August1991

If the Allies had stood up to Fascist Germany in the 1930s, WW II would never have occurred.But the point is valid that the world was arguably at war from 1914 to 1945. (The Treaty of Versailles only begs the question.) And indeed, one could argue the world was at war between 1914 and 1991. So, the better question is to ask what started World War I?

Here is an interesting article although I find this article even more-thought provoking. I will answer your post in more detail when I have time.

Cool.What's easier? Take than make. Steal than deal. Old English is a good, direct, plain language. You have also defined rent-seeking. TalkNumb, you need an editor.

The concept of this thread is that by chance you win a lottery.Well, by chance, you have oil under your land that you can produce for 10$ and sell for 45$ a barrel. But no one else can do the same as you. You're Jack Nicholson, or Charlize Heron. You show up, you get millions. If Nickelson were not a movie star, what would he do? So who should benefit from his chance gift? Should the Albertan government alone benefit from chance geology, like Brad Pitt benefits ftom chance genetics? Who gets the chance waterfalls in Labrador? Well, who gets the chance way to transmit power. Chance is a fickle master.

A word does not have a single definition for all time. Consider the word gay. Its definition has changed over time. How about the word boot? Depends where you are, or what dictionary you consult. Un autre exemple? Les gosses.I prefer the Anglo-Saxon approach to law. Use different decisions and see if the meaning makes sense now. The Roman Code approach to law implies we have found the truth, until the Code/truth is rewritten. [bTW, the US Constitution (and our BNA/Charter) follow the Roman approach.] Mathematicians are Roman. Grammarians are Anglo-Saxon. Go figure.

Have you ever heard of the Caliphate?

I will. For the others, here are comments.I suspect "Anonymous" is a junior level apologist. But sometimes the politicians are right. But I don't want to prejudge and on your advice Thelonious Monk, Anonymous will get a few bucks from me, and some of my attention. Do I sense some hedging here? The Reds never took out big buildings in lower Manhattan. If the Islamists do, is that a sign of their weakness? Huh? Here, BD, you have my full attention. What do we in the West do? These people hang 16 year old women from cranes because they insolently remove a scarf.Your "anti neo-con" diatribes won't work. My admonition to defend free speech won't work. What to do? It's not pride so much as a practical matter. Yeltsin gave extremely good terms to many of the 89 Russian republics while maintaining Russian citizenship in all. (Russia is an example of assymetrical federalism; it doesn't really work.) Chechnya? Too many Chechens refused Yeltsin's offer (what Quebecers would be happy to have). Worse, some Chechens then turned their territory into a centre of contraband. Imagine Indian reserves near Montreal writ large. Criminals, thugs.With Saudi money, the whole question has become a nightmare. IMV, the worst aspect is the Muslim treatment of women. In general, muslim men strongly prefer virgin women. To such men, a raped woman is a shame. A raped widow is of no value at all. I think we are dealing with people from the 13th century who have access to 20th century technology.

Not really, winter did. I don't know how many Russians died defeating Napoleon. It is estimated 20 million died defeating Hitler. (I don't want to hear about how Stalin was responsible for many of these deaths.) The fact is that if Russians had not stood up to Hitler's army, cold weather or not, Nazi Germany would have colonized Eastern Europe.Handleman's article is good reporting. As a journalist should, he reports accurately what he saw. Handleman's spin however is pathetic. The Western spin on Russia's situation is pathetic too. For 200 years, the Mongol hordes governed Russians. For the past 200 years or so, Russians have dealt with the nations of the Caucasus. Do Russians view this problem differently? Well, Americans horrifically lost two large buildings in NYC. The Australians lost many in a night club. Many Spaniards were killed going to work. Russians have twice seen mass hostage takings. We in Canada fortunately have not suffered such an event. How would we respond if it happens? Who knows? Each country seems to respond in its own way. When push comes to shove, what is the true nature of Canadians? Is there even one nature anymore? On this web forum, and elsewhere, I see comments from many people that are pure dilettantism. Using history as a guide, I will trust the Russian response.

