benny

There are a very wide variety of basic income schemes. Here is my favorite: ti = k * (wm - wi) ti: transfer to the person i wm: mean wage in the population wi: wage of the person i k: a number of hours of work (each worker gives this quantity for redistribution purpose).

All to the contrary, because doing justice to people is very liberating and motivating, I think we want to get in that to save trillions and make trillions.

The question remains of what would be a non-arbitrary amount of money (purchasing power) to give to each human being. An answer based on the needs of people is not very satisfying because it leaves opened the question of what to do with the entire surplus that comes from social cooperation (the spillovers,...). I think a better answer is to start with the Gross World Product per capita (i.e. GWP divided by the world population) and then allow income inequalities only if they are judge legitimate by a deliberative assembly.

An unconditional monthly basic income scheme like the one proposed by Murray makes banks, hedge funds and a lot of other workplaces redundant since each individual, for a while once a month, becomes a small banker himself.

To function as a war deterrent, a state has to be public about its readiness to use its armed forces.

Libertarians like Charles Murray (of the American Enterprise Institute), following the path opened by Milton Friedman, wants to see welfare programs replaced by social dividends or a negative income tax. Give the money to the people, Murray argues in his 2006 book, In Our Hands : A Plan To Replace The Welfare State. His plan would give a $10,000 yearly grant to all Americans, once 21, who are not in jail. By doing so, non-workers will be seen for what they are: people wisely living out of a fair compensation for having traded away their direct access to natural resources. http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogator...00603270732.asp

If it was only of me, I would only get rid of the "i" and replace it by a "y" (bypartisanship).

"Earn" is too vague of a verb to conclude that.

I guess that in Canada we have more leisure than in the USA to go back to basics. I think that relatively to companies, we only have to capture all their economic rents. Economic rent is the difference between what a factor of production is paid and how much it would need to be paid to remain in its current use. Economic rents are the only kind of income that is undeserved. In more simple words, we only have to tax away from them 100% of the value of all the natural resources they used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

By deriding the Canadian army for wanting a break, FOX was only acknowledging that there is always a need for a military.

By definition, the fundamental role of an economy is to provide incentives for cutbacks and savings not at all to provide incentives for participation and production.

Why are market mechanisms driving down all production factors prices? Because no one really believes that those participating in the economy are making much of a sacrifice.

Here is why I think the evolution theory contains less meaning and truth than Christianity (listen from 4:45 up to the end of the 5th part of this presentation by my favorite philosopher):

To be fair about libertarians, I think we have to say that they want the society to look like the one that would have existed if minimal government would have always been the only form of government.

Contrary to Conservatives it seems, Liberals have nothing against working in a bi-partisan spirit.

For motivating the cops to do their duties, a magic 8 ball is not as reliable as the Registry they are asking for.

Among other things, you are confusing agreeing with the decisions of others and leaving the decisions to others.

Contrary to some (mostly white) Americans, Canadians are not paranoiac about the governments they choose to elect.

Harper made no decision for Ignatieff.

..............Canada Median income ...............All families (2005 $) .......................1984......1999......2005 Third 10%..........7770.....6820......6000 Second 10%.......780.......120.........10 Bottom 10%.....-2100.....-6570.....-9600 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/11206/4096770-eng.htm

Two notable political stances of Ignatieff: - Ignatieff's stance on Canada's Afghanistan mission is only an exemplification of his general approach to international affairs, an approach called The Lesser Evil approach. - On Quebec, Ignatieff endorses entrenching into the Constitution of Canada the recognition that Quebec is a nation.

No

Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff

Look page 3 (the table).

The statistics show that the poorest people are getting poorer. http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada