The Terrible Sweal

We should distinguish between two issues: the overall level of taxation; and the methods and effects of taxation. For the former, can it be agreed that taxes should be kept as low as possible to accomplish the democratically determined objectives of the state? It is respecting the latter question that I propose inheritance tax.

Canada's real-life Lex Luthor brought low!

I prefer to retain the three part structure with uncertainty first, because uncertainty also necessarily conditions points 2 and 3. The only ethical measurement of preferences arises from the three propositions. I'm sorry but with my lame French, I didn't get the Descartes pun. Explain?

Have your say.

Not in our 'free' societies. Government is an instrument through which the association of individuals carries out agreed functions. Government's authority is granted by the will of the people, not by itself. What sort of justification do you want? How about growth in assets under management? No. The government does not have to be involved. The market does a fine job of enforcing contract law by way of the self-creating penalties I already listed. I don't recall them. Justify your point or give it up. Alright then, let's be clear: penalties imposed by law vs. your sort of inherent penalties. So, in addition to inherent penalties, contract law does two things: provides some remediation and attempts to allocate the inherent penalties to the breaching party. That cannot be, because they are only incurred if the transaction is not carried out. In the market, the perception of risk of breach is factored into the cost of the contract by each party. The risk premium is part of the transaction price. The "consequences" of breach of contract are "penalties" because they do not depend upon the immutable laws of the universe, but upon the arbitrary laws of mankind. Are you sure you mean that? Reconsider in light of the distinction between court imposed penalties vs. inherent penalties. Is it not your argument that the market imposes 'penalties' automatically? !!! So are you now arguing for or against regulation? A lot of banks have now gone over to private arbitration for Visa and Mastercard accounts. On the back of statements, account holders now might find an advisory of the fact that they may not file a class-action suit or bring any dispute to public court, if their bank has done so (Citigroup has, for instance). In this private arbitration a private judge, paid by both parties, mediates the dispute. This has been done since the US Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that private arbitration could settle commercial disputes and is becoming increasingly popular. You'll find a lot of credit brokers and so forth who will ask you to agree in advance to private arbitration as part of your contract with them. The enforcement of this arbitration is also private. If the account holder is found wrong and does not fulfill the terms of the arbitration, he will find his credit rating plummeting, for instance. If the bank is found wrong and does not redress the account holder, the penalty will be bad publicity and the resulting loss of business that accompanies it, again, for example. The bold parts are inherent elements of state action which utterly belie your notion of 'private' here. The underlined portions indicate the fundamental reality about such 'private' regimes. The are 'private' subject to the law, (eg specifying consent). In the italicised portion, I don't see how the bank is being penalized. Are you seriously telling me you can't tell the difference between the concepts of "community" and "state"? Duh. No. I'm telling you there is no relevant difference between 'communities who produce their own law' and 'states'. What if I say "he is simply right"? You are not debating, you are bickering. Prove him wrong. You prove him right; you cited him. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I'm right with you there, kimmy. Like how about a little respect for human dignity?! As for Sharia arbitrations, I don't see how they can be precluded except by amending the Arbitration Act to limit the types of arbitrators people can choose from. If we are going to say, no Sharia panels, then presumably we will say no Backwood Mormon panels too. As for the wretched Muslim women, if they want to put their religion above their material wealth, isn't that their choice? Also, BTW, arbitrations under the Arbitration Act can be reviewed by the courts, and overruled if they are contrary to the law. Also, no matter what decisionmaking process a party agrees to, the courts would still apply general family law to questions re: children's best interests.

All right then.

The following quote is from Ronald Coase in an Interview with Reason magazine. Coase is not an ideologue, as he makes plain in the interview. Did each and every article published find regulation to be worse than none for the market? What types of regulation were considered? There is a substantial deficiency in this analysis as presented (Coase corrects in further down). The distribution of tranaction costs (e.g. enforcement) may be more efficient from one respect or another.

