The Terrible Sweal

If these companies are publicly traded, could you tell me the names of them? I want to make sure that I dump any stock in any company idiotic enough to make business decisions for political reasons. Most people here are aware that trade with the U.S. is a substantial portion of our economy. The question is, why and in what way that should be taken into account in non-economic matters.

kimmy said: I take it that you feel it is appropriate to dispense with the concept of state territorial sovereignty. What new system, method, procedure, or criteria would you have replace it, then?

In a little bit of denial about the Black Plague, are we?

Leaving aside that the words you use have no real practical distinction, making our federation looser would certainly not please everyone. Me for example. I think the problem with confederation is that the provinces have too much power now. The larger provinces should be broken up into smaller ones. Three for BC, two for Alberta, four for Ontario, three for Quebec. And maybe the maritime provinces should be combined into one.

But... but ... but... Digby says he's not against quotas, only badly implemented quotas.

Too many taxis would cause a loss of private welfare and a few would quit the business. Or do you suggest we create a licensing system for coffee shops? (Heck we may have done that.) 1) Unregulated taxis would swamp the streets. Also, conceivably, the barrier to entry disinsentivises poorer operators. 2) The public has an interest in the private welfare of its members. Uno- the whole concept of inheritance is virtually indefensible from either a liberal or libertarian standpoint. Dos- Houses are not fish and vice versa. Houses are artefacts, fish are an element of our natural world. No, I'm suggesting that than the government should not arrogantly create a novel type of interest over a novel form of 'property' over which it's authority to do so is questionable and its obligations not to are arguable. I'm surprised you, August, in particular should be so keen to distort the market in this fashion. A yearly auction is a better system because: -it is structurally more liquid on the supply side, thus improving liquidity on the demand side as well; -it avoids entrenching the starting-point advantages of some market participants (which tend to become inefficiencies over time); -it retains the government's flexibility in performing its ongoing stewardship role while obtaining optimal returns on the license price for the public coffers.

The taxi license is an arbitrary restriction. The ITQ is to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons. Too many taxis would create a loss of public welfare just like too much fishing. How is that different from what the government did? IOW, what prevents someone from leasing a quota from an owner? Apparently the government created a lifetime entitlement, not a temporary license. Leasing quota from an 'owner' does not solve the problem that quota should not be converted into some lifetime entitlement.

In a previous life, you were an apologist for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, right? "Comrades have choice. Comrades choose us. Democratic proletariat party."TS, what I meant was that a democratic choice exists in Quebec but it is between a federalist party and a sovereigntist party. This is true both in federal and provincial elections in Quebec. Quebec's divide has now spilled over to Canadian federal politics. One consequence is that many Ontario voters will choose the group with federalist support in Quebec. Quebec society is locked into a severe, democratic tug-of-war and the consequence for Canada is a one-party state. The consequence for Canada is that the voters choose, in election after election, the party they deem most able to meet their perceived needs.

Not a need to reject it -- just insufficient incentive to cater to it. Obviously, my point is that we should not. Indeed, why should parroting be such a seemingly important part of the 'education' process? But your 'basics' here is an arbitrarily established, blindingly obvious, and unhelpful catchphrase. Not remembering that a fundamentally important concept also has a pointless catchphrase attached to it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. I doubt you've tried that hard. My reason for this doubt is that your have a mistaken grasp of my point. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be responsible for knowing important information. I'm saying: 1) they may not feel inclined to recite such data pointlessly; and 2) the particular data in your example isn't as important as you suggest. Well here's some information sources: Sources: Well, let me know when that starts to happen.

Please try to be serious. You're saying that Canada is undemocratic because the voters consistently elect the party of their choice. Wow, what a tyranny! You mean, again, the governments duly elected by the voters, right?

Hmmm. (Thinks out loud.) If I collect rain water, and sell it to Americans is that different from collecting sunlight and selling it as electricity? Well, sold rain water is no longer available (but then neither is sunlight). Rainwater, hmmm. If the 'owner' of a mountain wants to collect all the precipitation from it, she could conceivably dry out entire towns and villages down-stream from it. Interesting problem. It would be more precise to say that our interests are for the most part common, for the foreseeable future. The italics portions define areas of risk. If we don't sell it, that's what happens. Good point. Fresh water is a renewable resource. Well, no. First, it doesn't just 'run out' into the ocean. It travels through streams and aquifers providing an essential characteristic of the physical/resource environment. Each molecule that finds its way to sea has in doing so carried out a whole lot of important 'work' along the way. Second, it is certainly not 'renewable' in the sense that any human action can renew it. (Unlike new-growth forests, for example.) It may appear to renew, but we don't have a hand in it doing so. This is true of many subterranean resources. It doesn't stop oil or gas from being privately owned and exploited. That was a response on a different point, actually.

