard and the vast majority of it isn't insightful or interesting. By having comments only through e-mail (where we can filter garbage) and trackbacks (where we can be reasonably sure someone credible is responding, and if not, we can delete the trackback link), we can be sure that quality stays relatively high on this blog and people continue to have reason to visit.

As well, we generally agree with the following points posted by Will Baude of Crescat Sententia on July 10 of last year:

1: They clutter up the blog with a lot of different voices. This can be particularly the case on a fairly extensive group-blog like this one.

2: They discourage blog-related links and emails, since people who have comments or counter-arguments can simply stick them in a comment rather than blogging back or writing an email. For those who prefer emails and links, this is a bad thing.

3: They can be abused. Because comments are sometimes uneditable and often unverifiable, people can post as each other and post all sorts of inane and stupid things. Of course, this is the internet and people can do that anyway, but I find it less vexing when it's not happening under my (shared) banner.

4: For those (like myself) who feel compelled to counter reasonable counter-arguments, comments can create a whole lot of work. For some reason not entirely clear to me, people are much more willing to publish repetitive or incomprehensible remarks in "comments" than in emails or blogs. This forces conscientious bloggers to try to decipher them.

5: They can look lonely. A post with no comments at all looks so . . . silly.

6: On a self-referential group-blog like this one comments can get particularly dizzying for the bloggers; if somebody has commented a response to a blog post, when does a counter-response merit a counter-comment and when does it merit a post of its own?

7: They make the blog much harder to fully read, especially on a slow computer. No longer can you simply scroll down post after post looking for something interesting, or reading everything. Instead you have to click at the base of each post to see if anybody has tucked a hidden gem. If bloggers are commenting on one another's posts (see 6) this can get worse.

A "Comments" function turns a blog into a message board. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it's particularly warranted, I think in certain circumstances, such as on vast impersonal publications (like the New York Times or Slate), on popular single-person blogs (like Yglesias), and on blogs that occupy a particular . . . niche (like the Hoosier Review or Crooked Timber) they make quite a bit of sense. And it's also true that because they make it easier to comment on a post, they may increase the total amount of dialogue, even if they shift it from links and emails into javascript. Finally, there is the all important empirical argument that comments increase traffic.

I have no idea if this is the case. Certainly it seems that one of the draw of Matthew Yglesias's blog is the pitched debate that often rages in his comments section. On the other hand, Matthew Yglesias's blog is much different from ours in a number of ways, and I confess I often can't make it through the comments on his posts, even at times like now when the posts are few and far between. Maybe I miss a lot of great stuff. I really don't know. But the standards people employ for posting on message-boards seem fairly low.

My personal feeling is that comments don't add anything to the blog that can't be achieved with technorati. But if you have feelings either way, please let me know, and let me know any reasons you might have.

If you don't want to trackback, send us e-mails. We'll be happy to quote sections of them in replies.

Marc:

Dostoyevsky was wrong.  Positing God as a root of ethics doesn’t really answer the question of what is right and wrong, just as positing God as the Creator doesn’t really solve the First Mover problem (cf. Kant’s Antinomies).  It only moves the questions back a level.

*Why* should particular behaviours be ethical and others unethical?  If you say, ‘because God said so’, it seems to me that you still need to answer the question—that is, why does God find X ethical and Y unethical? 

If there is no reason *that we can understand in normal human terms*, it seems to me that using God as the root of ethics is no more or less capricious than anything a secular humanist may propose.  Plato’s Forms provide firmer moral grounding.  (Hang on, I can hear your objection.  I’m getting to it.)

But if you *can* provide human-comprehendable reasons for why God would want us to do X or Y, it seems that maybe we can have a non-God-based ethics.  …

(The human-comprehendable qualifier is important, btw.  While you can argue that the reasons for God’s morality are just beyond our comprehension, that basically stops the discussion, as you can’t go anywhere from there.  It becomes simple faith, and not really useful in making real-life ethical decisions.)