Why would a society ever run out of productive occupations? But if it did, then more the merrier. The purpose of life is not to work; the purpose of life is to have fun.Frankly though, I suspect people will always find ways to deal with one another. Both lockmakers and shoemakers provide a useful service. In an honest world, the lockmakers could become shoemakers and we would have better shoes. Native Indians co-operated with each other. They didn't do this anonymously but rather through their clan. They had no need for property rights nor prices. This limited tremendously the co-operation possible and they were extremely poor. I don't know DAC at all but from his (her?) posts, I sense DAC is a patient, polite person. I hate to let you in on something, Terrible Swell, but the world will not always play according to your rules. Indeed, it is up to you to explain yourself according to others' rules. We don't choose to obtain a certain net benefit. We choose to obtain an expected net benefit. That is, we live in world of risk (uncertainty). I suspect DAC thought that there was a chance some good could come of the conversation. This is a recipe for unhappiness and frustration if I ever saw one. How do you know that your sacrifice is less than the good it will do another? Are you God? I suspect rather that you will be frustrated to learn that your loss leads to little benefit for another. When people want something, they usually ask. If they really want something, they are prepared to offer something else in return. That's what co-operation - indeed life - is all about. That is one theory of property, suitable for a non-voluntary rubric (e.g. conquests or class systems).In a voluntary rubric, property is whatever your society won't take (or suffer to be taken from) you because society values the use that you are putting it to above the uses that a taker would put it to. The latter is more secure, more productive and more efficient. I think I agree with both Thelonious and Swell. The notion of property requires some way to ensure its protection against theft - a loaded gun might be useful here. But why should a thief steal something of greater value to the thief than it is to me? If we trade, the thief will get it and make me happy in the process. Voluntary rubric? WTF? [i really hate jargon. I have struggled to use proper English because it is so beautiful. Please don't defile it.] ---- The problem with all forms of co-operation is that there is a danger of cheating - opportunistic breach. Markets as such don't solve that problem. But as long as property rights exist and are respected, markets with prices turn competitive greed into anonymous co-operation. They identify quickly with whom it is advantageous to trade.

I think that is precisely what Sweden and France do.I believe that the gains from public health care come from the universal insurance aspect. IMV, the government should be involved in the insurance scheme, but that's all. I agree with the basic facts you have laid out, eureka.

TalkNumb, do you really believe that any Israeli PM would block a weapons programme after being told that it can be done? My one doubt concerns testing. To my knowledge, Israel has never tested a nuclear weapon. But there are ways around that. In a sense, that is the crux of the matter. But is Israel an aggressor state?Would Iran risk its own citizens in support of a Palestinian cause? Don't mix Iran with the Middle East. The two are even more distinct than those on the Arabian peninsula and those near the Mediterranean.

Here's the Toronto Star's View. I can go through other naive Canadian views. What nonsense. But I must say, as a historical fact, Russia defeated the Eastern Mongol and Turk. Russia defeated the Western Fascist Napoleon, and the Fascist German. Russia will defeat this Eastern Islamist too. The "West" is naive and foolish about life. The "West" is a dilettante.

Bakunin, lache! Georges-Étienne Cartier said confederation was the best deal possible. Confederation? The southern states, formed in 1861, were called the "Confederated States of America". Jefferson Davies with his wife and mother-in-law came to Montreal in 1865. Macdonald and Cartier in 1867 adopted the term for Canada. End of story. Why the BNA Act? Macdonald and Cartier were politically ambitious and the British were afraid of the post-Civil War US. Canada was no Confederation. It was un mariage blanc. (Bakunin, les Anglais n'ont pas de dictionnaire définitif. Ils n'ont que les sentiments.)

I can't imagine, I don't know what White Rhinoceroses taste like, dodo. Either.I assume you have a freezer. I also assume you keep your house in good repair. Finally, do you have any RRSPs?More generally, Thelonious Monk, do you have kids (or nieces/nephews)? Surely you want to be a good "curator" for them. Dodo and White Rhino? What about Atlantic cod? All are close to extinction. Why? No one stops anyone from getting what they want. (If foolishness is free, don't be surprised if there is much foolishness.) I assume you keep your house in good repair because you know your kids or grandkids will get it. Another example? There are many Guernsey cows about. Why? "You take my cow, you're dead meat." General Rule? Define ownership, let the world work. The east coast fishery is a case in point. Horrifically sad. Trudeau and Ottawa bureaucrats destroyed it. Imagine a world without thieves. (Imagine you live in Iceland.) Theft insurance wouldn't exist. And insurance companies wouldn't need all those paper-pushers. The paper people could do something else more productive and enjoyable with their time - teach your children - and the world would be a better place.

