Zip

Members
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zip

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/27/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://uncommonsensecanada.blogspot.com/
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests Objectivism, Politics, Objectivist thought experiments for a real world Galt's Gulch, Martial Arts, the military, Home renovations, Home inspections, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property. Finding Galt's Gulch.
  1. Happy Birthday to Zip

    Thanks very much Betsy.
  2. Watchmen (2009)

    I'm with rgt24. I didn't see the message of this movie being that we need to sacrifice but that altruism is the evil that leads people to believe that there has to be sacrifice. Removing the rights of some for the betterment of the whole (well minus those poor some…) The message I left with was that Rorschach was right. “Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”
  3. Happy Birthday Marines

    Yes, happy belated B-Day.
  4. Married since 1986... Work at it. The full head of hair thinned drastically by the time I was 30 and in 2000 it all came off. I am still charming though, and that is a result of my first point. It's not all roses and sunshine but anything worth valuing is worth working for.
  5. The Freedom Party in Canada

    No, but it is on the list... somewhere.
  6. The Freedom Party in Canada

    Mercury, I disagree. "Hoopla" was used specifically to illustrate that already many (most?) Canadians have forgotten about Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Kathy Shaidle yet the FP still talks about it and has been talking about it since before any of these three even bothered to care. Could more have been done? Sure, but I'm unaware of the financial constraints and time limitations of the key players within the party. With regard to philosophical ideas every time the PM opens his mouth and speaks on policy he's speaking on his philosophy. Now as you pointed out he has the advantage of hundreds of years of history behind him so he doesn't need to explain altruism but regardless when you hear him (or any other politician) talk about the roots of their ideas it is philosophy that they are talking about. I'm willing to bet that the philosophy of the enlightenment was way, way beyond the scope and range of the average New Hampshire farmer or Maine fisherman when the framers of the Constitution brought about their change. Did they (the framers) do a good job of utilizing the situation to effect the change they wanted? Sure, but it wasn't because farmer Jim understood the philosophy explicitly, it was because there was a definite and glaring injustice for the framers to piggy back on. Thanks for helping me to make my point though :D Your insistence that because the FP was started by Libertarians, that it is therefore somehow tainted now (and forever?) makes no more sense. You are in effect saying that change from any such organization is impossible. Many people outside of Objectivism would tell you that ARI is ineffectual. I mean it's been over 50 years since Ayn Rand developed Objectivism and it has not impacted in any meaningful way on the politics of the USA. I mean look at who just got voted in. (<-Playing Devils advocate here) Hitler was both the political and philosophical leader of Nazism. But again, like the framers of the constitution he took advantage of the situation at hand and led the people through it with a new idea. Do you have a link for that article "How to Judge a Political Candidate"? I haven't read it. I just checked by the way. The FP was not founded by Emery, as a matter of fact he isn't even mentioned, nor is libertarianism. As I said at the start I disagree with you that the FP is in any way harmful to the cause of Objectivism. Also, I can find no indication that it was started by Libertarians much less Emery himself, so I have to assume that your problem with the party is sequential, i.e. that you believe that it isn't "time" for such a thing. This isn't a new argument (it's really not an argument at all, just a statement of your opinion). As for the FP being ineffectual, well, most starting points are, especially when they are tackling entrenched ideals thousands of years old with a system that is foreign in scope and ideas to 99% of the population. I also think you have to look deeper into the work that the FP is doing, especially the FP of Ontario. Bob Metz has a weekly radio program in Southern Ontario ("Just Right") in which he covers a wide variety of subjects and Paul McKeever's and FP Ontario's you tube channels are listed here I'm of the opinion that if just a handful of people find Objectivism through something like the FP then it is worth it. Cheers, Zip.
  7. Whose side would she take?

    Betsy, he did one better... He had his government take it over... for the common good of course.
  8. The Freedom Party in Canada

    Oops, missed this... You still seem to think that the FP is Libertarian... It's not, please, see for yourself. http://www.freedomparty.ca/htm/en/home.htm
  9. The Freedom Party in Canada

    Maybe you missed the point of my analogy. My analogy is drawing a correlation between Prohibition of alcohol and the pot prohibition. Both are wrong. There is a principal involved here, it is the right to life, in this case Marc Emmery's right to live his life and make his way in this world on his own so long as he does not initiate force or fraud on anyone. This is that philosophical base that politics is built on. It seems to me that you are saying (and it is my turn to say I'm not trying to antagonize you) that upholding that principal is too esoteric or too difficult a task to take on in the political realm. That perhaps a party that is dedicated to the right to life, liberty and property ought to skip that one because it's just not important to stand up for a pot smokers rights. P.S. As for my Obama/Adams line, you are absolutely correct, I reached too far for that.
  10. The Freedom Party in Canada

    Actually Mercury if you go to the Freedom Party's site on You tube you will find lots of videos on lots of subjects including this one specifically on hate speech. What is the relevance of the fact that Marc Emery is a pot activist? If we were living in the days of prohibition would the fact that a former member of the party drank alcohol be relevant? Is the fact that John Adams was a US president somehow confer legitimacy onto Obama? Bob Metz the leader of the National Party is an Objectivist, so too is Paul Mckeever the leader of the Ontario Party and the Party Philosophy is explicitly O'ist, not mushy headed libertarianism.
  11. How much of the New Deal wasn't rescinded during ww2? Carter? Ha! I'll see Jimmy and raise you Pierre Trudeau and Tommy Douglass Sorry, should have said fighting for someone else’s freedom... I was being a little unfair to the French. I did have a good time in Arras... once.
  12. Couple of things right off the top. 1. As bad as Obama is the USA has not seen a real socialist yet. 2. The USA is a long, long, long way from the need for insurrection. Your law is in place, the basic principals of your constitution are still being respected to a larger degree than they are being compromised. I'm a mercinary. I would not serve if I was not being paid for it. Having said that however, even though I disagree with the way my own country is run (and with my country's constitution in some cases) I have enough contextual information to recognize that it is a damn sight better than 99% of other nations out there and worth protecting as needed, worth working for and nudging in the right direction when I have a chance. As for your briefing, I dare say that the guy with 30 years experience was pandering to the lowest common denominator. Like most recruiters (which was probably the point of the talk) he would say damn near anything to get a signature on that dotted line... but that is pure speculation on my part. Fighting for freedom is like commiting rape and calling it seduction. The people in the place have to want freedom, have to want the kind of government that gives them freedom. I look at Afghanistan today and I know that our (western) version of freedom and government is foreign to them and as a result our efforts are doomed largely to fail in the short run, and it takes a long time and a huge amount of dedication to get any result in the long run. I agree that some armies appear to be more ideologically driven than others but this isn't a good thing in my opinion. It leads to the hell of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" (the pragmatic support of anyone who isn't a leftist). I don't want ideological armies I want objective armies and objective wars. Ideology ended the first gulf war short of its objective. Ideology started the second gulf war. Ideology holds us in Afghanistan, a multitude of cesspools in Africa, and ties our wrists to public opinion and the freaking UN. Wars ought to be few and far between, driven by objective reasons toward attainable logical ends and be so very brutal and short that the first requirement becomes self-evident. As for the French Army, I'm not fond of them (the FFL are a good lot though) but that is a personal thing dealing with a very miserable night in Sarajevo.
  13. Catch a Criminal... Go To Jail

    This is ridiculous.
  14. Hmmmmmmmmm... No edit button. I'd like to add that the Freedom Party does provide a ray of hope... Perhaps someday
  15. As I've said before, as a Canadian my choices in the political arena are bad, worse, horrible and disasterous.