I understand the appeal, the comfort, of being able to root ethics in God.  I just think it’s a false comfort.  Instead of taking responsibility for making moral choices - figuring out what is right and *why* - we abdicate that responsibility.  What scares me when someone bases their ethics on God is the implicit statement that a) people are nasty and brutish, and b) that person would not act ethically if there were no God.  So what, are they ethical only because they’re afraid of judgment day?

The Categorical Imperative, the golden rule, etc. just make sense - practical, emotional, and moral - whether you are religious or not.

First, I've never seen any reason why, if God did not exist, I should act ethically. What reason would there be? Perhaps, I'd feel some sort of emotional pain if I hurt others, but then all I've done is exchanged fear of punishment with the in-comfort of pain. It may explain why I would care, but not why I should care. I really can't see why it would matter to me. And if that scares you, Marc, I'm sorry. But I don't see any reason here.

But where Marc's argument really falls to pieces is that Marc is ignoring that logic requires premises from which to draw conclusions. And Marc hasn't considered where his premises have come from. He may claim he logically deduced them, but that means he had premises from which to deduce them. Ultimately, at some point we all have to make assumptions on which to base our lives. For Andy and me, those assumptions involve religious teachings. For Marc, they are something else. But they are still assumptions. And they still leave a gap in his chain of logic.

And remember, Marc can't just justify his assumptions based on "it makes sense." Why is what makes sense automatically correct? Does it make sense that if I throw a ball at a brick wall, there's a possibility that it can pass through without disrupting any of the atoms in the wall? Well, it is possible according to physics, as unintuitive that that is. Not everything makes sense. And even if it did, our mind's ability to perceive what is sensible would not necessarily be accurate. Our minds do play tricks on us. Sense is not a sure test for veracity.

And if you want to take this argument one step further, why is logic correct? We don't know it is. It seems to be correct in that it predicts well, but that is no sure proof. There could be exceptions. Moreover, our perceptions of what happens may make us think logic predicted correctly when it didn't.

But more importantly, even if we assume that logic is correct in all its predictions, why does that even matter? Because it makes sense that a process that predicts accurately must be a valid process? Because it is logical? It seems to me that any argument that logic is a good assumption is itself a logical argument—you can't justify the usefulness of logic by appealing to logic. You can't use an unproven process to prove the accuracy of the process. Especially when I used logic to argue above that logic doesn't prove the accuracy of logic (the argument is inductive not deductive, and induction is not watertight).

Now, I'm going to make one final point. Everything I've written here is argument based on logic. And we've assumed that logic works; we don't know it does. So logically speaking, everything I've written here could be invalid. I can't even be certain of what I've written here. This of course begs the question of what I can be certain of.

And that's the whole point! We can't be certain of anything. We are starting from scratch—no knowledge, not basic principles—when we are born and we adopt assumptions, values, and principles on which to base our lives. These answer questions like "what should my goal in life be?" and "how should I conduct myself towards others?" Some of us choose to find these answers in religion. Others don't. But in all cases we are making some fundamental assumptions to approach life. These assumptions are no more than faith.

So Marc, if you want a human-comprehendible set of reason behind your ethics, that's fine. But you're ultimately still basing your understanding of those ethics on nothing more than blind faith. There's nothing move valid in your approach than Andy's or mine. It's different and I'm sure each of us has very good reasons why we choose our approach. But there's no independent criteria by which you or Andy or I can justify one approach as superior than the other. It really boils down to nothing more than preference. (I had a similar discussion with Steve Smith on this point back in March.

On a final note, this argument also illustrates why I argued what I argued in my previous post. We can't all agree on morals because we don't have any independent basis for determining what morals should be. Political structures get around this by creating agreement on some basic values and ideals and leave the rest to political and judicial processes for resolution.

Andy further directs me to a discussion in the comments section of Marc Dumouchel's blog. Basically Andy is arguing what's in the above quote: that morals need to be based in natural law. Marc is opposing this view. I'll deal with that argument in my next post since I see the issue as being somewhat different.

To answer these, let's consider the different morals we all share. Andy and I believe morals derive themselves from divine proclamation. However, I'm sure Steve would disagree with our deference to an imaginary bogey man. And our differing views on where morals originate from will result in us having slightly different morals. To take as an example—and for the sake of illustration, I'm going to use a fairly hot button topic— abortion. I'm opposed to abortion on moral grounds and I'd assume Andy would be as well (though I won't put those words into his mouth). A hypothetical atheist named Murry (who is similar to Steve Smith in beliefs but is not Steve Smith) has no problem with abortion.

