I could've said...
I really dislike it when I get into debates and only realize effective arguments after the debate has already died down.
Or, I really dislike it when I get into specific debates that create a stereotype about my beliefs or principles.
For example, let me refer back to specific debates and specific points that I should've introduced while the debates were still going on:
1) Last week or so, after I made a post about the impressiveness of American public events, I was mocked as some sort of fascist in the comments section of Mike Brock's blog (by Balbulican - the famed commentator who lacks an actual home (blog)) for admiring the 'pomp and circumstance' of the Inaugration, the State of the Union and stuff like that. There are two arguments I want to make about those critiques. Firstly, I should've more clearly stressed that it's better to have an "elected monarch" than an unelected monarch, which we in Canada still have. What exactly is the argument of the people who criticized my appreciation for American events? That we should keep the Governor General because she's so pathetic and illegitimate and therefore she saves us from having a head of state that's elected and not appointed? Actually, the Queen, who's the real Head of State definitely gets more attention when she visits Canada than the attention that Bush gets at any public event down south. She wears a CROWN for god's sake. And people have to take lessons in order to meet her. We still often employ the use of the term "her majesty" and "the crown" SO often in public life. New Canadians have to pledge a sort of loyalty to the freaking Queen which does not happen in America and Canada is somehow an EXAMPLE to America when we practice this mindless, racist, and according to some definitions - "fascist" behavior? Can someone please clarify this for me? Oh god, it happened again. I forgot my second argument as I typed out my first argument. I'll remember it again, sometime soon, and I'll post it completely out of place.
2) Ian has asked me about the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo Bay prisoners - and I haven't yet responded to him, though I've been planning to. And also, Alan at Occam's Carbuncle has got into a few debates with myself over a couple of issues that probably made me seem a bit nanny-statish in comparison to his more pure libertarianism. I'm grouping these two things together because I want to clarify a few things. I'm sort of a libertarian myself, I strongly in theory believe in a very small government, I strongly in theory believe in less "social programs" and I strongly believe in the correlation between the increase in the size of government as a percentage of GDP and the decrease in economic growth over the years. I'm a very small government kind of guy. Really. There's one issue that clouds this perception though and that's the issue of security. When there's a threat out there, a threat that is posed by a group of people who have no rules, no morals, who employ suicide missions as their primary weapon, it's tough and completely unreasonable to fight with one hand tied behind your back. Yes, I haven't agreed with everything the American government has done in terms of security since 9/11, but I agree with most of it. Being vigilant might involve acting like total jerks and I've experienced that myself from American border agents, but it's worth it, if it prevents future attacks. As for "torture" - there must be SOME way to persuade people who have a (very likely) desire to inflict massive death upon you and your countrymen. Call it torture, call it whatever, but if it results in important intelligence information, then it's worth it. Not a single "terrorist act" has been committed since 9/11, and I'm almost certain that "torture" or the "Patriot Act", or increased vigilance and a generally security-driven atmosphere had something to do with that. Ok, I just realized most of the above points are more directed at Ian and less at Alan, but I did get into one debate with him about security and public cameras. Security is the one overriding concern and duty of the government - economic security and prosperity is impossible without it, and as long as we protect property rights and ensure the ability to have privacy then I don't understand the problem with public security cameras since they're in a public area. Nanny-Statism in my definition would be when the state employs the use of cameras at a MASSIVE scale (in order to have a MASSIVE operation to keep files on ALL people) or when they employ the use of cameras to invade one's privacy. A small-scale introduction of cameras in crime-filled areas of urban centres is merely an escalation of the general idea of police surveillance. Cops roam the streets all the time - looking for crime.
3) I want to re-argue a debate I had with Alan of Occam's Carbuncle about classroom discipline... because I know I didn't argue that well at all, but it's getting late, so I'll do that another time.
Hmmmmm. This post is a pretty strange post - but I just needed to get these points out of my head...
For my own sake.
Update: I wanted to include something about Ian and his pretty sad moral and cultural relativism, but Mike Brock's going to write up a post about that soon and he'll probably do a better job anyway.
