August1991

Is this what you really want? UPI article Houston Chronicle Apparently, the French were more successful. For fun, here is the flag of Angola.

What would happen if it were illegal to buy or sell any car for less than 30,000$? What kind of cars would we see in the marketplace? Minimum wage legislation does not help poor people. There are other, better ways to do this.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.I thought diversity and dissent were encouraged in Canada. I am mistaken. I didn't know that Canadian citizenship requires an anti-American opinion. As I have said elsewhere, the anti-Americanism in English Canada is similar to the anti-English attitudes in Quebec. Both are small-minded and unbecoming. They are thankfully not universal.

This article provides details. Anyone know what the format will be? I hope it will not be as freewheeling as the Canadian federal debate. But since there will only be the two of them on stage, and because the stakes are so much higher, I can't believe either would be so foolish as to interject constantly. US debates are sometimes good.

I see no difference between this dispute and say, Diefenbaker's rejection of the Bomarc missile.Quebecers are generally isolationists and they now express their opinions more openly. I also note that Canada's urban areas are populated by immigrants and they tend to vote Liberal federally. IOW, I see no "maturing" process. I frankly don't know what the issue is here.In the 19th century, America offered wonderful opportunity to foreigners and foreign investors. The US got involved, entirely on its own, in one of the bloodiest conflicts in history and certainly the bloodiest on this continent. Their military was enough of a threat at the time to justify our confederation. IMV, the Monroe Doctrine was designed to keep European machinations out of the Americas. (Americans perceived Europeans as nefarious. Have you ever heard of Maximilian of Mexico?) Debateable point. I'd go with isolationism, not fascist-sympathizers (despite Lindbergh et al.) My reasoning? The post war era.Many Americans feel that WWII was a great error. From it, they learned that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Kennedy wrote (or ghost wrote) Why England Slept. The American instinct, like the Quebec or Latin American instinct, is not to get involved. WWII taught Americans that that is no longer possible. Here, I would agree with you. Despite the ongoing mess in Romania, the fact that ordinary Romanians caught that couple and executed them is important in their history.Unfortunately, Iraqis didn't get that liberty. Iraq has been thrust on to the world stage and will get its 15 minutes of fame. In a few years, it will become another Vietnam and people may go there for exotic tourism. The UN? God help us all if the UN ever gets seriously involved in nation-building. It was not unilateral. Many other countries are involved. According to many, the US action was justified under existing UN resolutions.Would you say the US action in Serbia was wrong? The UN did not sanction it. Canada supported it. Culture and tradition? Huh? Here, eureka, I honestly don't know what the heck you are talking about. Do you think the UN was going to civilize Qaddafi?The sight of a bearded, confused Saddam had a large effect on these two-bit thugs. They, like you apparently, live in a world where the strong dominate the weak unless we appeal to man's better angels. The strength of the US is based on something entirely different, certainly not angels. It is based on individual freedom.

Office politics are an essential part of any organization. It's all about people communicating. I see no harm. And sometimes the ideas do work. Nothing ventured; nothing gained. What's wrong with trying to understand systematically how an organization operates? The truly scary part is that any person or group of persons would have control over a province's entire health system. That is putting all your eggs in one basket. Very dangerous. The Soviet Union is evidence of what happens when people approach a problem dogmatically and not pragmatically.Canadians are dogmatic about the health system.

Go break a stick over your head. It shouldn't be hard, it is as dense as stone anyway. Now kids, I don't want to hear anymore otherwise the TV is going off and you're all going to your rooms.

This brings us back to the question of who owns Canada. The government can only say I consent to their laws by being on their territory if it is, in fact, their territory. Otherwise, I could say that your act of breathing is your consent to giving me $10,000. It is not the government that owns Canada, it is all the people living here. And they don't own "Canada the land", they own "Canada the legal system". Canada is a cooperative, a gated community or a condominium. Hugo, we do not live in a world with one government. We live in a world with many governments. No government in this world is a monopoly. [Excepting North Korea...] Most networks are natural monopolies. Legal system, too.---- In Hugo's world, you would find the name of the neighbour's private protector and then agree on the appropriate court. Your private protector would action the neighbour in a court . But we'd first have to determine whether you indeed own the atmosphere or your neighbour does. [i suppose the computer soot case is more clear on this issue.] If you own the atmosphere, damages would be assessed. If you don't own the atmosphere, you could buy it from your neighbour. Well, we sometimes do all that now. But we also sometimes say that the hassle of doing all that is greater than any benefit. Let's have a simple rule: No open fires. Here's a better example: A condominium wants to renovate the building's main entry. It will cost $100,000. How to collect the money from the different residents in the building? This can't be done voluntarily since everyone will lie and say they don't want to pay (when in fact they really do want a new entry and are prepared to pay for it). So, to avoid this hassle, a simple rule is used: Everyone pays $1000. Eureka, I think you would agree that ordinary people in Europe today live better now than say 500 years ago. Why has this happened? Because people can deal with one another. They can trade.