I meant that the efforts to be a thief are immoral because they lead to efforts of no net benefit.But consider this: If people did not protect themselves from theft, then thieves would be rampant. In fact, it would be better to be a thief than to use one's time in productive activities. What kind of wasteful world would that be? My original intent was that the net benefit should be for society at large. You are right that I was not explicit about this.The issue here is how to add up the Cost to Person A and the Benefit to Person B to determine whether there is a Net Benefit for society. In theory, Person B could compensate for the cost suffered by Person A. In this sense, we still in principle have a morality that is objective. In an ideal world, if an action benefits me then it should also benefit society as a whole. (This would be the case if all relations were voluntary.) It's an assumption borrowed from Adam Smith. If people act in their own self-interest (net benefit to themselves) and their actions with others are voluntary market transactions, then this will lead to a benefit for all.This is counter-intuitive and certainly contrary to Christian teachings. Consumers' enjoy it when they consume (destroy) something. Hurricanes just destroy.Thelonlius, the purpose of life is not to produce; the purpose of life is to consume. By consumption, I mean all the ways you can spend a delightful Sunday afternoon. Many people in Florida have just lost their Sunday afternoons for the next several months. Common sense says that hurricanes and wars are bad. Well, common sense is right. [Curator? Why would anyone want to conserve anything unless the purpose was to consume it some time later?]

I think Bakunin is simply expressing a desire that Canada be a true Confederation. As to 1867, I believe Cartier said that it was the best deal for French Canadians under the circumstances. I don't believe that linguistic equality was the original intent; religious tolerance was a tolerated necessity. Laurier was Canada's first Catholic PM, and I believe he was the only one in his 1896 cabinet. But in principle, I agree with you eureka. The BNA Act was a practical document; its use has changed with time. One has only to think of the changes in 1931 through the Statutes of Westminster.

Here's how to apply for money. Note the dates you can celebrate.

Violated agreements? Crumbs? Ignore at will?Nafta's dispute mechanism is much better than the WTO. IOW, it is easier to trade across the border now than 20 years ago. The CBC grudgingly published this.

Stop with the French Socialist/nazi rigamaroll. It's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand and only highlights your compete unwillingness to learn anything that's not served to you in a easily digested soundbite. BD, the recent bombing in Jakarta, the bombing in Bali, the first WTC bombing in 1992, the USS Cole, the US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the bombings in Saudia Arabia against westerners, the theatre hostages in Moscow.... these are all "random", unconnected events? Or do you rationalize these events as efforts of unconnected underdogs to stand up to the powerful, dominant USA? Has it ever occurred to you BD, that these people might not like Western Civilization and want the victory of an obscurantist Islam? Uh, because the Chechens did not respect the autonomy given them? (Sorry, sorry, of course. Putin needed to get re-elected...)BD, if you adopt the Chechens as "underdog minority of the month", you will soon find your logic severely twisted.

Thelonius, this is utter nonsense. By the same logic, hurricanes are good for the economy. (The Canadian economy needs a couple of hurricanes, just like Florida has had... we'll all get rich.)This kind of argument is typical of the "Old Left". But Hubert Humphrey died a long time ago. For once, I agree with TS.

I think TalkNumb was referring to Daladier.

DAC: Actually, there is practical benefit one way or the other. If he succeeds in ripping me off, he benefits. If I succeed in preventing that, I benefit in that I do not lose what he would take. On the pragmatic approach to ethics that makes both actions "good". True, if a thief succeeds, he benefits - but at your expense. Every dollar a thief takes from you is one dollar less to you. But for society as a whole, there is no overall gain. Think of all the effort a thief devotes to stealing from you and all the effort you exert to preventing the thief. None of these efforts create any wealth; they are simply efforts to cut the pie differently. These efforts are wasteful and IMV, immoral.

