The Terrible Sweal

No, it does not. The greater the economic freedom, the greater the prosperity. Take a look at the economic freedom index and comparative real incomes, etc., if you don't believe that. This would really be a more productive discussion if you would move beyond the sophistry of received ideology. Even presuming that the figures you reference are fully acceptable, your comment is contigent upon the actual content and meaning of 'economic freedom'. And you still ignored the point that extreme 'freedom' is not optimally efficient. Absolutely and completely, because any attempt to prevent "market distortion" is market distortion. It is self-contradictory. There is only market distortion where state interference makes it so. Now we can play games around the definition of 'distortion', eh? But instead let's again question your presumption: Why do you contend that state action (no matter how beneficial) is 'interference', but untrammelled participant behaviour (no matter how abusive) is acceptable? I ask again what criteria are you using, since neither efficiency nor fairness seem to be underlying your position. You are mistaken. There is no necessary premise of deterministic monopoly outcomes needed to support Anti-trust laws. They are based on the premise that market participants may have opportunities for unfair advantage in the market through collusion or a dominant position, and that taking such opportunities is abusive to the market and overall welfare. Accordingly, your digression on monopolies is moot. Got it. For me, however, I'm not very interested in the discussion of the specific rules -- I'm happy to concede they can use improvement. So, where a practice improves market efficiency, and thereby increases overall welfare, you may find yourself opposing it solely on ideological grounds, right?

Starting broad and getting narrow, begin with the rule of law itself which you alluded to but haven't given full acknowledgement. Then add the principle of equality before the law -- the ability of regular citizens to enforce contracts with the aristocracy and the government greatly enhanced the willingness of merchants to undertake works for them. More specifically, government regulation of insurance has contributed substantially to the extent of coverage purchases we see in our society at the level of the retail consumer. Consider also highway traffic regulations which enable the road system to function at all, and thus the market for automobiles to reach its current level. Why do you begin with the premise of doubt for the state's ability to improve contracting costs? Surely at the level of cases, it depends on the reason for the costs, and the nature of the proposed solution. You say that markets fail for a reason, but it is equally true to say that governments and regulations exist for a reason -- because of the purposes they serve.

Unfortunately, antitrust laws have nothing to do with "trust" and everything to do with putting high-priced lawyers in command of the economy. Fewer Rightista Rostums and more substance, please. From your earlier comment, it appeared you were complaining about anti-trust rules as a general principal, but now you appear to be really concerned about specifics and application issues. I too would favor greater clarity in any regulatory regime rather than leaving persons guessing how to comply. Well, now you're back to principles again, but to what avail. Your position represents an extreme perspective on economic liberty, and a reductionist understanding of property. Okay, fine. Economic market theory, however strongly suggests that your ideas are not optimally efficient. Accordingly, you must have some other criteria than efficiency which you are concerned with. What, I wonder? You're merely polemicizing. I know what anti-trust rules are about. They are intended to prevent market distortion through collusion or dominance. Do you object to that INTENT?

Honestly, I am surprised. Then again, I guess I would be jealous too if I were a middle-aged overweight computer geek who never learned to throw a ball. Sorry, I'm a little upset at the complete and utter lack of support for our countries athletes, best in the world or not. There's a missing premise in your position. Why should athletes have our support in the first place? The benefits of sport in general are a far cry from the whinging of our feckless 'elite' athletes and the decadent bilge of the IOC. Indeed. And the Olympics fail utterly to do so. The goal of Olympic competition is about as unhealthy as you can get, and the role models equally so. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Now that was a good one.

Your reasons are a sufficient explanation for the United States to support Israel as an ally and friend. But they are not sufficient reason to support Israel in the oppression of the Palestinians.

I don't follow? Do you mean that the United States equals material wealth? Someone said the U.S. serves Mammon. You replied it is natural for a state to serve it's ownf interests. Ergo, I presumed that you equated the interests of the US with the interests of Mammon, a position I find peculiar.

Rigged or not, George Bush was not properly elected on the basis of ballots cast.

Hugo and August... Consider: Akerloff, "The Market for Lemons", 1970. Also, I would direct you to the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics in general and entries relating to completion of contracts and securities regulation in particular. There is some academic debate around whether and what regulations there should be, but the theories which justify them are fairly commonly known by economists. In principle, a market in which participant information costs outweight their expected benefit from transactions will not come into existence. Or, put another way, any market only comes into existence when the potential participants can benefit from participating. Only where there is a basic level of reliability do information costs become affordable, and participation occurs. 'Trust builds markets'. So, in theory, regulation which reduces participant information costs will increase market participation and thus depth and efficiency, increasing overall welfare. I would argue that the entirety of human progress since the renaissance at least demonstrates the truth of this theory.

