# Marriage



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I know its hard for you guys to picture life that doesn't have government involved in every little aspect. But did you ever think of having the government uninvolved with marriage at all including male-female marriage. Therefore anybody could marry anybody they want. Nobody receives any extra rights and therefore nobody gets their rights taken away. Why do we need the government to tell us who is legally married and who isn't?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Great idea! But, I think the ones who have a problem with same-sex marriage will have a problem with your idea. Good try, though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You're dreamin.

Who then settles disputes when there is a disagreement say a 2 billion inheritance that Trailer Park Debbie claims from .........hubby the late great humongous billionaire.......along with 30 other wannabes to the fortune. Government and the body of law are two different things.

In Canada under our Charter marriage is a gender neutral term like justice, or child, or officer, or contract or torte or person.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Well the obvious answer is you sign a contract.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Another solution has been raised in the papers. The idea would be that all marriages would be civil affairs with couples choosing whether to have their nuptuals blessed in a church (with the churches having a right of refusal). This is what happens in France where the idea of a traditional church wedding is quite different from North America (they serve onion soup and yummy profiteroles instead of rock hard icing cake as well).


----------



## pimephalis (Nov 29, 2004)

*Yup*



Dudireno said:


> Well the obvious answer is you sign a contract.


That's the definition of a marriage, as far as the Canadian government is concerned. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals, and nothing more.


----------



## Graham (Oct 18, 2004)

Did anyone see that episode of the simpsons?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

pimephalis said:


> That's the definition of a marriage, as far as the Canadian government is concerned. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals, and nothing more.


It doesn't need to be from the government. If you are truly concerned about finances sign a contract with your partner. 

Marriage should be dealt with on a local level. This doesn't mean that same sex marriage will just magically be accepted by private companies it just means that male-female marriage isn't granted priviledges by the government. It is immoral for the government to force acceptance of one set of marriages and not another. Marriage is a private affair plain and simple. The government is overstepping its bounds here.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno, the government is only intervening as it sees the lack of recognition of same-sex marriage as a denial of rights that are guaranteed by our Charter of Rights. Five provinces recognized this inequity as a result of legal cases brought by individuals and made same sex marriage legal in their province. The Supreme Court of Canada then decided not to overrule the provinces and referred the case to parliament. I don't think the Federal goverment really wanted to have to deal with this but it's been put on their plate by individuals referring to their provincial courts which are overseen by the Supreme Court which has decided that the government should vote.

In this case, government isn't overstepping its bounds, its been dumped on. Indeed, the government case is that same-sex marriage should be accepted. However, since it is supposedly a free vote, the outcome is not certain.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I don't understand your premise that the Government has anything at all to do with marriage. It's contract law; the same law that makes corporations possible. In the case of marriage, it derives from religious law; in the case of corporations it was something rulers came up with by themselves, in England about 500 years ago. Before that, marriage was controlled by the Church and commerce was limited to individuals or the State.

But all the government does is set the rules, which is their job, anywhere. The Government doesn't perform marriages; they just provide legal authority for others to.

To say the Government performs marriage is akin to saying the Government runs Wall Mart. They don't do either; they provide rules for others to do so.

When Civil Marriage became possible was the day Same-Sex Marriage became inevitable; we've just taken a while to get there because we had these other nagging issues to deal with first, like Divorce, division of jointly held property, care and responsibility of care of offspring, and humans as Chattel, and the Fundamental Rights of Man. They were just as hotly debated in their time, if you care to remember.

If people didn't treat their marriages and their children badly, we probably wouldn't have to go there at all with civil law, and the Church could be setting the rules right now. But we did, because they do, and it's a journey with an inevitable end. Each issue is just a stop along the way. Contracts must be fair and equitable, so says the law.

The only way to change that is to change the fundamental laws of the land, usually by altering a Constitution. Either do that, or get used to it. It's laughable to say you didn't see it coming; the best you could hope for was to die before it did.

