Absolutely. Social engineering = pure liberalism. It blows. Socialism was never meant to be part of the great American and Canadian experiment. The only thing the state owes us, is the protection of natural alienable rights. Nothing more.
Actually, it is.
I'm increasingly disturbed by the lack of respect and knowledge our 'educated' (brainwashed) minions in our society, display toward our values and founding principles – totally oblivious to the sacrifice on behalf of the immortal, who died for something immortal. I keep reading how Canadians are "peace makers," "neutral observers," -- unlike those evil "war mongers" south of the border. What a bunch crapyoka! This moral relativism has never been part of our history -- and certainly not why we celebrate Remembrance Day. Like our current PM, I have a deep disdain for many of our ugly modern post-Trudeaupian institutions, along with the smug liberalism they have cultivated -- which can only exist, because of a military we cannot even call our own. It's time many Canadians, woke up to reality, got off their hypocritical moral high horse, and shared some of the burden and sacrifice. Slash social spending across the board and invest in our own security -- both here at home (you might have noticed, as our society becomes more ‘tolerant,’ our cities are becoming increasingly violent) and abroad in this new war of the 21st century.
If a stranger is being raped, surrounded by a group of thugs keeping watch making certain he gets away with it, it is easy (and very strawman in nature) to label the next group who will fight coming to her defense, as the "the aggressor." Under a true ‘libertarian,’ society, it would be none of their business. Every man/woman for themselves.
Many of our misguided liberal friends, close their eyes and ears, pretending tyranny does not exist, because after all in doesn't exist where they reside. So it must not exist at all. Then, when someone (anyone) finally acts to liberate such peoples, they have a nervous breakdown and finger/vilify, the 'aggressor.'
Once again, three cheers for our public, brainwashed, education system.
Our ‘progressive’ teachers have taught us, a) violence doesn’t exist, b) violence is wrong and, c) violence is not an effective way to solve conflict.
Beg to differ on all three fronts. Judicious violence is actually a very good way of solving many, many conflicts. So is torture. The 'moral' implicaions of such practices are open for debate of course (and very subjective) however there is no dennying, torture and war work very, very well.
Of course I have answered. You just don’t listen.
I am a libertarian -- through anf through. I wouldn't allocate resources busting down your door while you're enjoying a spliff, but I would raid, prosecute and imprison anyone who preys upon or violates another person's rights -- especially the most innocent and vulnerable among us.
My values are nothing short of consistent and principled. I only advocate intervention when someone else infringes on another person's rights.
No. If there were 20-30 among us, who decided to take a piece of land, creating our own utopia, with our own set of values and guidelines, isomeone would have to guard them. So we'd take turns:
“Oh Canada we stand on guard for thee…”
Or something like that…
Sad isn't it? If the disease of pacification hadn't paralyzed the 'leadership' at the time, and something/someone, had intervened a lot sooner, other family members of yours would still be alive today. Millions of lives would have been spared. Lesson learned:
Never again.
Sure, in your world of peace without victory, this is true. Problem is, such a world doesn't exist. There is no such thing as peace without victory – there is only fight or surrender. I choose to support those fighting. You choose to surrender – and ridicule -- those who fight. And the ones who sacrifice, allow individuals like yourself to cling to the fallacy, that your peace can be achieved without victory.
D-Day was not about protecting Canadian sovereignty. Rather, it was the same instinct I described earlier witnessing a stranger being raped. When we see another person’s rights being usurped, we come to their defense.
There is a profound difference between war for conquest and war for liberation. In your world, the 'aggressor' is always wrong. Well, Panda, this is just not so. It’s not so for the woman defenseless on the street being raped; it’s not so for Polish people who were invaded by Hitler (and later the Soviets); and it’s not so for the Kuwaitis and Kurds, who found themselves defenseless victims of a tyrannical ‘leader.’
This is a familiar debate which has been ongoing for generations, Panda. The players and flags may change, but human nature never has, nor ever will.
I'm baffled how you don't see this.