You have a bit of a naive take on the basis for economic regulation. Information and transactional inequity are known to hinder market growth. Imposition of economic regulation such as the two you mention are in fact instrumental in expanding market participation and depth.

i'm usually on the other side of this issue, but in this case the halfway house and/or corrections have specifically failed this particular community. the residents are right to complain and because of the failure the should be relieved from the problems.

What country doesn't look out for itself first? The U.S. = Mammon?

Then we should eliminate the provincial level of government altogether. Have large county/municipal governments and one national government.

I think it's time to examine who there actual is out there in favor of supporting Canada's 'elite' athletes with tax dollars. Who benefits by this policy? Who advocates it? I mean talk about a 'special interest'! -- Worthless Diletantism.

I am well aware that is your argument. I have addressed your argument to the satisfaction of any sane neutral observer. Science does not rely on 'blind faith' no matter how often you may say so. Science doesn't know how where the universe came from. That is not blind faith, that is an admission of ignorance. Recite all you wish, it isn't 'blind faith'. Rationality requires you to argue the issue. What I said was specific, that secularism (scepticism about religion according to my dictionary) goes on blind faith about origins. Say it as often as you like, it is not the case. 'Secularism' does not offer an explanation of origins. Science offers the most probable explanation that scientists can generate and admits that it may be wrong. For you to repetitiously call this 'blind faith' makes a mockery of the meaning of the words 'blind' and 'faith'. There is NO "assumption" that the universe didn't come from "God". There is an assessment of the probabilities of the various possible explanations. I find it very peculiar that you can repeatedly tell me something and yet even when I review your posts I can find no evidence of such. Where did you repeatedly tell me that? In fact, I have been urging you repeatedly to offer some support for the validity of religion and you have repeatedly resorted to (faulty, hackneyed) criticism of science at each turn. Yes. Now how about doing what I've asked and offer support for the claims of religions OTHER THAN criticism of science? Do you somehow fail to understand my words??? You seem literate... how is this possible? Then I have missed it. Where is it? It comes from the Bible. While the essence of the Bible’s teaching is simple, you are the first person I have met who would call it a simple book. Nowhere in the Bible is there any development of the notion of humanity bound through some "federation" with Adam as representative or any of the other legalistic drivel you expatiated. Cite the relevant verses if you can refute me. What are you talking about??? It will be completely adequate for you to simply cite the numbers of the relevant verses. I have a Bible here, thanks. Romans 9:20 “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” How on Earth do you get from there to God appointing Adam as my representative? I don't see any reference to Adam there. See, this is exactly the problem with religion ... you're just making stuff up to suit yourself. Even if he made us, on what basis do you conclude we 'belong' to him? Do grown children 'belong' to their parents? No. Say it if you wish, but saying it doesn't explain or justify it. If God created us with free will, then surely S/he/it was prepared for the consequences of free will. Otherwise omniscience is a word without meaning. ... Let me be more careful, more explicit. I presented evidence that what we have now is for all practical purposes the same as the original new testament as it was written in the time of the apostles (who were authorized as Jesus’ spokesmen) ... So THEY claim. And the support for this claim is what? Only the claim itself. How do you know that? Who made the record that indicates Jesus accepted the Old Testament? (And meanwhile, I think there is ample material in the New Testament to cast doubt on this "acceptance", starting with the very existence of a New Testament at all. For example? For example? Nonsense. The Gospels as we have them were selected from among numerous religious writings of various persons (including supposedly some apostles) by the bishops at the behest of Emperor Constantine. That is what history and archaeology tell us. Which close associates? Even if the were written by the apostles, how does that make them correct? Who says? Pardon me, but I'll have to return to this at another time.

. But unfortunately, only to that point.When he says he is outlawing laws against theft, murder, false witness .... These are all expressions of morality. Not in the least. Theft is outlawed because of the pragmatic necessity to protect property rights. Whether a particular theft is 'moral' or not depends very much on the factual context. Murder and 'false witness' prohibitions are also pragmatic necesities (which is why they were devised by the ancient hebrews (and others) in the first place. Not in the least. Your 'morality' and that of someone else may differ quite substantially and the government's task is not to choose one or the other as 'moral' but rather to adopt a pragmatically useful regime as directed by the citizenry at large. To the extent the citizenry is animated by common moral sentiment the government may be directed to adopt them by democratic impulse, but that to is pragmatic rather than 'moral'. Indeed, DAC, I defy you to provide a useful meaning for the term 'moral' at all. Except for fact demonstrable through reason, there is no other meaningful standard than that of 'the people'. Who, other than the people, is constrained by the standard? Who, other than the people, does the standard serve? Accordingly, who, other than the people, should be the reference for the standard. Stuff and nonsense. Who interprets the teaching? Which teaching should be adopted? Until theists can answer such questions sensibly all the appeals to God's authority are appeals to mere personal aesthetic. (Which, I scarcly need point out, is hardly a basis for any sort of useful standards.) Crap. Such vapid assertion doesn't merit analysis; mere denial suffices. So... no, you are wrong. False. Which just brings you back again to the same problem. Which teachings? Selected how? Applied to the concerns of the moment by whose interpretation? Can you even begin to answer these very basic questions? I doubt it.