We didn't have a Constitution in Canada before 1980, and if we still didn't have one, we wouldn't have to deal with the issue. The right to discriminate on the basis of sex existed in Canada before 1980. Taken to the courts, they had no choice but to uphold the civil marriage laws as written; in Canada the courts had no right to alter or negate any law before then. They could only follow them as written or interpret what was intended by the law.

It doesn't matter whether you "agree" or "disagree" with it. Under the existing Constitution, the highest law in the land, it's already legal. We just haven't gone about defining it yet. If you didn't want it, you should have written it into the constitution as an exemption to equal rights on the basis of sex.

(In the US Constitution, it's a little different, but the courts have defined the relevant clauses to the point where it's essentially the same situation as if the prohibition on the basis of sex were spelled out in so many words; because the courts have had the right to create law in the US for hundreds of years). Sooner or later you will either have to alter the Constitution or the Supreme Court will have to define the rules, which could go either way it appears right now. Which is why those who want to ban it don't want the court to deal with it; it's risky for their position.

You could always move to Israel or Iran, where there is no Civil Marriage. But that doesn't mean there are no marriage rules backed by law; only that the rules are set by the Church and whatever they say, goes. You could try the Republic of Ireland, but they are on their way to civil marriage as we speak; they're just not there yet.

You might be able to die there without worrying about it, but sooner or later it's going to be the law there as well, because it's fundamentally inequitable and all inequities, sooner or later, get redressed either by the legislature or the courts.

The courts have dealt with the issue and have found, as they must, that it's inequitable. You can ignore that in the Legislature if you want but it will become the law none the less. A responsible government will address it with legislation, but it won't matter if they don't. Canada does not have to pass an amendment to the Marriage Act if it doesn't want to; it won't matter if they do or not. It will just be a little sloppier; the rules less defined. Don't worry, the courts will do that eventually; it's just a coward's way out to make them do so.

To take it to your premise the the Government has anything at all to do with it, I suggest that the Government can put it's head in the sand and it won't make a whit of difference either way. 

Nor does civil law compel any religious responsibility whatsoever; churches are as free now as they ever were to agree or refuse to marry anyone to anyone, and that will never change no matter what the rules for civil marriage are.

If you want to marry within your Church, then go ahead. I'm not sure as to why so many people seem to want to marry within the Church but come running to civil law when they decide to divorce, but that's for the member and his conscience, I guess.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*nice idea, but it'd never work....*

I completely agree with your sentiment, Dudireno, neither the Church nor the State have any business in people's personal relationships. That's one of the reasons I wish more people would simply choose not to get married.

However, it's a naive hope. Once the complexities of disputes over children, properties, citizenship, international rights, etc. get lawyers involved, there have to be laws for the lawyers to argue about. Where there are law, there is, by definition, legislation. And where there is legislation there is government. So I'm afraid we can't completely exclude government from this aspect of society.

Fortunately, we can insist that any laws respect the Charter, and therefore do not specify different treatments for individuals of different race, gender, religion, etc. When laws are found to discriminate on these grounds, they must be changed. Current laws regarding marriage have been found to discriminate, and will be changed so that their wording is gender neutral. This is as it should be.

And you're right, marriages are simply contracts, and as such, must be treat all consenting adults equally.

Cheers


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... When laws are found to discriminate on these grounds, they must be changed. ..."

It's better if they are changed, but it doesn't matter if they're not. Once a law is found to be unconstitutional, it's as if it didn't exist. If there are aspects of the law that should be maintained, then a new amended act is the best way to do it.

But if they don't do that, the courts will define it for them over time. And that is much more difficult to change; you may find you can't introduce legislation to alter what should have been properly defined by the legislature in the first place.

The world changes and laws need to change to reflect that; if you let the courts make law then it's not possible to change with the times; their ruling stands forever, with unintended consequences in the future.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Define marriage then?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

A mutually respectful and equal contract between two people of the age of consent to the exclusion of others that is recognized as such by society as a long-term arrangement that can only be dissolved through divorce.