However, taking this to the next step, I would assume that like most Catholics, Andy is opposed to birth control on moral grounds (once again, I'm assuming—I'm not going to put those words in his mouth). However, I, while I'm also opposed to abortion, am not opposed to birth control. And I'm sure Murray has no problem with birth control either. So we have three different people, and all of us have three different viewpoints on this issue.

The world is full of these sorts of disagreements. Different life experiences lead to different values with lead to different morals and views. But if we are to maintain an ordered existence, we need some way to come to terms with these disagreements. That's where states come in.

At its most fundamental level, a state is a group of people who've agreed to certain resolutions to differences and/or processes to resolve such differences. These arrangements can take many forms. Iran has a system whereby the Quaran and Islamic teachings form the resolution to many differences. In Canada, we've set-up a Constitution and Charter or Rights to resolve some differences, and a political and judicial system to steward processes to resolving other differences. All states have their own resolutions and/or processes.

So what this means is that because Andy, Murray, and I have all agreed to live in Canada, we've accepted the Constitution, the Charter or Rights, and Parliamentary authority to resolve our differences in how society should work. As it stands, on the abortion issue, the judiciary and public opinion has sided against both Andy and I, however it has sided with me and Murray with respect to birth control. (Andy seems to be the real loser here, huh.) Moreover, public opinion has decided that we will even have the state pay for abortions.

Of course, there are many in society who would like to change matters surrounding abortion. For example, some feel that prior to getting an abortion, one should be given counseling. Since this isn't dealt with in the constitution, it is a matter for the political arena to solve. If you're opposed to counseling, you probably should be wary of voting for Rob Merrifeld (former Conservative Party Health critic) or Paul Martin.

The point I'm getting at here is that "right" and "wrong" don't have a commonly agreed application. We differ in what we see as right and wrong. However, we deal with these disagreements through the constitutional, legal, and political structures afforded by the state. These processes may not always give us the solution that we think is right—someone will likely always be unhappy. But it does give us a solution according to a(n) (ideally) neutral and pre-determined process. Even though we don't always like the solution, we should live by it because it was resolved in a way we'd agreed to.

In this light, you don't have the right to disobey or refuse to accept the solution (you may, of course, disagree with it assuming free speech rights exist). The system resolves differences, but not always in your favour. You cannot just refuse to accept the verdict of the system because one does not like it. However, if you feel the system is no longer adequately resolving differences in a fair manner, you can then disobey or refuse to accept a decision of the system. Not because you dislike the result. But because you no longer agree with the system. In your opinion, it no longer has the legitimacy to be making these resolutions. In my opinion, this is the only case where you can disobey the law without deserving punishment. Otherwise, all you are doing is refusing to accept the system when it rules in a way you are unhappy; if you're going to argue the system is flawed at resolving conflicts, it is either always flawed (though it may accidentally give a good resolution notwithstanding) or it is never flawed. You can't have it both ways.

So, to answer Chris's question, any laws made by an illegitimate authority are illegitimate as I just explained. You might happen to like some of the laws; some of the laws might even be very good laws, ones that everyone agrees with. However they are still illegitimate if the creator was illegitimate. It didn't have the power to make that law so that law shouldn't exit.

In response to Andy and Heather with respect to which morals are right, the whole point is that we have no common basis for determining this. We all have different life experiences, different values resulting, and different views and morals that follow from these values. Andy may think that only God's laws are legitimate, but Steve certainly won't accept that the imaginary bogey man's laws are legitimate. While we should freely exchange our views and see if we can converge in our morals, I sincerely doubt this is possible. What we can do is work within a system that allows us to have uniform laws despite our differences, not because of our differences. What a state does is not impose a single morality on us, but rather it creates an arena where our differing moralities may lead to a single solution.