The media collectively are a total disgrace. They have no respect for their audience, the truth, or their own role in society. Anyone who has ever been personally involved in something reported in the media knows that the reports are always, always wrong in some respect.

In other words, please forget the lies, abuse, and illegality of what was done. How about one good reason why?

Stephen Hachemi insists that Canada is not doing enough to secure justice for the killing of his mother Zahra Kazemi in Iranian custody. Stephen Lewis insists that Canada is not doing enough to alleviate AIDS in Africa. Gerry Caplan insists that Canada is not doing enough to prevent atrocities against civilians in Sudan. Numerous people insist that Canada is not giving enough away in foreign aid to every third world hellhole out there. I'm tired of such utter crapola. Before we accept even a stitch of such criticisms we should demand of these polemicists what premise they allege which engenders such obligations. Unless and until they do so, Canada has no obligation in any of these cases. Charity is not a duty. These do-gooders who want to recruit our action should have the decency to treat with us in a fashion which respects our ethics as they exist not as they want them to be.

Ludicrous. No-one 'legislates secular belief'. First, legislation relates to behaviour and conduct, not belief. Second, 'secular belief' is a meaningless formulation. Institutional secularism is not premised on 'belief' at all. It is premised on pragmatism determined through democratic means. Third, this method is chosen over use of religious criteria because (a) religious criteria are not and cannot be sufficiently inclusive to sustain the democratic principle, and ( religious criteria are not amenable to pragmatism. You're fudging. The CHP says that Christian belief should inform and regulate ALL political action. It seems you never tire of braying the same nonsense. Once again: 'Secularism' is not a religion. It is not even an ideology. It is a term for describing the ABSENSE of religious motivation. Your insistence that secularism is something, which by its very meaning it is not, is simply absurd. Your repetition of such absurdity smacks of disingenuouity. Utterly ridiculous statement. How can someone 'LIE' who genuinely thinks they are telling the truth? HOOEY. Intolerant of the objective of wishing to destroy our society and replace it with theocracy? Yep, and unapologetically so. Religion was extracted from the state for good reasons and there are no good reasons to allow it to creep back in.

Certain societies where women were or are scarce have had institutional polyandry. A variant in certain parts of eastern europe will usually involve a women having two or more brothers as her husbands, for example. You posit that polygamy is necessarily abusive. Other than the fact that in many cases it is, I don't see why you would claim that polygamy is NECESSARILY abusive. What's your reasoning?

Why? Rather, let me be more precise. In our free society we do indeed define what is 'wrong', but we do not define what is 'right'. I our system, whatever is not prohibited is permitted. Thus, to prohibit something is to deprive us each of some element of liberty. Thus it is important that such imposition have a valid social purpose. The prohibition of marijuana has yet to have a valid social purpose offered in support of it.

I am PRO-USA therefore I am ANTI-BUSH.

As I recall it was the democratically elected federal government and the democratically elected governments of nine provinces that created the Charter. So I don't understand how you can say it is minorities 'dictating' Charter rights. Do you have even a single example of minorities dictating a lifestyle to you??

I wonder where you are taking those questions. It seems to me that if the answers humanism has for those questions are unsatisfactory, some might say that is a reason in favor of adopting religious answers. Unfortunately, of course, that won't make those religious answers correct, just useful, like a bandaid.

"If the unborn are human" (such that they can claim human rights), THEN I still don't see that it is clear that it can impose itself on a woman to require her to give birth to it. The right to life supersedes all other rights, because without it, all other rights are meaningless, and because without life there is no individual who may have other rights. Your statement is faulty because it's incomplete, and again begs the question. The right to life of bugs is superceded by the right of humans to squash them. If a woman has a right to squash a mosquito on her arm, why can't she choose to abort a fetus? What reasonably makes a fetus different from a bug as far as a citizen's rights go? Simply SAYING that doesn't make it so. Well, what about where the fetus could be saved or the mother could be saved, but not both? 1) Because that is the universally acknowledged scientific consensus. Biology and species are not defined politically, but scientifically. Appeal to authority, and irrelevant to the question at issue. Begging the question. You're not doing all that well showing how your position is logically sustainable, which, you'll recall was what I took you up on. Hooey. You offered your position for examination, I took you up on it.