I was going to add love in there but that might disqualify way too many current marriages.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

This somehow is absolutly necessary in the law books?

I don't see how this definition is absolutly necessary to resolve disputs. It isn't necessary to settle disputs. It is unnecessary. It implies, its religious, it discriminates, and it is abused. 

Instead of changing we should remove.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

"We" ? You're in Oregon, you get it removed there. I'll get you started: write these guys and get your fellow citizens on board.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gord a wonderful explanation with the inevitable summary for Canada.

*It's the law deal with it.*

Short of a Constitutional amendment or the not withstanding clause being used - there is no recourse - only wasted hot air by politicians who should be doing OTHER things. 

Religious communities have rights granted under the same constitution .....perhaps they should wake up and smell the "rose by any other name" 

I still think they should lose their tax exempt status given the noise being made about this from certainl quarters.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Yea Yea.... I know

"Dreamin"

Oh well

it was worth it if I got just one person to think in terms of more government isn't always the answer. But then again I really doubt I could get anybody to do that on this forum. 

Does anybody agree with me ever here???


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I agree with you on this topic Dudireno..... But I don't think that the problem in this case is too much government. In Canada, the issue has been escalated to the level of the government. We Canadian's do put more faith in social programs than you guys, but I doubt you'll find a Canadian that actually thinks more government is better. It's a question of more effective/efficient government.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yoou mistake many here if you think we like BIG GOVERNMENT - that's what you have in the US currently.
There is actually some pressure here to reduce the role of the Feds vis a vie the provinces.

Many here also want to see NGOs have more play in society as an offset to corporate malfeasance often with Gov blessing. Large power structures require checks and balances or large inequities will inevitably arise.

I'm all in favour of cities having more taxation powers - something the US has done better to date than in Canada so that income earned in the area can be applied to the area.

Right now both Toronto and Ontario bring in billions more to the Federal coffers than are spent here.

IF a nation has some sense of equalization which we do here - then there needs be a method and governing body to oversee it.
Otherwise you end up with competing fiefdoms or city states raning from the super rich to the dirt poor and the frictions that arise - some of which are very much in play in the US due to it's poor GINI ratings.

Gov is just one pillar of a society - in both nations the executive branches in my mind have taken on far too much authority.
The situation is ameliorated in Canada by way of a minority gov and a less iron fisted PM ( read lousy politician trying to please everyone ).

The US is a growing mess with an out of control Chief Executive who is quickly bankrupting you.

My feeling is gov will inevitably get smaller as productive local communities will refuse to support a large central structure once real shortages begin to appear.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

What??

You say you aren't for big government but you go on a big rant about redistrubuting wealth. You want to change the tax structure and have a governing body oversee the equalization. I am not sure how this equals less governement.

You start out by saying we need checks and balances (more control) over what appears to imply evil private corporations, then you talk about restructuring taxes to get more equalization, then the executive branches are to big and this somehow leads you to your final statment of 

"My feeling is gov will inevitably get smaller as productive local communities will refuse to support a large central structure once real shortages begin to appear"

You lost me......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> Yea Yea.... I know
> Does anybody agree with me ever here???


As I said, I agree with you in principle on the government-out-of-relationships issue. However, in practise, I don't think this ideal is feasible.

And on the issue of preferring more government over less government, I also agree that, other things being equal, less government is always preferable. Unfortunately, other things are rarely equal. The world is full of rapacious corporations and greedy people who have no moral limitations, and this has been true for all of human history. We invented governments to protect the weak from the strong, the vulnerable from the powerful, the naive from the cynical, and democratic governments serve that purpose as well as any mechanism we've ever tried (which is not saying much, I admit).

Perhaps someday we'll come up with something better, but, until then, we need stronger governments (to keep up with increasingly powerful multinational corporations) under less influence from the wealthy elite.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Lost you"......yes.
Redistribution options and a large relatively non productive governing class are only available in times of plenty. Those times may well be over for this round of human expansion.

