August1991

Now you are comparing the acceptance of Jesus Christ and the Scientific Method. WTF?"Science" has presumably determined that the pill is effective and this gives credence to its effectiveness. I thought Christianity was a matter of "faith". Neil, these arguments remind me simply that Christianity has undergone tremendous changes in the past thousand years or so. The modern version of Christianity, and your snake-oil example, is an attempt to cope. But I must admit something and I'll put it more simply. People desire faith. I would never, ever quibble with this simple desire. ---- After your long rant, I gather Neil that you don't approve of the "lifestyle" of gays and lesbians. Well, I don't approve of the "lifestyle" of people who drive Corvettes. Long ago, I realized that in a civilized society, we cannot legislate morality. So, the issue ultimately comes down to the use of one word: marriage.Well, if the word "champagne" can only be used to describe a certain wine from a certain French region, then I guess the word "marriage" could only be used to describe a certain type of contract. As a matter of fact, the words "husband" and "wife" seem safe from encroachment.

Since Mulroney and the GST, no Canadian politician has gone near taxes with any intent for a serious reform. And given Mulroney's reputation, no politician is likely to go near the issue any time soon.It's unfortunate but it's a no-win situation for a politician. The most a reforming, "truly progressive" poltician could do is to cut the rate of existing taxes, provoke a deficit and then hope the political pressures line up for tax reform. The CPP and the EI are for all intents transfer schemes. The CPP transfers money to the surviving elderly and the EI transfers money to a bizarre group of people ranging from pregnant women, unionized workers on lock-out to seasonal workers. For most people, it is absurd to believe you will ever be a recipient of money put into these schemes. (I encourage other people to smoke cigarettes because they'll likely die young before getting a pension.)CPP and EI "contributions" should simply be rolled into general tax revenues. This would benefit the poor (who now pay the burden of these contributions) and make easier the life of every small business bookkeeper.

That was my point. "Accept this product or suffer eternal damnation."In sales, those are boiler-room tactics. I would never accept anything under such circumstances and would basically view the salesperson as fraudulent.

Layton might as well join the Liberal Party because it is rather obvious that he is as much of a "trained seal/nobody" as the other Liberal members. To support the Liberals, this is what the NDP will be voting against: An arm's-length commission to ensure that employment-insurance premiums are used only for workers' benefit. Reduction of taxes for low and modest-income families. An independent parliamentary budget office to give advice on fiscal forecasts. A non-partisan citizens' assembly to study electoral and democratic reform, including proportional representation. A vote in the Commons on Canada's participation in the U.S.-led continental missile defence shield program. In fact, in the 'opening phrases' of this 'minority Parliamentary discussion', Layton seems about as adept as he was during the leaders' debate. The guy is positively goofy. Delacourt Toronto Star

Interesting discussion.

According to you, it may be right, moral and just.But the situation I described would also lead to a "bad" solution that even Z would prefer to avoid. It would mean that Y and Z would live with a shoddy entry - when in fact they both are prepared to pay to have something better. Hugo, this unfortunate situation arises often in life and in nature. There are a variety of ways to solve it. A Nobel Prize awaits anyone with a new solution.

He might perform a cost/benefit analysis, do a survey, read some tarot cards or tea leaves. It's really irrelevant.This question is far, far from irrelevant. In fact, it is central to the issue at hand. I think it is a direct analogy of the State - and of a major problem society faces.Let me be more precise (and simplify even further): Imagine that there are only two condo owners (Y and Z) and they both sit on the Committee. Now the two must decide whether to renovate the main entry and how to share the cost if they do. (Voluntary consent will be mutual - unanimous in this case.) The problem is that any money spent by Y benefits not only Y but Z also. No fool, Z knows this and tries to get a free ride on Y's wallet. But then, Y tries to do the same at Z's expense. End result? The entry way never gets renovated despite the fact that both, if they were honest, would be prepared to pay to have a renovated entry. IOW, the end result is certainly not an optimum, Pareto or otherwise. ---- This reasoning alone does not justify the existence of a coercive State but it is the first step.

The Liberals think it is business as usual. Their near-death experience lasted for a few days in June 2004 until David Herle's attack ads scared the Ontario sheep back to the fold.The Liberals believe that the opposition has nothing to gain by going into an election. The BQ cannot get any more seats. The Tories did as well as they likely ever do in Ontario unless something radical changes. The NDP is no threat to a Liberal Party that signals left but never turns. So, the Liberals believe that BQ and Tory opposition is all bluff - and the Liberals are probably right. Incidentally, I have a vague suspicion that another election will simply produce the same result we've got now.

Provide evidence (a link) to support your claim that 40% of adopting parents in Massachusetts were gay.You state that "many" children are now available for adoption because of "abusive" families. Provide statistical evidence of this. You state that this is also true "all over Canada". What evidence (a link) do you have to support that claim? Did you write the text above? If not, who did? It is the oldest selling technique to imply some terrible calamity if you don't buy the advertised product.I'm always surprised that any religion would sell itself that way.

Can somebody here explain to me why we bought submarines? If I understand properly, one lone submarine is currently floating somewhere off the coast of BC. What for? I would think that helicopters and various air and sea troop transports would be more sensible.