Lastly, Heather asks what other recourse we have to illegitimate authorities aside from international sanctions and pressures. The answer is simple: internal revolt. Remember, we started this discussion by referring to Nelson Mandela and his opposition and eventual victory against the illegitimate government of South Africa. Mandela effectively led an internal revolt (a largely bloodless one at that) to and converted the illegitimate apartheid regime into one he could support. By the principles I've laid out, the people who live in a state should determine how their differences are resolved. Not outsiders. It should be up to locals to overthrow their corrupt government (I accept that outsiders may need to help locals with protection etc, however, the driving force definitely should be local).

In a country with free speech, being vocal about problems is clearly legitimate. But what about countries where free speech is banned? What if the majority decides that they won't allow dissent. Why is the majority forbidden from making this rule, while it is not forbidden from creating taxes or regulating what TV stations can air in the country?

When is resorting to violence to fight a law wrong? In the late 1960s when Mandela was forced from the newspapers and effectively silenced, he and his followers resorted to bombings to get attention. Was this acceptable? Why should this breaking of the law be acceptable?

Samantha seems to imply that breaking the law is allowed when "[fighting] for the independance of [one's] people." Does this mean that some alienated Albertans can refuse to pay taxes in opposition to the evil and overbearing federal Liberals? When David Koresh and his cult, the Branch Davidians, were breaking the law and abusing people, were they justified in fighting for their independance and their right to live their own way? Was the FBI wrong in trying to bring them under control (I'm not interested in questions of whether their tactics were legitimate).

A government has as a core responsibilty the protection of its members and the maintenance of order. In the absence of constitutional rights, governments can make laws to protect people and maintain orders. Violating these laws is, according to the government, endangering citizens and destroying order and it must stop such activity. If the govenrment doesn't step in to stop it, the government wouldn't be protecting citiznes and maintaining order. If the government allows groups to break the law, then it has effectively ceased to do its job.

In light of this, I don't think there is any case where the government can make exceptions to following the law. When someone breaks the law, they are always going to be endangering fellow citizens and distroying order by the definition of the government. And such activity will always have to be punished by the government. In my opinion, if one breaks the law, one must accept the punishment that goes along with it.

However, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't fight back. Rather, it means that when one fights back by breaking the law, one isn't fighting an unjust law; one is fighting the legitimacy of the regime to make such a law. That is, by breaking the law, you assert that you do not recognize the right of the government to make that law.

While in a sense The Dude is right and Nelson Mandela was a criminal guilty of illegal dissent and terrorist activities, he was only guilty of those crimes in the views of an apartheid state. Nelson Mandela did not recognize the legitimacy of the apartheid state to be making laws. So Mandela did not recognize any rules against dissent or violence. (It seems that he had no moral objection to using violence under the circumstances.) The Dude's defence of Mandela's sentence to jail by the state is only justified in the point of view of the apartheid state; it was only acceptable if one also accepts the legitimacy of the apartheid government to be making laws.

Mandela did not support such a state; he wanted a state where black-skinned members of society would be equal to white-skinned members. If one agrees with Mandela that the state was not legitimate, then one can only disagree with Mandela's tactics on moral grounds; not legal grounds. One cannot see him as legally guilty unless one also sees the law he violated as legitimate law made by a legitimate government.

There has been some political intrigue over the last little while over Mr. Latham, including some juicy gossip over his personal life (Sydney Morning Herald, possible registration, blah blah blah). Of course, this rehashes the argument over the role of a member's personal life in his/her ability to govern.

But enough about that. The reason for this post is that I was chatting with one of my Aussie colleagues about the (Australian) General Election (likely to be held in October). The conversation drifted towards voter participation rates in Canada, when he blurted out, "Y'know, voting is compulsory in Australia."

I nearly spit out my coffee. I actually didn't believe him, until I checked with a second source. And, indeed, one can be fined if one does not vote (from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)):

Is voting compulsory?

Yes, voting is compulsory. If you do not vote and do not have a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote, you may be fined.

What happens if I do not vote?

Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

But, it's not completely draconian:

What happens if I don’t vote - will I be penalised?

If you are not in Australia on polling day you will not be fined for not voting.