I refer you to my post of Aug 18 2004, 01:58 PM which began: To which you replied in a post of Aug 18 2004, 02:24 PM. I presumed at first that your quick reply meant you were familiar with these sources and concepts already. Sadly, I now conclude that you are not, and that you have been wasting my time. I'm sorry, aren't governments "associations produced by individuals"??? Alright, then yet again, I ask you to give me an example. "Insurance" is not sufficient, ... Still not listening. Prudential regulation of insurance (in Canada). There is the example. Surely you know all about that, right? Why don't you deal with what I actually say, rather than what you say I say. You're f...ing hard to take sometimes, buddy. Let me get this straight. You are saying that in the absense of contract law imposing a penalty, all contracts would be broken??? So you admit that regulation is imperative now? Are you arguing with me or agreeing with me? Anyway, you are mistaken. Contracts are entered for the most part voluntarily and therefor would for the most part be concluded voluntarily. The exception is cases where there is an advantage to be gained from the breach. Contract law removes the incentive to breach by removing the profit. It is true there are transaction costs involved in obtaining rectification. If anything, contract law in Canada errs by failing to impose the full weight of these costs on the lossing party. That describes the current state of affairs fairly accurately. Legal expenses are not a penalty. They are a transaction cost. I see the problem. You are mistakenly equating "penalties" with "consequence". They are not the same. Breach of contract is a negative welfare situation. Contract law is nevertheless not a negative-welfare regime. I am unfamiliar with the VISA system. Please explain how it is "enforced privately". That statement makes no sense. It is self-contradictory: "communities who produce their own law ... without state involvement". He is simply wrong.

DAC, you wrote: Everyone. Each individual. As reliable as possible under that circumstance. People who allow their self-interest to cause them to deny the consequences of the three basic principles (et. seq.) are not acting ethically. Ergo, their unethical deeds are not a basis on which to critique any ethics except theirs. Putting these principles to the test of logic will reveal their benefits. (Persons whose views are not amenable to logic, or who take a solipsistic view of ethics, will not be convinced, I suppose.) Think deeper: the criterion of usefulness derives from and is measurable in terms of the prefernces refrd to in prop. 3. Fairness, meanwhile, on the one hand is instrumental to usefulness (extrapolation), and on the other hand necessary to give full effect to proposition 2. Out of rational self-interest. Out of everyone's preference to serve their preferences. What is there about uncertainty that is superior? I'm not sure I understand your question. Uncertainty isn't an option, it's an elemental condition of our experience. Pragmatism is simply the philosohpy of usefulness (discussed above). I guess we're in that process right now.

No, democracy is not government. Government is the exercise of legitimised and institutionalised arbitrary power, which can be done with the trappings of democracy, but which also cannot. Then I need you to explain why you said: "It depends upon whether they have arbitrary power or whether they derive power from individuals who can choose to empower them or to not." This is not true. "Regulation" of the insurance market has created a nightmare. For instance, government has granted car insurance companies a cartel monopoly by stipulating that all drivers must be insured. You don't pay very good attention, do you? I said PRUDENTIAL regulation. Now you have given yet another example of something DIFFERENT. Explain how government regulation in these fields promotes efficiency. I already have -- reread. Or consult the sources I have cited. You assume that legal costs and other ancillary expenses of the dispute do not exist. No, I left them out specifically because they don't change the character of the contract law into a penalty based scheme as you characterized it. The are not relevant to this question. I had hoped you would have paid better attention to my comments. I pointed out already that so -called 'private' arbitrations all stand on the fundaments of state-established law, and state-enforcement if necessary. What utter drivel. You're such a fanatic you see enemies everywhere! I'm no statist. I haven't defended the harms you identified in your examples, have I? HAHAHAHAHA! You're hilarious! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! The more I read your criticism of my position, the less relevant it appears to be to what I'm actually saying. You seem to want to engage in an exchange of ideological diatribes, rather than a discussion of the available knowledge and information developed by serious economists. I think you choose to make (specious) objection to my comments just because you THINK what I'm saying SOUNDS LIKE something you should object to. I'll ask you again ... did you read those encyclopedia entries I refered you to?

The Fraser Institute sure has evolved! The passage you quoted actually made a lot of sense to me. Where would you complain about it specifically?

Ontario, NS, NB, and Quebec: Pre-constitutionally: existing self-governing entities, compacted through free democratic choice, together all at once to create Dominion of Canada. [Further, internationally: Quebecois would certainly qualify as an identifiable people entitled to self-determination rights, properly exercised.] PEI, BC, Nfld.: Pre-constitutionally: existing self-governing entities joining as such into the Dominion of Canada individually. [internationally, Nfld. might have a shot at identifiable people status, but I don't think it would be a sure thing.] Manitoba could be more or less like PEI, BC, Nfld. except it's pre-existing self- governing status is somewhat different. Metis could argue for identifiable self-determination too. Alberta, Saskatchewan: Pre-constitutionally: territory property of the Crown in Right of Canada.