Or, I really dislike it when I get into specific debates that create a stereotype about my beliefs or principles.
For example, let me refer back to specific debates and specific points that I should've introduced while the debates were still going on:
1) Last week or so, after I made a post about the impressiveness of American public events, I was mocked as some sort of fascist in the comments section of Mike Brock's blog (by Balbulican - the famed commentator who lacks an actual home (blog)) for admiring the 'pomp and circumstance' of the Inaugration, the State of the Union and stuff like that. There are two arguments I want to make about those critiques. Firstly, I should've more clearly stressed that it's better to have an "elected monarch" than an unelected monarch, which we in Canada still have. What exactly is the argument of the people who criticized my appreciation for American events? That we should keep the Governor General because she's so pathetic and illegitimate and therefore she saves us from having a head of state that's elected and not appointed? Actually, the Queen, who's the real Head of State definitely gets more attention when she visits Canada than the attention that Bush gets at any public event down south. She wears a CROWN for god's sake. And people have to take lessons in order to meet her. We still often employ the use of the term "her majesty" and "the crown" SO often in public life. New Canadians have to pledge a sort of loyalty to the freaking Queen which does not happen in America and Canada is somehow an EXAMPLE to America when we practice this mindless, racist, and according to some definitions - "fascist" behavior? Can someone please clarify this for me? Oh god, it happened again. I forgot my second argument as I typed out my first argument. I'll remember it again, sometime soon, and I'll post it completely out of place.
2) Ian has asked me about the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo Bay prisoners - and I haven't yet responded to him, though I've been planning to. And also, Alan at Occam's Carbuncle has got into a few debates with myself over a couple of issues that probably made me seem a bit nanny-statish in comparison to his more pure libertarianism. I'm grouping these two things together because I want to clarify a few things. I'm sort of a libertarian myself, I strongly in theory believe in a very small government, I strongly in theory believe in less "social programs" and I strongly believe in the correlation between the increase in the size of government as a percentage of GDP and the decrease in economic growth over the years. I'm a very small government kind of guy. Really. There's one issue that clouds this perception though and that's the issue of security. When there's a threat out there, a threat that is posed by a group of people who have no rules, no morals, who employ suicide missions as their primary weapon, it's tough and completely unreasonable to fight with one hand tied behind your back. Yes, I haven't agreed with everything the American government has done in terms of security since 9/11, but I agree with most of it. Being vigilant might involve acting like total jerks and I've experienced that myself from American border agents, but it's worth it, if it prevents future attacks. As for "torture" - there must be SOME way to persuade people who have a (very likely) desire to inflict massive death upon you and your countrymen. Call it torture, call it whatever, but if it results in important intelligence information, then it's worth it. Not a single "terrorist act" has been committed since 9/11, and I'm almost certain that "torture" or the "Patriot Act", or increased vigilance and a generally security-driven atmosphere had something to do with that. Ok, I just realized most of the above points are more directed at Ian and less at Alan, but I did get into one debate with him about security and public cameras. Security is the one overriding concern and duty of the government - economic security and prosperity is impossible without it, and as long as we protect property rights and ensure the ability to have privacy then I don't understand the problem with public security cameras since they're in a public area. Nanny-Statism in my definition would be when the state employs the use of cameras at a MASSIVE scale (in order to have a MASSIVE operation to keep files on ALL people) or when they employ the use of cameras to invade one's privacy. A small-scale introduction of cameras in crime-filled areas of urban centres is merely an escalation of the general idea of police surveillance. Cops roam the streets all the time - looking for crime.
3) I want to re-argue a debate I had with Alan of Occam's Carbuncle about classroom discipline... because I know I didn't argue that well at all, but it's getting late, so I'll do that another time.
Hmmmmm. This post is a pretty strange post - but I just needed to get these points out of my head...
For my own sake.
Update: I wanted to include something about Ian and his pretty sad moral and cultural relativism, but Mike Brock's going to write up a post about that soon and he'll probably do a better job anyway.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home