In due course the AEC will write to you, asking you to explain why you did not vote. This is your opportunity to explain that you were overseas on polling day.

(And, as one sees on these pages, Australia uses the Instant-Runoff-Preferential Style ballotting process for their MP's.)

Well, I dunno. I appreciate that voter participation is a key part of democracy, but punishing folks for not voting seems a little harsh. Of course, I'm not sure that bribing voters is the right approach, either. Is a "compulsory" voting process a "good thing" for democracy?

I'm sure you'll find someone.

Normally used to try to reassure someone that there is actually someone out there, if you look hard enough, it's offensive for a number of different reasons.

1. It says "Well, there's gotta be someone out there [with low enough standards to fall] for you [but it ain't me]. ".
2. It implies that you're, in fact, not looking hard enough and/or in the right places. While this may well be true, it's not exactly something that bears pointing out by the former object of one's intentions.
3. Have I mentioned that it's rather difficult to pull this off without coming off as condescending?

Isn't it funny how something intended to be cheery can in fact be so perversely irritating? This is one of the few things that're almost guaranteed to make my blood boil (much like Mustafa on Paul Martin). At any rate, that is all. Carry on.

PS: Oh, and before you ask, no, this isn't motivated by anything — or even anyone — in particular. It's just something that's been percolating in the back of my mind for a while, and now seemed an opportune time to finish up the incipient post.

I think that this discussion misses a fundamental point: that Barbara Ehrenreich, unlike Brad DeLong, does NOT believe in what we presently call capitalism, and was then and now looking for the best way to overturn it. Brad DeLong is looking for solutions to ameliorate the problems under the assumption that the basic design of the system is unavoidable; Barbara Ehrenreich is looking for the option that will most likely overturn the system in some fundamental and positive way.

People are forgetting that in 2000, there was a developing consensus among allegedly mainstream left-of-centre parties called by various names such as The Third Way, etc. People are forgetting that Clinton and Blair were triumphantly pushing this agenda. The central claim of this agenda was that the left should forget about radical social change and that the tools of capitalism can themselves be used to ameliorate their own deficiencies. Whence the Seattle protests, etc?

Seen in this light, it was at the time a perfectly reasonable position to take that the Democrats agenda actually served to entrench capitalism (by an either mistaken or deceptive set of claims) and that the left was caught in a terrible dilemma. Barbara Ehrenreich and others at the time came to the conclusion that the Democrats were actually the GREATER evil; they were a trap for the left into slowly accepting the somewhat gentler *further* entrenchment of capitalism in their trade agendas and so on. The Republicans, by contrast, would just slash and burn for four years; but at least the left would not be trapped into accepting material defeat at the hands of those who claim to be their own with no political alternative whatsoever.

Democrat claims of being trapped into welfare reform, etc, etc, do not hold water under this analysis. If the Democrats cannot deliver to the left *any* hint of a tendency towards real radical change in economic structures, even to the mere level of European social democracy, then what's the use of them? If they use an excuse of being constrained by external political factors, and this is always their excuse, then is the radical economic left *really* served by supporting the Democratic Party?

In one of Brad's prior posts, he complained about Ehrenreich's giving up on government in her recent books and articles. He claims that this is part of her "aesthetically correct oppositional stance" or something like that. Barbara Ehrenreich's stance is based on her moral and political evaluation of capitalism; if you believe that each party in their own way entrenches capitalism, then there is no way you can support either. If you believe that the system of government ensures, perversely, that inequality (such as that of nannies and housekeepers) will be entrenched and only papered-over, then you will be focused on building alternative systems rather than waste precious energy trying to reform existing ones (for those who suggest that Naderites are too lazy to work to reform the party from within).

There is one way to break this dilemma and prove the Naderites wrong; if Kerry wins, and his government is not merely a Clinton-clone but seriously offers some glimmering of hope to the radical left, then they might return to the base of the Democratic Party. As a Canadian looking at this from outside, I myself am pessimistic about his, and I feel relieved that I at least can reasonably vote for a seriously radical party without fear of the short-term slash-and-burn repercussions that come with a decision to break with the Democrat trap, if indeed it is a trap.