Try on *Collapse* for some cautionary reading.

Don't confuse observation of what we DO have with MY approval for what we do have. Remember I said *If* a country.

The choices we make are part of national and cultural heritages and develop over time. In times of plenty humans will tend to look for sharing as a reasonable strategy.

Good cover here
http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3084745
and here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/personalityandindividuality/morals.shtml

and here



> mory professor of economics and law Paul Rubin usefully distinguishes between "productive" and "allocative" hierarchies. Productive hierarchies are those that organize cooperative efforts to achieve otherwise unattainable mutually advantageous gains. Business organizations are a prime example. Allocative hierarchies, on the other hand, exist mainly to transfer resources to the top. Aristocracies and dictatorships are extreme examples. Although the nation-state can perform productive functions, there is the constant risk that it becomes dominated by allocative hierarchies. Rubin warns that our natural wariness of zero-sum allocative hierarchies, which helps us to guard against the concentration of power in too few hands, is often directed at modern positive-sum productive hierarchies, like corporations, thereby threatening the viability of enterprises that tend to make everyone better off.


http://www.cato.org/research/articles/wilkinson-050201.html << good article on capitalism and human nature.

We compete and we cooperate - both strains of behaviour are at play in all societies.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

it would be interesting to see how many people would read your previous post and not assume you were approving of redistribution but I will accept that I misunderstood what you were saying. 

As to the last post, I am not sure what you want me to say. Interesting....

In regards to your last sentence I believe that the government is involved in forced cooperation. An oxymoron. There is no doubt that both competition and cooperation are involved in all societies. But governments have a monopoly on force. It disrupts cooperation and it disrupts competition. 

I guess you could say unless it is protecting property rights government is over stepping its bounds into allocative hierarchies. Control, Regulation, Law, Manipulation, taking from one and giving to another equals less productivity "thereby threatening the viability of enterprises that tend to make everyone better off."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Protecting property rights?*

Would you say that a government is over-stepping its bounds when it protects the environment, protects the health of its citizens, prevents the exploitation of children or workers, provides education, or legislates the equality of people under the law? Are any of these functions of (good) government protecting property?

I agree that one of the functions of government is to use its monopoly on force to protect property, but there are many functions of society that are not well-served by the free market. These unprofitable enterprises can be undertaken by government. That doesn't mean we should give the government carte blanche to spend money stupidly, or be inefficient, but it does mean that we should not measure governments by the same criteria of success that we use to measure businesses.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Redistribution of wealth is a indicator of a modern progressive nation. It's part of what makes a nation - otherwise there is devolution to warlords, fiefdoms and city states.
Taxes redistribute wealth - building a road with public funds redistributes wealth, having a military does - there are thousand areas where real wealth ( as opposed to money ) is redistributed.
Building a dam to store water and electricity..

I DON'T agree that govs and biz are equivalents. Govs need to conform to good business practices when it comes to accountability etc but they are not "for profit" entities - they take the protection of the common weal as a goal set and that may mean taking a much longer view than a business might.
Those areas are pollution, care of water supply, setting educational standards and standards for many professions and regulations for a wide variety of human social interactions - even to moderating the economic "heat" of an economy as the Fed does all in the interest of the "common weal" - a concept we rarely see discussed in the US.
What is the "value" of an anti-racism commercial??

Certain human interactions simply cannot be successfully scaled up and down and become complex over time and scale so "wealthy" societies can look to those activities as a measure of their progress.

How well off ALL the citizens are, not just a few is one measure ( the GINI standard ) nation govs can aspire to making it's citizens proud of their individual contributions to the "public weal".

When the crunch comes - as it has in societies in the past and even currently ( Rwanda) we'll see how well "large scale" govs can handle it. I suspect some regions will okay and others fail miserably. Japan is iffy 50 years out - no kids, no immigration.