More or less. The actual building and its infrastructure (hallways, elevators, utility supplies) are "collectively" owned. To cover upkeep and renovations, each condo owner pays regular, variable condo fees. These are set by a Condo Management Committee.But Hugo, since you are obsessed with the idea that everything must have an individual owner, let's pursue that idea. And let's simply things further by considering only the main entry. And let's follow your exceptionally narrow definition of ownership and rights. Person X owns the building's main entry and has sole right to its use unless he decides to sell this right to others. How much should Person X charge individual condo owners for using his entry? (You used the term "bundle". Fine with me. I'm asking you to be precise in determining the fee each condo owner should pay.) If Person X was thinking of renovating his entry, how should he go about knowing whether simply to repaint the entry at low cost or to redo completely the entry at great cost?

MS: First, will more government money solve this problem? Second, all levels of government already take in various taxes about half our income. How much more do they want? How much more can they realistically take? Third, please don't cut and paste long quotes. A short quote is sufficient.

ACLU web site If I understand properly, this is one of two main challenges of the ACLU to the Patriot Act. (The other challenge concerns the Justice Department's right to intercept/examine personal documents without judicial oversight.) The Patriot Act strikes me as similar to the War Measures Act. I'm surprised the US has adopted a Canadian solution to a problem. I would not be surprised if the US Supreme Court eventually strikes down many sections of the Patriot Act as being unconstitutional. The Act seems to have been prepared in a hurry and is badly written. The Bush Administration may well have known this and realized that the Act gave it a "window of opportunity" of several years.

Each person owns their own condo. We are talking about the entry to the building.The Management Committee (it could be all condo owners together) represent the condo ("legitimate") owners. How the Management Committee should make its decisions would not necessarily be "one vote per dollar's worth of property". In theory, each condo owner would be assessed an amount equivalent to the benefit that owner alone derived from the use of the entry available to all. But I'm happy Hugo that you accept the notion that a Management Committee can exist with some decision-making scheme and this would make the world a better place for the individual condo owners. Do you agree? ----- Hugo, you seem "obsessed" by this notion of "ownership". You should think rather in terms of "rights". For example, there is something called an easement.

Is Hugo still on about the State? Hugo wrote: Hugo, you have given here a simple but good explanation for the existence of the State and its right to assess taxes.The State is like the Condominium Management Committee and taxes are like the condo fees. (Condo fees are not fixed for all time but frequently change according to common expenses. They are not wholly included in the original purchase price.) This arrangement is to the benefit of the individual condo owners. Hugo, you are arguing with yourself.

A friend asked me who I wanted to win in the US election. I said honestly that I didn't care. The United States is much bigger than its president who, after all, doesn't have much power - or rather, is usually prisoner by force of circumstance to defending the US constitution. (Both Kerry and Bush said as much during their debate.) I continued, the principles of the US will endure whoever is President. Moreover, these two guys - Kerry and Bush - don't seem to be too nefarious or incompetent. History has produced far worse yet the US has survived. [so the friend asked about my interest in the past Canadian federal election - "It's because it's your country?" No, I answered, it's because Canadian elections actually change things. Canada is unsettled and our federal government decides too much.]

KimmyWorld? Is that like Sims Professional? Thats a very interesting question. It would probably boil down to who is at fault and if anyone was negligent.*eyes roll* I love words like "fault" and "negligent". They imply "moral" error. Were it so simple. But in fact, I agree. Let me explain, after a few quotes and responses. Thin line? [Hint: Where you draw the line is irrelevant - but draw it clearly.] Same thing as the line. Did the resto cross it? True, but it ain't crap at all. [Hint: Having being through the awful experience of writing cheques for lawyers, no resto will ever cross the line again. Did this lesson come in the cheapest way? Or were the lawyers in it only for the money?] Sorry, but you will have a very hard time convincing me that information should ever be withheld - I'd argue the effort is a waste of time. The sick people certainly knew what restaurants they ate in before getting sick. Agreed, we are in the world of risk - or the KimmyWorld of "ReasonableExpectation" - or is that a world without risk? The risk is if they do. Let's sit down with OBL and work out a remedy. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.) What about uncovered manholes? Falling bricks? Errant drunk drivers? Purse snatchers? Sorry, but that's the question. (Post syllogism ad hoc argument.) That reminds me of a resto in Maryland. All the vegetables tasted of chlorine.I digress. August Rules of Restos: 1. All restos in Italy are good - even cheap, you can't go wrong. 2. There are no good restos in the US - don't look, you won't find any. That word again. BTW, "expectation" has a precise meaning in mathematics translated as espérance - hopefulness. (It concerns probability.) This naming idea seems to be a big issue. Is it? (Lapresse has a weekly column of contravening restos with precise descriptions of the infractions: "numerous cockroaches found under the principal cooking surface, dried white sauce littering the food preparation area" - Fine: 250$) Full circle. Back to PlayFull.We are down to what is fair. ----- In the pub case, the "silence" of the street is a commodity. Who owns this commodity? If the street residents own this commodity of "silence", they could shut the club down. But would they? The clubowner could buy their agreement - if the club was profitable. (Free beer if you can show you're a neighbour.) If the club owns this commodity, the pubowner can use the street as she/he sees fit. In theory, the residents could "buy" the street's silence by paying the club-owner to shut down. (How would they do this? - Think of property values.) -- The resto story takes this to another level. Separate the "safety" of food from the food itself. "Safe" is a commodity separate from food. Who owns "safe"? If the resto owns "safe", then you buy it when you buy the meal. You can sue a resto if they didn't in fact sell it to you. If you own "safe", then you are on your own. Legal fees are the transaction costs of finding this. Motors do not work without lubricants and markets do not work without transaction fees. The benefit of motors justify the cost of motor oil. And lawyers earn their fees as transaction costs. ---- Our legal system defines ownership. It defines the direction of liability. There are no obvious rules. If I were a judge, I would put the incentive of my decision where it would do the most good at least cost. And I would decide clearly to avoid future arguments. I think the apartment and club case is easier. Who can sell/buy the quietude of a street more easily? As a judge, I'd go with the club as owner. Rents and house prices would be lower: "It's really cheap here but it's noisy on weekends." Now, who can produce "safe" most cheaply? Restos probably know best how to produce "safe". They should be responsible and liable. And of course the names should be published - but not by a City monopoly. (Now I am convinced municipalities should not inspect food.) Should judges aim for fairness and justice? Never. God didn't. Some people are blue-eyed and blonde-haired. Meaning? Well read this. IOW, the issue is not about fairness or drawing a "fair" line or a "just" line. The issue is about a drawing line so that people who can best provide safe food do so, streets are used to best effect and beautiful people get jobs requiring beautiful people. God aimed for wisdom. Everything to its proper place - as easily as possible. I don't really know if God aimed for wisdom, but the idea strikes me as morally good.