Note well that this was before September 11th when the Seattle protests were a real phenomenon. The context created by 9/11 and war in Iraq made this about much more than mere slashing and burning on the domestic front. That's why Barbara Ehrenreich, Noam Chomsky, and so on now support, grudgingly, Kerry. But if you compare the actual contexts of 2000 and 2004, Ehrenreich has nothing apologize for; she made the decisions that necessarily follow from her views on capitalism.

In other news, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite back yet from my trip, but the trip has been so far mostly successful in accomplishing what it was intended to accomplish. I maybe rather busy after I return, but nevertheless I will try to keep in touch with this House.

My reasons for doing so are probably obvious to all members, so I shan't dwell on them beyond saying that while John Kerry reminds me of Paul Martin (which is no compliment) George W. Bush is a grave threat to human rights, global security, and the planet's environmental health, and I'd rather have a useless pile of ungulate dung (Kerry) in there than the dangerous incumbent.

My first choice (okay, my first choice of the three Presidential candidates I can actually name) is Ralph Nader, who I've quite liked ever since I shared a car ride with him and then-U of A S.U. President Crazy Mike Hudema in the Fall of 2002. Most of the car ride had been filled with awkward silence, and Mike decided to break it, leading to the following exchange:

Hudema: How is it possible to effect real change in a world in which money, and therefore, the mass media, is controlled by a small oligarchy of priveleged white males who have an active interest in the maintenance of the status quo, and in which corporate ethics are geared towards maximizing shareholder value rather than community responsibility? *

[Silence of about ten seconds.]

Nader: I'm sorry, was that a question?

Now, Mr. Speaker, according to my principled beliefs, this means that I should support Nader. I know that the very idea of strategic voting is a product of a flawed voting system (for example, whatever its flaws, proportional representation effectively nearly eliminates strategic voting, as does preferential balloting) and that the flawed voting systems that exist in both the United States and Canada are products of the major parties' self-interests. Therefore, by voting strategically I am only accepting and entrenching the status quo. But I consider Bush to be a sufficient threat, and see little enough practival advantage to backing Nader, that I'd vote Democrat if I lived in a swing state.

Do I have a point? Probably not. But for discussion:

1. What are other Members' thoughts on strategic voting?
2. What is the threshold at which other Members will vote strategically?
3. What are other Members' thoughts on Bush, Kerry, Nader, and (oh, what the hell) the Electoral College?

* I can't remember the question's exact wording, but it was similarily long and rhetoric-infused to this one.

Watching the leaders' debates during the recent federal election, Mr. Speaker, I was struck by one overwhelming thought: that I didn't trust any of the men shrieking, casting aspersions, and grinning at one another. I was overwhelmed by the extent to which they (with the possible exception of Gilles Duceppe, such exception to be explained away momentarily) so clearly cared more about power than about principle, more about image than about discourse. With such options from which to choose a head of government, is it any wonder that our representative democracy is broken?

And broken it is. Partisan political motivation is evident behind every bill the government introduces. Polling numbers are publicly cited as reason enough to shy away from particularily daring courses of action. MPs begin to believe that they were elected to represent their constituents within the party caucus, rather than in the House of Commons itself. These cynical realities manifest themselves in the public consciousness, and voter turnout and other forms of public participation in the process suffer accordingly. And, contrary to what the Martin/Harper types would have you believe, it's not broken because party leaderships don't declare enough free votes. Contrary to what the Layton/Harris types would have you believe, it's not broken because the first past the post electoral system effectively means that most Canadians are unrepresented in the House of Commons. It's broken because the people who have been allowed into the positions of real power - the party leaders and the Machiavellian human infrastructures that sustain them - are there only because they have proven masters at the pursuit of power.

What's the difference between twenty independent MPs and twenty MPs organized into a caucus? The independent MPs will be better able to represent their constituencies on an individual basis. They will be better able to ensure a free and public exchange of ideas. But the caucus will be better able to exert its will in parliamentary debate - it will be better able to achieve power. Never doubt, then, that parties exist solely for the pursuit of power. And if that is the party's sole purpose, every move the party makes, including the selection of a leader, will be calculated to gain power for that party.

