benny

Unless it is link to conscientious striving, it is desert that is unworkable.

Because Putin seems still stuck in this Cold War mentality, I'd say McKay should sit right next to his American counterpart.

Canada can ask a share of jobs (at Ford) equivalent to its market share.

Signaling game easily explains the tails but not at all the eyes. ... Slavoj Zizek is a psychoanalyst very critical of neurosciences.

To become the biggest empire on Earth, the Commonwealth has had to overcome natural rights.

When no one deserves their wealth, all wealth becomes up for grab. What to do then is to be answered by moral philosophy. The Social Contract theory of justice claims that implementing a maximin or difference principle is the way to go.

Stalin' government had a very peculiar way to be adulated by the Russians.

So what!? Russians have much more reasons than Canadians to say the same.

No panic please! The Russians are already occupying a seat around the same table than the Canadians at the United Nations where this Arctic question should be dealt with.

"Deserving a gift" is an expression that is meaning-destroying. Women don't give birth because the next generation deserves to live.

One is breaking the spirit of generosity by being an advocate of deservingness.

All threads are about generosity, just like what a gift is all about.

Nobody deserves to receive a gift.

A rational consumer tries not to hire anyone first. If he has to hire someone, he then tries to hire a substitute to an expensive worker. This is what economic mechanisms are all about.

Yes. The rich who have inherited their money don't deserve it.

For Richard Arneson, being deserving is to have a will that is decisively oriented toward a blank check, i.e. aiming to do whatever it is that is morally right.

the authority of the law…

It does not.

The term "the law" signifies the principles upon which society is based, designating a mode of collective conduct based upon a set of prohibitions. However, the rule of the law conceals an inherent unruliness which is precisely the violence by which it established itself as law in the first place. "At the beginning" of the law, there is a certain "outlaw", a violence which coincides with the act itself of the establishment of the reign of the law... The illegitimate violence by which law sustains itself must be concealed at any price, because this concealment is the positive condition of the functioning of the law. The authority of the law stems not from some concept of justice, but because it is the law. Which is to say that the origin of the law can be found in the tautology: "the law is the law". If the law is to function properly, however, we must experience it as just. It is only when the law breaks down, when it becomes a law unto itself, and it reaches the limits of itself, do we glimpse those limits and acknowledge its contingency by reference to the phrase "the law is the law". In other words: The Law (makers) cannot and should not question itself. http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm

No, not wanting to lose money is simply being rational. Being risk averse means feeling something unpleasant (anxiety, etc.) before knowing the result of a gamble.

But still, do Canadians deserve their money?

But I think that the enemy within will always be our worst enemy.

Also by looking at Airbus and Boeing, we can say it benefits lobbyists who have fewer bribes to deal out.

Yes. I think that too much Canadians believe that because we have undefeatable natural borders (three oceans) we don't need an army.

Experiences show duopoly is very instable; just look at Airbus and Boeing for instance.