Swell, you are asking a question of "fairness" or "justice". You are asking, "how do we assign property rights?" [if I own the tree, then I'm richer.] There is private property (disputed or not) and common property (Thelonious' utopian example). Societies have used all variations at various times. Sometimes property is both private and common depending on the season. I would agree, in general, that my property rights must be defendable. If I cannot defend my property, then in effect I don't own it. [That doesn't necessarily mean I need a gun or be the biggest and strongest.] Now, is there a way to define ownership that is morally correct? I would say yes, and I suspect it follows closely our ordinary, common sense of fairness learned in every elementary schoolyard- depending on the society of course. Ownership should go to the person who will most likely be best placed to trade the tree to the highest bidder. If that person can't be identified, then it doesn't matter - as long as ownership is clear. Last point, it is critical to decide ownership quickly. Arguments about ownership are a waste of time. ---- Incidentally, you don't really own something. You own rights. I may own the right to pick cherries but I don't have the right to chop the tree down.

I read the article, and I thought it was absolutely silly. The measure of a country is not how many gold medals it wins. If American journalists want to claim theirs is a great country because Americans win lots of medals, fine. But the argument strikes me as adolescent. I'm rather pro-American, and even pro-Bush. But this journalist knows little about Canadians.

I agree. The world is getting used to a new reserve currency, the euro. If you think the Canadian dollar has risen, the rise of the euro has been greater. (In fact, it's been something of a roller-coaster.) The high price of oil is also a factor.If I'm not mistaken, Canada's productivity growth has been lower than in the US for the past 20 years or so. Any discussion of interest rates should make explicit real rates and nominal rates.

Your spelling seems to be impeccable, Hugo. Why?

The game is not over until the fat lady sings. PM PM and Minority Government

You can choose by your instincts and the best number, or you can choose solely by your instincts.Do the numbers help you to choose at all? (40 gb and 80 gb? Or, 800$ and 1200$?) The critical difference is in the price difference, not the memory measure. The second seller's decision to go to 800 from 1200 hurts the first seller but still benefits the second seller. It certainly benefits you, the buyer. There's an overall benefit, easy to find. Do you get it? I'll try again if necessary with a better example. That is, send me 800$ for the truth. Or, how much hassle is involved to figure out what the hell is going on. We're not talking government healthcare here. We're talking my 14 year old son may have a rare cancer but the test costs $8,000 in the States. His doctors say that I shouldn't worry. But they give me a funny look. What to do?

Kimmy discovers the real world.I don't mean the "jungle-strongest wins" guy world. I mean the "right best-for-us" chick world. Unfortunately, Kimmy doesn't get it.

So Greg, don't interject. You pull a Michael Jackson, well...My opinion? I preferred Edmonton to Calgary. Compare the river valleys. Compare the downtowns. Compare the university campuses. In Edmonton, you can blank out your eyes staring at the floodlights of the legislature. You can't do that in Calgary. IME, Edmonton had thoughtful people. There was no there there in Calgary. Only the mountains - "30 minutes away", people said. I have a vague memory of Medicine Hat. It's sort of like Sherbrooke. Anyone know Drummondville? (C'est la Red Deer du Québec.) IOW Greg, drop it.

Black Dog clues into what the war is all about, for dilettantes. (Fame, maybe some power. Like Naomi Klein.) For others, war is different. So is life. La Condition humaine.BD, have you seen No Man's Land? Please do. As to the various foreign hostages, any foreigner in Iraq now knows the circumstances. So do mountain climbers. "You buy your ticket, you take your chances." These people want to be famous, do something different, write a book, collect anecdotes, avoid boredom. Let them do it at their own expense. ---- I would not make an exception for the ordinary Australian, Polish, American, Italian, British, Tongan and other soldiers. Ordinary taxpayers collectively hired these women and men to do this. These women and men soldiers wound up in Iraq. But the circumstances are that they have friends around them that they trust.