It seems so clear now - Paul Martin, during his fifteen year campaign for the Liberal leadership, saw his stock rise not on the basis ideas brought forwards (if he ever has brought forward an idea in public life, his advisers have ensured that it wasn't allowed into the public eye), but on the basis of expected future electoral performance. In Alberta, Ralph Klein's leadership is questioned within the party not when he begins his descent into madness, but when it becomes apparent that his party is likely to lose seats in the next election. Jack Layton is coronated NDP leader not because he is his party's leading luminary, but because he is well-dressed and urbane, and this is supposed to help him connect with that mythical beast, the Canadian voter. Parties make decisions calculated to gain and keep power.

(The exception to this, as noted above, is the Bloc Québecois, which knows that it will never attain power, and doesn't require the rigid party discipline or the cynical machinations of the other parties. Indeed, the Bloc probably could exist quite comfortably as a collection of independents. It's no coincidence that Duceppe was the only trustworthy party leader during the last election.)

And if party leaders hold the power in the Canadian system, and if party leaders are selected solely on the basis of their ability to attain and retain power, our country is being run by men conditioned to view power as the end, rather than the means. Politics become, to quote an old adage, the clash of interests masquerading as the contest of principles. This is the root problem with Western representative democracies, and proportional representation, by formalizing the power of the party over the power of the individual representative, only exacerbates it. The only thing that can save representative democracy is the election to the House of Commons a majority of MPs committed to something more noble than Power, Party, and Leader. Otherwise, power remains in the hands of the leaders, in whose hearts and minds it is also dominant.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member can now see that this talk of non-partisan politics is not the idealized ramblings of a few hacks permanently confined to the ivory towers, but rather the conscious and pragmatic recognition of the reality of the situation and what it will take to change it. Is the idea feasible? Can Canadians be made to see the light and elect MPs on the basis of what they believe rather than on the basis of the colour of their pinney? Can MPs be made to vote on the basis of their constituents' interests, rather than on the basis of their leaders'? Perhaps, as the Honourable Member suggests, this is not feasible. But if this be the case, let recognition of this always be accompanied by the sad realization that representative democracy can never be anything more than the least flawed of all structures.

I take a more optimistic standpoint. In student politics, in municipal politics, and even in the governance of not-for-profits - in short, wherever the stakes are too low for the power mongers to bother organizing - non-partisan politics work. Where the attainment of power requires nothing more than the simple vote of confidence of the people in whose name the power is to be exercised, it's not party leaders who get in. When seating plans are not decided on the basis of team colour, decisions aren't made on that basis either. The same could happen at higher levels.

There is hope, and shame on the Honourable Member for trying to eradicate it.

We can more or less discount the possibility of Liberal/Bloc and Conservative/NDP coalitions, leaving us with only one other even vaguely possible set of partners, the Conservatives and the Bloc (who won't form a coalition, but could work together on some issues). Surprise, surprise, a Conservative/Bloc block has ... 154 members.

The key words here are vaguely possible set of partners and who won't form a coalition, but could work together on some issues (emphasis added). It should be obvious to any member with even a modicum of readng comprehension ability, Mr. Speaker, and most particularly to Mr. Smith, who is well aware of my predilection for noting my view of the likelihood of certain things by marked understatement, that I am arguing that the Conservatives and Bloc will not form a coalition and, in fact, are only likely to agree on a few key points where their legislative agendas overlap.

For clarity, Mr. Speaker, allow me to revise and extend my remarks: the Conservatives and Bloc could work together on any issue where there arises a question of centralization v. decentralization, to wit, transferring (or returning!) powers or moneys to the provinces. In the Bloc's case, specifically to Québec, but more generally, to all the provinces.

With that, Mr. Speaker, it should be quite clear that the rumors of my lucidity's death are greatly exaggerated. One cannot say as much for Mr. Smith's reading ability.

Don’t worry with your lipstick I’m gonna kiss it all away Throw away your lipstick That ain’t your color, anyway

My lips are your color
So lips, stick with me!