Ah, but that's just it, isn't it? What is a 'meaningful' sense of ownership anyway? For example, do you believe Canadians 'own' their land property? Unfortunately, that system would have unacceptable consequences. Siphoning your own land drains your neighbors' too. Your freedom to take the water from 'your' land, would deprive them of 'their' water, or force them into a race with you to remove the water in toto. You forget the unfortunate NAFTA constraint. If your collecting it interferes with the 'rights' of others, then, obviously Yes.

This caused a hypothesis to occur to me ... A human developmental phase occurs, let me speculate, in around the early-mid teen years wherein the mind seeks to establish a relationship between oneself and the broader society. Possibly, modern society (and sit-and-learn schooling in particular) fail to provide for this requirement.

This represents a problem, in my opinion. They have the same problem with taxi licenses in some cities. The government has created a 'property-like interest' over entitlements which by their nature cannot be properly made into a property 'right'. A much better system would be for the state to lease out quota year over year, in lots, in a transparent auction process.

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view? I don't consider them reasons, just nonsense and excuses. So you say. But why should anyone take note of your considerations? Did you have a case to make. I have outlined (briefly) some basis for opposing water sales. You have asserted opposition, but have yet to articulate your basis for that position. Do you have any?

Other than ignorance, consider other possible reasons. Perhaps your fellow students couldn't bothered to look smart by parroting earlier learning just for the sake of faux Socratic method. Or perhaps the definition of "the marketting concept" (a philosophy which takes the customer, and the satisfaction of his or her needs, the focal point of all business activities) has been properly judged by your fellows as a relatively unimportant catchphrase which is not needed to be committed to memory. In other words, perhaps your fellow students' enhanced crtitical thinking skills lead them to the behaviour, rather than ignorance. It is probably fallacious to quate physica labour with enhanced individualism, if a properly broad historical perspective is taken. This comment suggests you harbor an antimodern attitude. I dn't understand why you dismiss the significance of space exploration. That's an ironic comment coming from a marketting whiz!

I find the Maury Povich show to be particularly distressing for these performances. He showcases a particularly socially destructive format.

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view? I don't consider them reasons, just nonsense and excuses. So you say. But why should anyone take note of your considerations?

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view?

Meat and wheat are presumably commodities. And what does NAFTA have to do with it? Despite claims to the contrary, sellers can always refuse to sell. (Expropriation might be the exception.) At issue with NAFTA is non-discrimination. The merits of their argument or yours rise and fall on the question of how NAFTA is enforced. I'm afraid that discussion is beyond my time resources just now. By that logic, the State should also control meat and wheat production since food is vital for life.TS, I'm not arguing with you. I'm curious why water gets singled out. We are upset when Americans won't buy our meat and wood and we are upset when Americans want to buy our water. Meat and wheat are renewable, have effective substitutes, and are already commodified. Also, our trade relations in respect of these commodities are afflicted by certain difficulties which perhaps some think we shouldn't expose ourselves to over an additional 'commodity', i.e water.

You need some additional elements for completeness. First, note that Israel declared its own statehood shortly prior to the UN doing so on its behalf. Also, it usually bears mentioning that there was a somewhat reciprocal exodus/expulsion of each side's people just prior to the Arab states' attack.

Because that assumption is not true. Israel is a big human rights abuser. It is targeted for its acts. yes, Israel is a human rights abuser but the point of the opposition is that countries who's abuses are far more deadly, are being ignored, while Israel is being crushed for everything that it does (not that that is bad, but it should be applied thoroughly). I wonder. It seems to me that those parties who defend Israel with the 'Yes-but-look-who's-worse' angle could equally be asked why they themselves are only vocal about China's abuse record when it serves the purpose of diverting criticism.

Council of Canadians At the same time, people seem upset that Americans won't buy our lumber. What gives? What's so special about water? Is this connected to some deeply rooted need to cleanse oneself? They argue that water 'belongs to everyone', and it shouldn't be 'appropriated for profit'. I'm not sure what they mean by all that exactly. But perhaps they mean that as a natural resource vital for life the state (on behalf of society at large) can and should assert control over it for the public good. Apart from this general principle, however, there is also a technical trade-law risk in that commodifying water puts it under the jurisdiction of NAFTA.

In what terms? In the terms of his society and his knowledge of it I'm willing to bet that he was far better placed than the 14 year old today. He probably knew more math, could read and write better and with more eloquence, having been forced into much closer acquaintance with the writings of classic authorss and philosophers than a modern 14 year old, and was better acquainted with the science of his time. More to the point he would be considerably more mature, for he would have been required and expected to be so for some years, not coddled and excused as children are today. And yes, I'm aware that compared to him I was coddled and excused. We need to fix clearly who we think of as typical. 100 years ago a substantial chunk of 14 yr olds were already done with any formal education. Those who had the advantage of more education were likely diligently trained, but the body of knowledge available was much smaller, and criticality much less developed and informed. But the same is true of non-young people as well. Igorance seems to be the prevalent condition everywhere.

Rome wasn't built in a day.