France and the UK declared war on Hitler's Germany on 3 Sep 1939. The US waited until 7 Dec 1941.There was no harm done by the wait. If we are lucky in this case, France will not have to do more than worry about a few hostages. (Hostages who choose to put themselves in harm's way by travelling to dangerous places.)

The wine & cheese is scheduled for next Thursday. I'll PM you the invite list for your approval. How should we frame Greg's certificate?

We've got: Canadian Politics -Federal Politics -Prvincial Politics -Canada'US relations -Moral & Religious Issues International Politics -US Politics -Rest of the World News and Support -Support and Questions -News and Announcements ---- Greg: Can you move the US/Canada sub-category to International Politics? Create a new "Philosophy, Religion, Culture" category after "International Politics"? Move the "Moral & Religious Issues" to this new "Philosophy, Religion, Culture" category. Create a new sub-category for Movie/TV Reviews under this new category. The suggested line up would be: Canadian Politics -Federal Politics -Provincial Politics International Politics -Canada/US Relations -US Politics -Rest of the World Philosophy, Religion, Culture -Moral & Religious Issues -Movie/TV Reviews News and Support -Support and Questions -News and Announcements

What a bizarre thread, and what a bizarre group of opinions. Point well taken, Slavik44. But in a world where people must rely on symbols, you would be well advised to advertise the wisdom of your posts by using correct spelling. [spelling or not, I like your posts.] I agree with Kimmy. In addition, there was no choice then. In English, CTV and CBC. Near the US, there was ABC, CBS, NBC. The odd independent. European TV really, really sucks. Italian TV is unbelieveably stupid. "Game" shows! In addition, private stations are forced to schedule and announce advertising in advance!There is something called Euronews and Deutsche Welle. You gotta see it to believe it. Microsoft's in-house newsletter is more informative and exciting. I like the British attitude to newspapers: serious papers for news and then the others for fun, like pop music. Eureka, please provide references for such claims. I think that we have never been so literate. People are also very media -savvy, for something important to them. They clue in fast when they are being conned. Black Dog, people turn to the TV for news that is irrelevant to them. At most, it means they can avoid derision. "What's the other guy's name? Korry something?"People turn to careful research for things that matter. Talk to the most politically ill-informed person who has a child just diagnosed with cancer. Commercial television is designed entirely around advertising. The programming is filler around the ads. All commercial television is informercials. It is designed to capture your interest and keep you.Nothing is funnier than watching American TV shows outside of North America. Without the ads, the pace of the script is all wrong. Wonderful quote, Hugo. Dead on. Really dumb, Hugo. Now you are wrong and offensive. The sole purpose of advertising is not to inform, at least in the way Hugo suggested.Advertising informs in the way good spelling does. Someone who spells well is probably someone educated. And someone educated is probably someone who knows what they are talking about. Maybe. Which brings me back to Slavik44. ---- You don't like TV? Don't watch it. You don't want to live in a society where other people watch TV? Join the human race. Take people as they are. IAC, other people do much goofier things than watch TV.

This is not the issue.But it raises the correct idea. There are "degrees" to warfare and that's why I have always felt that Clausewitz was right: "War is a continuation of political activity by other means." I see a difference between words (however threatening) and actions. I see a difference between unintentional and intentional killing of non-combattants. In Greek times, "total war" meant burning olive trees or poisoning wells. WWII eventually gave us "scorched earth", the siege of Leningrad, death marches and Hiroshima. I think the West is appalled because the Islamists have raised the stakes so quickly. But then, should we expect them to conduct a war by conventional degrees? In Iraq, this is a war of terrorism; I would use the Lebanese conflict 1975-1992 as a point of reference, despite the tremendous differences. Incidentally, car bombs (like the WTC attack) are the most "effective". Even the most fatalistic person has a constant voice in the back of their mind.

I think Kimmy is wrong.I recall once buying meat in a small shop in France. The butcher was able to show me the precise origin of the cow and its various travels. The papers were meaningless to me, they could have been forged, but they were displayed publicly. Who is best placed (that is, who has the strongest incentive and can check at lowest cost) to verify the quality of food: the dining customer, the restaurant owner, the meat packer or a city food inspector? The government is doing the covering-up apparently. Some capitalists are going to lose a lot of future profits from this. I can't believe they would go for a quick small buck and sacrifice larger profits in the future. They may not even have a business to sell.Interesting case.