Call it the New Right if you want but it amounts to the same usual suspects: Smith, Ricardo, Hayek, Bastiat, Friedman, von Mises, Marshall, Walras. Markets, by the way, are designed precisely to balance consumer/citizen interest."Tax-and-spend" is a term that applies to 1960s Democrats and their ilk. These are people who believe in Keynes and believe that government spending creates jobs. I would call them "Old Left". The last "Old Left" president in the US was Carter. I would classify Clinton as "New Left". That is, Clinton demonstrated an appreciation of how markets work and was in favour of free trade. Reagan and the 2 Bushes have, at most, wanted to limit the size of government. BTW, it is irrelevant whether the US federal government budget is in surplus or deficit. It is overall expenditures that matter. Marxism is as bogus as claims that the Earth is flat.Marx presented a theory of capitalism which purported to show that it was inherently unstable and would eventually collapse. This conclusion was in part based on the idea that capitalism leads to wealth being concentrated in a few hands, leaving the rest of us impoverished. I refer to people who believe these ideas as "Old Old Left". I am surprised they still exist. Vaclav Havel agrees with me. Your two questions are neither here nor there. But you can assume that one is beautiful and young and the other is ugly and old. The young one managed to get a good job and helped the older one to get a job in the same firm.My main point though was that economic growth makes the pie bigger (as Belinda Stronach kept saying). True, a larger pie is shared differently. The Old Left (and Old Old Left) laughingly dismissed this as a "trickle down" theory. In this, they demonstrated a tremendous ignorance of history. I ask all posters to think of the house/apartment they live in now and the kind of house/place their four grandparents were born into. Markets generate wealth, and it doesn't trickle down. It pours down so well, that we face environmental problems. Some numbers? US real per capita growth has been on average about 1.5% annually over the past 200 years. At present, the average US citizen receives about $35,000 each year. Given the past average growth rate, the average citizen will receive about $700,000 in the year 2200. Even if the poor in 2200 receive 10% of the average, they'll have an income of $70,000 annually. Sound strange? Well, take any poor person in Canada in 1925 (80 years ago) and bring them forward today to see how poor people live now. They would be shocked. Of all the poverty I have seen in this world, I have found nothing so distressing as the poverty in towns in the former Soviet Union. Ordinary people, in such a rich country, impoverished by misguided economic ideas. ---- I am saying that the Left has gone through a variety of permutations over the past hundred years or so. The Right has remained attached to same basic precepts. In general, I find that the "Old Old Left" (Marxists etc.) and "Old Left" (Tax-and-spend, big government etc.) are uncomfortable with numbers, markets, money. They have a vague suspicion that Wall Street is a big fraud. New Left at least has an appreciation of how markets function. The current Leftist disdain for corporations is a throwback to Old Old Left thinking. I suspect it is just an example of the profound turmoil in Leftist circles about their basic theories and the world around them. To be practical, consider this NDP candidate Gregor Robertson (New Left) and this NDP candidate Judy Darcy (Old Left). I am honestly waiting for a Leftist to come forward and defend markets, corporations and explain how the State can be a force for good.

I suspect the number was calculated in this way: our annual GDP is about $1 trillion so we have about $10 trillion in physical capital. With 30 million people, that's about $300,000/person. IOW, a family of four has assets of about $1.2 million. This ignores the intangible assets of one's own skills and abilities. A medical doctor has made a considerable investment by going to school for many years. That investment is not included in the number above. I might as well mention here that young people are poor and old people are wealthy. As the young become old, they will become wealthy. MS believes that we should even things out when life does that partly anyway. Lastly, farmers are among the wealthy because of the land they own. MS would somehow transfer their wealth to people in cities.

All I detect in your post, Thelonious, is the desire to treat the US as the big, powerful bad guy.Thelonious, your morality is the same found in Westerns: black hat and white hat. The big and powerful are bad. The small and weak are the underdogs and so good. Your post is a wonderfgul demonstration: The British were powerful and Americans weak, hence the Americans were the underdogs. But then the Americans were powerful and the American Indians weak, hence the Indians were the underdogs. Your morality is as simple as "Might is wrong."