It depends upon whether they have arbitrary power or whether they derive power from individuals who can choose to empower them or to not. So if they have a democratic character they are government, and therefore automatically distortive? Humbug. Re read my post of Aug 20 2004, 12:06 PM on this thread. Prudential regulation of insurance underpins the entire retail insurance market. Regulation of these matters has created the appearance of stability required for unsophisticated customers to believe the purchase has value. Your example of a hypothetical price regulation scheme is a different type of regulation, one I would not typically argue for. Yes, and? Such as what? Such as traffic regulations, prudential insurance regulation, some securities market regulation, and the rule of law generally. Oh? Then how is it enforced? If I win a contract dispute with you, you have to pay me my value under the contract, i.e. what, but for your breach, the contract would have paid me. This is not a 'penalty', obviously. I am not regulating an economy, I am regulating a free market. From the perspective of a free market, it's only and sole purpose include efficiency as an essential objective. You're so steeped in the ideology of Kapitalistysism you don't see the logic of the free market when it stares you in the face. But it does not, and I already went over this. Because an institution exists does not prove that the theory behind it is correct. Remember my example of absolute monarchy? You misunderstand the practice of economics, I think. The theory I refer to isn't 'behind' anything. It's an explicative theory. We start from the position: Look here, certain types of regulation exist. Fascinating. I wonder how it is they came to be? What Darwinian niche they've selected thru to be here, now? Since we are economists, let us consider if there is an economic answer for these questions, shall we? Then, you apply the availiable tools and decide, whether and what is the possible economic explanation for the existence of the thing, in theory. So, we NOTE in the environment that there is regulation. Thus we ASK how/why? And we FIND that economics says because it can improve market efficiency. And yet, you have repeatedly failed to prove it. I have failed to convince you, at least. Have you bothered to look into those encyclopedia articles I refered you to?

No one is arguing that point so far as I know. Your earlier comments that it was impossible for Alberta to leave confederation were unclear on this point. Sorry it was unclear. To be precise, I mean there is no legal means for Alberta to secede absent the consent of Canada (which ought not to be forthcoming). No, again, you're missing the point. Alberta and Saskatchewan are in a different category than Ontario Quebec, NS, and NB. Those four are also in a different category from PEI, BC, and Nfld. And arguably Manitoba is in a category of its own. Each category's status is different as it pertains to any extra-constitutional existence. In the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan they have none. You're half correct. Repealing the Clarity Act doesn't mean the government wouldn't have to entertain negotiations. It wouldn't affect the terms at all.

No one is arguing that point so far as I know. No, that is not my only leg to stand on. Even if the SCC decision was specifically about Alberta, it would not amount to a constitutional requirement for the government of Canada to accede to a secession, as I pointed out at some length. The government may be required to negotiate, it is not required to accede. Okay, there is a way Alberta could secede ... with the assent of the government of Canada and the other provinces through a constitutional amendment. I thought that went without saying. You're mixing things up. Look: 1) OF COURSE a Constitutional amendment can allow separation, but a province cannot obtain one without the consent of the federal government. 2) The SCC said there's no way within the existing constition (i.e. without an amendment) but that with a clear mandate Canada must acknowledge and negotiate with a province seeking secession 3) the Clarity Act specifies what conditions the government considers a clear mandate for it to be bound to enter negotiations. If it wishes not to negotiate on that basis, the Federal government could simply rescind the Clarity Act.

Yes. Quebec was a self-governing territory comprising an identifiable ethnic group before and since it has joined Canada whereas Alberta was not.