DAC, you are wrong. You are describing the "law of the jungle".Human affairs have always been more complex but never moreso than in the past 20,000 years or so. Humans have "recently" discovered a way to ensure self-interested behaviour leads to genuine (uncoerced) co-operation. Hugo calls this "anarchy" but his usage is misleading. It's still a market. Marriage is a market in the same way as any other.I meant a market with prices. Even prior to marriage, the "market" in spouses doesn't offer that. After marriage, the transactions are even more difficult to fathom. John Nash made a start at the problem. There you go again, Hugo. If it were profitable to do as you suggest, why hasn't somebody done it? I am sure there are people who understand flight paths much better than you or I do, and I'm sure they're looking for a buck too. [Please don't tell me that the State has a protection racket monopoly that keeps out the cheaper private operators.] And these sterling examples show that the transaction costs of conducting all deals without any State are sometimes greater than the deadweight cost imposed by State sanctioned transactions. Once transaction costs (the costs of enforcing a contract, knowing what you're really signing) are taken into account, the State with all its flaws sometimes offers a better method to do the deal. (The same argument explains corporations, clubs, families and clans.) That's not a market failure either, it's another market. Either your brother-in-law is trading his services for your goodwill, for a favour from you later on, or he is giving you his services for nothing. In which case, it is a trade in which something only passes one way. Since your brother-in-law consented to it, it's not coercion.The market failure occurs because I cannot trust the mechanic down the street. Now, my brother-in-law will perform a service without clear terms of trade, maybe without ever any "payment", for the simple reason that "we are in the same family". This family arrangement works better than a market with prices because signing an enforceable contract with the mechanic is more costly. Replace "brother-in-law" with "neighbour" and "family" with "State" and we're on the road to a theory of the State.Don't get me wrong. I far prefer several mechanics competing on price for my custom; if I know the competency of the mechanics in advance. Wonderful reply. (Incidentally, the best evidence I saw of Hugo's claim concerned per capita meat consumption in England. It fell at the beginning of the 19th century and then began to rise around 1825, if memory serves.) In the case of State policies, this could be replaced with a rule of unanimity. That is, everyone would either abstain or vote in favour of a proposal. (I'm assuming there is a mechanism with incentives so that people vote truthfully.) I would say it impinges on your right to liberty. Why muck property into this? If you are not free to dispose of the property as you want, then it is as if you don't own that particular aspect of the property. It is better to imagine "property" as a bundle of rights. The title (deed) to my house does not include the right to forbid (or charge a fee) for your radio waves that may pass through it.[incidentally Hugo, these rights are often bundled in accordance with the transaction costs of selling the "property".] That's a wasteful way to do things. But I'm not surprised Locke would use such a definition. Classical liberal philosophers.Huh? You lend your labour (in fact your time and effort) in return for compensation. The product of your time and effort belongs to whoever hired you. While your time and effort is rented to someone else, are you a slave? Who cares! IMV, the issue is whether you signed the rental contract voluntarily or not. If not, then it's not a contract really. Yes, there is the option of moving to another jurisdiction. Even in Friedman's private judicial system, each person would have to belong to a "protection racket". This indeed is how drug cartels operate. Huh? If I pay taxes, this means the State owns Canada, my house and me? Got me there.If a wife gives money to her husband to buy beer, does this mean the "marriage" owns the "wife". The State is a mechanism by which individuals conduct transactions - typically, long term contracts. Perhaps this example will make it more plain. If a wife gives a meal to her husband, does this mean that the husband owns the wife? Now, what if the wife has no option of divorce? Or, what if the wife never had the option of refusing marriage to her husband in the first place? In this last case, I would possibly say the husband owns the wife and possibly the wife is a slave. More important, would either be better off outside the marriage? I've never liked Ayn Rand. I find her writing style awkward and her philosophy a bizarre, fascist version of Adam Smith. What if transaction costs for private delivery of a certain service are such that a free market simply doesn't exist? Would you deny individuals the use of another method to transact? I'll agree. None, because acceptance necessitates a free will, and before your birth your free will does not exist.But what if it did?---- Last point, I may defend the utility of the State but certainly not to the point where the State consumes some 25% of production, transfers between individuals about 25% of their income and regulates all manner of private transactions. The question here is to understand how this happened.

The restaurant owner should ensure that the meat served is safe.When I buy an airplane ticket, I also buy the airline's ability (reputation) to check the plane.