Please provide evidence of what you claim.I thought equalization payments started in the 1950s but I could be wrong.

I agree with you, farooq. I can understand why America (and the UK) got involved in this war in Iraq but it would have been better if the Iraqis had done this themselves.[Example: We have a fundamental, ongoing problem in Canada/Quebec that has yet to be resolved. But we should resolve it our own way, in our own time - and so far, we've been fortunately left in peace to do that. Iraqis didn't get this opportunity.] True, but where I have seen sectarian violence start , I have been struck by the small number of people actively involved (5% or so?) and the all the others (95% or so) who are suddenly forced to live with madness.One can debate whether there is genuine tolerance or the veneer of tolerance (closet rascism) but at least people can live in peace. It is now the case where I fear Christians feel unsafe in the Middle East and Muslims feel unsafe in the West. That is not right. I have often thought about that irony. It is as if an argument between two brothers is worse than between two neighbours. But the IRA was perceived as being Catholic - at least in the UK.----- That is my feeling too. I disagree.I won't go into what I mean by "sane" or "insane". Suffice to say that even fanatics are subject to the law of gravity. eureka, if by describing terrorists as "sane", you believe that it is possible to deal with terrorism by dealing with the "root cause" of their "frustration", then I believe you are seriously mistaken. farooq, do you think that the "West" wants to do that? Do you think the terrorists want to do that?

The Soviets orchestrated a coup in Afghanistan which brought to power a Soviet/Marxist government. This government was not popular and it immediately faced internal dissension. The government then "invited" the Soviet army in to quell dissent.Afghanistan ressembles a wild-west version of the "stans" of Central Asia - all were republics of the Soviet Union and are now independent countries. By invading Afghanistan, there is little doubt the Soviets were taking advantage of US weakness under Carter, after Watergate and the loss of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The long term strategy was to have access to the Indian Ocean through a Soviet proxy. This strategy was typical of Brezhnev. The use of Soviet troops was perhaps a tactical error. On a separate point, I have always felt that the collapse of the Soviet Union started with the death of Yuri Andropov. If he had not died, the Soviet Union would have lasted much longer. I am also surprised at how the Cold War has been so quickly forgotten. I suspect that another generation will discover it and appreciate its importance. ---- Ossama bin Laden is the scion of a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia. The family made its money in construction - large civil works. (In Canada, we have Don Ellis, SNC Lavalin. In the US, there is Halliburton.) Bin Laden's family comes from south western Saudi Arabia near the Yemeni border. The people in this part of Saudi Arabia are different from elsewhere. They are neither nomads nor traders like in Jeddah. While old now, The Kingdom is entertaining and informative.

Alberta never received equalization payments. It has always been a net contributor.[This situation is of course a consequence of the fact that the Albertan government is the sole beneficiary of royalty payments for oil and gas extraction.] Prior to the creation of equalization payments in the 1950s, Alberta may have been a net recipient of federal payments.

eureka, should they not be allowed to form their own opinion?In any case, is this not an example where the Canadian government is restricting an American firm from selling its product here?

When you say 'Alberta', do you mean the Albertan government? Are you a socialist or something?

From what I can see, Halliburton traded at about 30$ in September 2001 and is now back at about 30$ after dipping to the low teens in early 2002. Halliburton Chart Iraqi War Timeline

What about stopping Fox News from selling its product here?