benny

As it is well known, producing all similar goods in only one location allows scale economies. This should help Canadians to say goodbye to Chrysler in Canada.

Until science shows how human consciousness may have been the product of natural selection, this debate between creationism and evolutionism will not be settled. Steven Pinker, one of the best Canadian scientists, has tried to show that in his book How the Mind Works (1997) without success.

If safety in the car business would really matter, I think Ralph Nader would have won a presidential race by now.

Don’t be dupe, Chrysler may well be pretending to (work behind the scene to) pull out of Canada so to be able to pull out more money from Canadian taxpayers.

Regulation must simply be related to market competition. If markets allow a firm (which is not taking risk or is not risk-averse) to earn a positive economic profit, then a regulation may be (Pareto) efficient.

Obama cannot have destroyed what didn’t exist: what is called an economy was only a bubble.

The question becomes why it is so easy to forget about Layton and the NDP. After all, he and his party are all but new. My answer (following Slavoj Zizek) is that we doesn’t want a smiley face as a leader, we want to be lead by someone who will listen to our Freudian slips and speak only to propose interpretations of our slips.

To me, the Law itself contains an outrageous element that is obvious when we say "the law is the law". To me also, anyone who understands what Kafka was writing about would be a good leader.

When it comes to defining contemporary North-American (neo) conservatism, I think we have to consider the expertise of Bob Altermeyer of the University of Manitoba. After empirically gathering data from a variety of sources and crunching it statistically, Altermeyer discovers three "attitudinal clusters" marking Right Wingers: 1. Authoritarian submission -- a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives; 2. Authoritarian aggression -- a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, which is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities; and 3. Conventionalism -- a high degree of adherence to the social conventions which are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

I'm living in the Laurier-Sainte-Marie riding (the riding of Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe). If CAMP is about to have a candidate in each Canadian riding, I may be interested to be a CAMP candidate here. What I would like you to consider though is that politics is much more about formulating polls but about answering them. More fundamentally, I think democracy is not about educating the public about facts; it's about allowing a mass of subjective beings to act as a people.

Why political conservatives care so little about natural conservation is to me a paradox. I think it may have to do with the understanding conservatives have that the God-like element in Man commands them to dominate nature.

To me, your democratic innovations can be easily adopted by existing political parties. For this reason, I also think CAMP would accomplish more as a political action group rather than as a party. When you write "public input" you seem to imply the input of aggregations of individuals. To me, democracy can do better than welcoming the input of individuals, who may all be pathologically narcissistic.

- Justice is always represented blindfolded to signify that impartiality is important to her. - Our society is in crisis; to me this means we have a good opportunity to rethink all our imperatives. - With his Lockean Proviso, it's Robert Nozick that I think has done the most to define conservative social justice.

I simply think that Justice, which is usually blind, should look backward (in past predatory practices) when there are more fishermen than fishes.

Don't we have auctions and a labor market so that each job may be allocated to the one sacrificing the least at work?

You know that when confronted to Emperor’s New Clothes, we only need someone who can articulate: 'But he hasn't got anything on.'

Yes. To me, since the world economy finds itself in a huge crisis after some years of predatory lending, we only need to question ourselves on the role of CORPORATE welfare.

Here in a nutshell why I think a new party should be welcomed: what is precious about democracy is the specific way is has to empty the place of the head of state. All the political parties we have seem traumatised by this emptiness. We need a new party that will be able to soothe this trauma. The person I see as leader of this new party would be much like the frail Muhammad Ali that was carrying the Olympic flame in Atlanta, in 1996.

The worst case of cheating I can imagine is for a person specifically elected to be sacrificed as a scapegoat to find a surrogate.

I thought THE LEVIATHAN by Thomas Hobbes, published in 1660, could be part of (explicit) general culture by now.

For example, the "welfare queen" is a useful fantasy to explain why taxes are so high.

Never forget that a hungry person has a natural right to steal food.

I’d rather say the role of welfare is to ensure that any person who needs to explain how come society is not a paradise can find a universal scapegoat.

Yes. So bad an habit that nobody now, it seems to me, can remember the time when the first Enclosure Acts were promoted on the basis that they would LOWER the pressure on those folks still using the remaining commons.

To me, fiscal responsibility can only mean one thing: feeling a duty as income earner to reveal publicly how easy it has been for me (relatively to others) to earn this income so that the tax I will pay can be fixed strictly proportionally. In other words, I think my tax rate should be strictly inversely proportional to (real) sacrifices I have gone through to get the income.