So according to your logic, Alberta couldn't unilaterally declare independence. But the Supreme Court has already said that no province can unilaterally secede (as shown in the reference August provided.) Your logic might (?) apply in the case of a province "putting itself outside the constitutional framework" but doesn't do anything to address secession from *within* a constitutional framework (for example, by following the process spelled out in the Clarity Act.) Yes, the Supreme Court did say that a province cannot unilaterally secede, in part because of the constitutional conditions I have outlined. Your understanding of the Clarity Act is a bit incorrect. The Clarity Act puts into statutory form recognition of some aspects of the SCC decision. All it does is specify the conditions on which the federal government can be called on to acknowledge a request to negotiate separation. It does not provide a roadmap to separation. And it doesn't specify what conditions or requirements may apply or be sought in such negotiations, or what happens if negotiations fail. Accordingly, the Clarity Act doesn't change the constitutional facts I have provided you with. Furthermore, if it did, it would probably be unconstitutional and thus invalid. The SCC found that there are not constitutional means to secession, for Quebec. They said only that if the clear will of Quebeckers was to depart from Canada, the federal government would have an obligation to negotiate about it. The decision did not apply directly to the other provinces except (perhaps) by analogy.

How odd. Personally, I find vague, empty attacks on Moore to be more telling of a lack of credibility.

But the Federal government doesn't have to do anything. Everything you describe there is a condition which prevails pursuant to the constitution (including all constitutional-level elements). Within that framework, everything you say is correct. WITHIN the framework. A provincial legislature purporting to put itself outside the framework would no longer constitute a constitutionally legitimate entity.

Fine words. Now let's have some meat. What are the basic principles of your philosophy of right and wrong? Where do they come from? Why should others accept them? What makes them better than the ethics of others who begin with different principles? The basic principles: 1. There is an inevitable element of uncertainty (relativism) in anything I or my fellow entities conceive. Whatever does or does not 'truly' exist, we can never absolutely know. 2. It appears that the common state of each human being comprises a distinct consciousness, to some extent unbridgeably separate, from any other human. 3. It appears that the consciousness noted above imbues each human being with a capacity to discern various elements of their environment and formulate preferences to act upon. ...The rest is simply elaboration. Provenance: They come from reading, education, observation and careful thinking. Acceptance: Others should accept them because they are useful, fair, reliable, etc. Superior merit: My basic principles are better starting points than other basic principles for three essential reasons: they acknowledge uncertainty, they capture/import the relevant pragmatic concerns, and they are rationally defensible.

If large expensive advertising campaigns (not to mention ownership of entire media organizations) cannot influence opinions, why then would you suppose that so much capital is deployed in attempting it?

Please elaborate? -kimmy The territory presently called Alberta is presently governed as 'the province of Alberta' by virtue of the constitution of Canada. In the absence of that status the territory currently comprising Alberta would simply revert to it's status as territory of the Crown in right of Canada.

I almost forgot this one. Just because Hitler fought against other socialists does not mean he was not one, ... Hitler was a 'socialist', like Shiang Kai Shek was a 'capitalist'!

The state. The judicial, legislative and executive. Those with arbitrary power. Those who derive their power from themselves rather than from others. You know what government is. Don't obfuscate. And why is this a good reason to add another? I wasn't obfuscating. I was wondering whether you would include self-regulating guilds or combines, for example, in your definition of government. As to the question why add another, you ought already know my answer since it's the point of this discussion between us: because it can improve the efficiency of the market (typically by ameliorating the problems caused by the others). Why do you? Your idea of contractural law, enforced by the state, uses exactly the same method, the penalties just differ. First, I don't. I'm talking about regulation which IMPROVES efficiency for a net gain in welfare. Second, you're mistaken: contract law doesn't typically impose 'penalties' at all. Third, contract law is merely an example of the range regulatory action I believe can be useful. Regulation is management. You already told me you were not talking about macromanagement, so I infer that you are talking about micromanagement. Please don't let terms slip around here. A little precision please, or don't you understand the difference between the terms macro- and micro- economics, and micro-management? In any event, I refered to what we can learn from micro-economics, and this has no necessary connection to micro-management as you seem to use the term. Now when you say "Regulation is management", I note you have dropped the 'micro' part. So now I don't know what argumentative content the equation (regulation = management) is supposed to have. Is that a bad thing? Why? Sure, but it cannot, so that's the end of that discussion. Very amusing. Your assertion is the end of the discussion? I think we're back at the beginning, with me saying that microeconomic theory explains the existence of regulation, and history proving what the theory would predict. Again, your ideology is preventing you from listening to my point: I am saying that regulation can and does contribute to the efficiency of the market (i.e. its contribution to positive-welfare). You accept the role of deterence through criminal regulation, as essential, but you refuse to accept the possiblity that differently constructed regulation can be useful. Why one and not the other? Why the negative, but not the neutral or positive?