Ooo, when you kiss me
I’ve got to know just how much you miss me

Kiss me
And I’ll take your lips to paradise
Kiss me
And paradise will never feel so nice

You’re beautiful
You don’t need all that make up
And you don’t need to take up
All of your time in front of the mirror
Don’t you know that you’re my deara
Baby, can’t you see we’re in love

Ooo, when you kiss me
I’ve got to know just how much you miss me

Kiss me
And put all the stars back in the sky
Kiss me
And maybe then you’ll know the reason why
I want you
And my love’s gonna haunt you
And I’m gonna flaunt you

In front of all the boys that live on my street
And they’re gonna be jealous ’cause you’re so sweet
Do you think I should repeat
Do you think I should repeat
Repeat
Repeat
Aw, say it, man!

I’m in love
Love
I’m in love

I’m in love
Sweet love

First of all, the Member falls into the trap of assuming what he calls a "Conservative/Bloc block". Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to believe that this will be the case. The only real area of common ground between the two parties is on provincial rights, a matter which rarely comes before the House of Commons, and still more rarely in the form of a confidene motion. On issues that are likely to come before the House - things like reforms to criminal law (including the proposed decrminalization of marijuana), environment, and, most relevantly, fiscal policy - the Bloc has more in common with the Liberals than with the Conservatives, often looking like New Democrats in hairnets. While I agree with the Member's contention that opposition private members bills could become law even in the fact of government opposition, and his belief that the government could easily fall in a Joe Clark-esque failure to ensure proper aligmnet of ducks, evidence does not suggest that the Conservative/Bloc block will exist. In fact, if such a block does exist (and if it includes Mr. Cadman, which it seems logical to conclude that it would), not even the best parliamentary logistician in the country could prevent a Liberal defeat, since such a block would conclude exactly the required number of MPs to prevent the government from passing anything.

Which brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the Member's second fallacy - assuming that Jack Layton was a winner in this election. Going into the campaign, Layton aimed to win enough seats to be the kingmaker in a Liberal minority government. He failed to do so, though recounts may change this. He aimed to win as many as or more seats as noted rapper Eddie B managed in 1988. He failed to do so by a margin that can only be called laughable (well, perhaps it could be called other things as well, but this House will not hear those words pass my lips). He aimed to retain all incumbent New Democrats - instead, his party was wiped off of the map in Saskatchewan, where Lorne Nystrom and Dick Proctor lost their seats. Jack Layton was as much of a loser as, or more of a loser than, Paul Martin, simply because Martin managed to exceed the lowest expectations of him (which included him losing the government) while Layton fell short of them.

From here on in, Martin's government can only survive with the Bloc's support on confidence motions or, more likely, by poaching a few MPs from the Bloc and Conservative ranks. About the only time the Member was correct in his observations is when he declared that this will be entertaining.

In 1993, the average Canadian household had cash income of $44,375 and paid $18,815 in taxes of all kinds. In 2003, the average household had cash income of $58,286 – and paid $28,415 in taxes.

In other words, cash incomes rose by about $14,000 per household over the period, while taxes rose by almost exactly $10,000. You can see why people would be feeling restless.

Now to give DeLong his due, this tax number accumulates all federal, provincial, and municipal taxes. On the other hand, the federal government collects more taxes than anybody else, and especially more of the highly visible direct taxes on incomes. In other words: the lions are hungry.

In our argument, Hirji and I were partly talking out of our derrières, since we never fully managed to account for what the numbers we were quoting were comprised of. However, the blog that originally triggered DeLong's rebuttal, Sadly, no!, has used the Fraser Institute numbers that Frum quotes in his response to DeLong to debunk him yet again.

On a related note, look once again at the post where Mr. Hirji first quotes Frum's Notional Pest article. Quoth Frum:

That winter vacation you didn't take? Some Liberal advertising executive in Montreal took it. That new car you couldn't afford to buy? You did buy it -- only somebody else is driving it. Those RRSP contributions you couldn't make? They're slushing around in the Prime Minister's national unity emergency fund.

We dealt with this before, but I still can't help but ponder how silly Frum's rhetorical substitutes for logic are. So he means to imply that if Martin had implemented a better (in his view) tax policy, the sponsorship scandal wouldn't have happened? Huh?