benny

When I try to imagine what kind of arguments would settle international conflicts in between relatively creative countries with relatively free-riding countries, I can only think about arguments revolving about cost (sacrifices).

The producer.

It will not push money outside the US because, by shutting off tax heavens, Obama is only participating to a G8 common effort to shut off all such entities worldwide.

I believe the case of Iran is particularly interesting because it may show that if rulers want an educated population then they also have to deal with its capacity to detect election frauds. Maybe Iranian rulers are propping up higher education in the population to get the nuclear bomb but they may also well have to deal with their population insisting for democratic processes as high tech as the nuclear technology.

As a leader of a democratic party, Layton can express both his personal opinion and the one of his party. Call this flexibility, not hypocrisy.

Around the world, people are ready to die for democratic reforms. These people are poor and sick although their countries often have lot of natural resources. More precisely, these people are poor and sick because their rulers have accepted kickbacks from foreign companies for these natural resources. The technologies these countries have are used to finance these rulers' luxurious and exclusive lifestyles. To end this corruption, the people have to take over technologies. The high dose of courage it will take to adopt online voting is the same courage we need to end political corruption. If Canada wants to show the best kind of leadership in the world, Canadians have to open themselves to high tech democratic processes.

You hit the very same bull's eye!

Politicians who can use a pandemic to start a world war (on a fake humanitarian motive) could rapidly take control of the world. If you want to die in the middle of this nightmare go on with your ill will.

Putting in place e-voting is I think urgent because more and more politicians worldwide right now are, like Ignatieff, what political philosophers call biopoliticians: that are, politicians who believe in the emergent logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: war is OK insofar as it really serves to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help.

About the length of authorship and patent protections, I think the policy of the new Centrist party should revolve around the sacrifices that were required by authors and inventors to create something new. The bigger the sacrifices, the longer should be the duration of the legal protection against copies.

Epidemiologists often say about pandemics the question is not "if" but "when". But if our government is mishandling this next pandemic, it will have to be replaced quickly, in an election hopefully, during this plague.

Don't you feel a bit sad for the long way Pliny has to go!?

Bull's eye!

Pandemics are in big part due to the fact that not growing ourselves the food we need has destroyed ecological barriers.

This post is garbage since it depends on garbage.

Since, I think, we are entering an era prone to epidemics, elections requiring public gatherings may become shaky political events.

Appellate courts expediting their caseloads is a wise way to discourage litigants of abusing judicial procedures.

Bloc Pot's supporters are publicly attacking what Canadians have right now, as political parties, to defeat the Conservatives.

The football session has already begun here!

Somehow, those who are active in politics only to advance this single pot issue seems to believe that talking about and/or smoking pot can by themselves change the world for the better!

Yes. At first, I was wary that there are out there people who do not have internet access, not even a phone, but it comes to me that that was a static reasoning presupposing and maintaining powerlessness. Right now, people buy computers for all sorts of reason except political participation. When people will come to buy computers mainly to: first debate political matters and then vote (if there is no strong enough consensus), we will know that we have a democracy.

They mint it.

Making money is a collective venture.

In politics, we have to follow the money rather.

In here, "show" is a cynic word.