The Terrible Sweal

Hugo: Contracts cannot predate contract law, by definition. I have no idea what you can possibly even mean by a contract which predates law. Anyway, I don't need to worry about the strawman of self-regulation. YES, markets have self-regulatory capabilites. ALSO, there are situations where regulation can overcome market failures due to information asymmetry. Nonsense. Read the underlined sections again. Massive loss of business would be a negative outcome, I'm sure you would agree. In theory. What I don't see is how it is made to come to pass in this Visa system. Really? "Sued" where? I doubt that's what I said. Perhaps I said something more like 'there are situations where regulation can overcome market failures due to information asymmetry'. You would have less trouble understanding me if you read what I write instead of imagining it. Very well, let me correct you. I said that regulation can (i.e. in appropriate cases) improve market efficiency. By regulation, I mean imposed on market participants by an entity otherwise exogenous to the market (most commonly a government of government ageny). Note, I am dealing specifically with micro-economic markets, not the (macro) economy. Communities you are describing are also fictional. Atlas Shrugged is just a story. Anyway, it's clear you are not going to look into that encyclopedia I refered you to, so your commitment to this particular conversation lacks sufficient value, from my perspective. A la prochaine.

Based on what? Destruction of wealth.

She refers to what I call the 'relativist conundrum', which confounds philosophy and increasingly other intellectual pursuits these days. It may be an unanswerable question. I argue, however, that it is an AVOIDABLE question at the level of policy/choice.

On the contrary, it is exercise of free expression. Since the phrase chanted contains no indication whatsoever that these people intend to impose this measure in violation of anyone's rights, it is not for you, their enemy to baldfacedly impute a nefarious motive to them. At least, not unchallenged.

Several points, for precision's sake: 1. Provinces are designated the 'administrators' of the natural resources within their borders. 2. Administration is not legally identical with 'ownership', nor 'sovereign title'. 3. Provincial administration authority does not preclude the legitimate exercise of federal constitutional powers (e.g. the NEP).

Incorrect. "Alberta" does not contribute equalization payments. Regular federal taxes collected everywhere in Canada are partly distributed based on provincial neediness based on the equalization formula.

How far down? What has the farmer done to 'own the surface' that he did not do to own what is underneath? You guys are confusing different concepts. Individuals' property rights are held 'of the crown'. Crown property rights are hled pursuant to constitutional and international conventions of sovereignty. They are therefor not comparable, as the former depends entirely upon the latter.

Why? Stoker: Because the territory that comprises Alberta is only a province pursuant to the constitution. Absent the constitutional status as a Province, the territory simply belongs outright to the Crown in Right of Canada. IMR: No, it has nothing to do with any deficiencies of Albertans, real or imaginged.

Has it ever occurred to you that people listen but do not agree with your point of view? Well, that's certainly not the experience I have when I discuss politics with many right-wingers.

It's perfectly rational to hate Bush. He's the worst president in history.

You have no such power. Alberta can't separate.

Why? Could Quebec if it wanted? Merely if it wanted? No. But Alberta and Saskatchewan even less-so.

The presidency of George Bush, and the pre-eminent position of the Repug party simply defy my ability to comprehend. I simply cannot understand how any voters accept the lies and depravities foisted on them. Observing from Canada, if Bush wins this election it will be like watching someone cut off their hand while in thrall to an evil hypnotist and not being able to stop it. WAKE UP! SNAP OUT OF IT!! YOU'RE CUTTING OFF YOUR HAND!!!

Nature. Evolution. Experience. A competitive nature inspires improvement of skills and self, and is probably inherent in the survival instinct. It must be tempered, of course.

Alberta does not own the oil, so it doesn't matter if Albertans get pissed off if the federal government asserts its legitimate jurisdiction for the benefit of all Canadians. Alberta's whining about the NEP is such utter crapola it should be embarrassing for them. Boo hoo, Alberta had tough economic times during the energy crisis. Well guess what? So did a lot of other people. As to breaking up the country, no. Alberta can't separate.

Hard pressed? No, that's easy. "Fox News off the air!" is a perfectly legitimate message if you are seeking to recruit others to boycott Faux out of existence through individual choice.

Exactly. Just as the lead post asks ... what is the purpose of this absurd geographic approach to windfall and woe? What purposes do provinces actually serve except to prevent Canada from working as a unit?

1. What if tax policy were appropriately amended to somehow wash out taxes on taxes while still putting in inheritance tax? Would you support inheritance tax then? 2. You say the government has no right to tax Joe Shmoe at death because it already taxed him. But surely this is not true. If the government can tax its citizens at all, it can tax them in any fashion it enforces equitably. In other words, what rule says the government has no right to tax them again? Answer, none. The goverment does have that right. 3. Obviously an effective inheritance tax regime would have to be set up to capture wealth tranfers of various kinds.

I thought that it was illegal to tax a tax. I suppose I am wrong because it happens, but was this not illegal at one point in time? Does anyone know for sure? It isn't illegal, it's just bad policy.

You've hit the points right on. Rightwing economists tell us it is optimal to have wealth remain in the control of those who have created it. So, if the creation of wealth is the justification for possessing it, then clearly inheritance runs contrary to this principle. Also, it is question able why the state provides the apparatus for inheritance at all. Should not the needs of citizens (persons alive) outweigh the obsolete whims of non-citizens (the dead)? And then there's the merit principle and its essential underpinning: the principle of equality of opportunity. It is clearly not economically optimal to place wealth into feckless hands out of nepotism when there are others who could be more effective in its use.

Clarification necessary! She got no benefit, or she PERCEIVED no benefit?

Well, not only should one not undertake a task if there is no 'net pleasure', no-one ever does (except by mistake).

Sweal, I think this admirably expresses your logic. You give on your own authority three principles which you claim are a logical base for ethics. When they are challenged you say that anybody who disagrees with you is unethical. You fail to understand my point, I guess. I posited the basic principles for a system of ethics. Your critique amounted to saying 'yes, but some people will be unethical'. My reply is that this fact in no way amounts to an argument against my position. Just as the fact that some people will be immoral isn't a substantive critique against religious morality. Are you shure? I think you have yet to give them thorough logical assessment. I don't understand what you are trying to get at here. What do you mean by 'pragmatic goals'? If you have a goal which strongly conflicts with the goals of those around you, it is not a pragmatic goal, as they will prevent you from acheiving it. I've told you that myself many times. BTW, neither does denying a position make it either untrue or illogical. How would you propose I 'show' you that?

The box is irritating. Also, I clicked it and found the interface very annoying as well, so I didn't complete the process. Perhaps using the forum's own Poll function would be better.