I'm curious as to how you would evaluate a state like Montana


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Would you say that a government is over-stepping its bounds when it protects the environment, protects the health of its citizens, prevents the exploitation of children or workers, provides education, or legislates the equality of people under the law? Are any of these functions of (good) government protecting property?


I believe most pollution occurs on public land and the private sector is the inovator for new ways to prevent pollution. I believe healthcare is provided much better faster and efficiently under the private sector. The labor force is extremely fluid and if a worker doesn't like the conditions he goes elsewhere. The owners try to make their working enviornment better to attract the best workers. I went to private school and I plan to send my children to private school. Private schools provide far better education. Equality of people? Does that apply to same sex marriages. If you actually read this thread you would see my answer.

I'm sure this will distrub alot of people. But each one of these takes alot of research. You can't just throw them out there as proof of why government is justified to put their mits into. Its not that unusual school of thought. My whole country was based on the idea that government should stay out of the lives of its citizens. Unfortunatly starting in the 20th century in my country people think it is sensitve to think like you.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Redistribution of wealth is a indicator of a modern progressive nation. It's part of what makes a nation - otherwise there is devolution to warlords, fiefdoms and city states.
> Taxes redistribute wealth - building a road with public funds redistributes wealth, having a military does - there are thousand areas where real wealth ( as opposed to money ) is redistributed.
> Building a dam to store water and electricity..
> )


Yea I know what it is. You are for it and I am against it. Roads, Damns, Power Storage, all property should be private. If you are for redistributing wealth it is safe to say you aren't for less government. You describe a world that is totally 
policed by government.
"Those areas are pollution, care of water supply, setting educational standards and standards for many professions and regulations for a wide variety of human social interactions by government. "

You shouldn't be upset that is what you have.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say...*



Dudireno said:


> I believe most pollution occurs on public land and the private sector is the inovator for new ways to prevent pollution.


Are you suggesting that most pollution is not produced by private corporations? Or that private corporations, responsible only to their shareholders, will voluntarily spend money and reduce their profitability to protect the environment? I agree that if, through government legislation, we make it profitable to reduce pollution, innovative companies will take up the challenge, and the free market will find the most efficient way of solving the problem. But this will only happen if there's profit to be made, and the only way I can think of making reducing pollution profitable is by enforcing legislation against polluting. Do you have an alternative suggestion?



> I believe healthcare is provided much better faster and efficiently under the private sector.


Interesting beliefs. Not well supported by evidence, however. And, as we've discussed before, not very economically realistic, as the profit motive will only serve to improve the treatment of disease, not it's prevention (compare the R&D budgets of pharmaceutical companies investigating vaccines vs. drugs to treat diseases). Sick people are far more profitable than healthy people.



> The labor force is extremely fluid and if a worker doesn't like the conditions he goes elsewhere.


You must live in a very different world than I do. Where I live, capital is fluid and moves from one jurisdiction to another with very little control. People, on the other hand, have families, houses, commitments, limited finances, and other characteristics that limit their ability to move.



> I went to private school and I plan to send my children to private school. Private schools provide far better education.


Arguable. If the government is doing its job regulating and providing reasonable funding for education (two conditions that are not currently well-met in Canada), private schools may not be any worse than public schools, and may meet the needs of some students better, but would certainly not be a better generic solution to the problem of creating an educated society. Certainly, in a society where only private schools existed, poor people would have access only to lower quality education, and therefore would be further disadvantaged. Equality of education (something the publicly funded education is much closer to achieving) is a central ideal of a just society.

Incidentally, having earned multiple postgraduate degrees through the publicly funded education system of Canada, I consider it deeply flawed and in need of a complete overhaul. My parents have been involved in the establishment of two private schools, primarily as a proving ground for innovative instructional paradigms. What the private sector offers is the ability to adapt and establish better teaching practices. It can do this because it is currently small. If it got big, it would have all of the bureaucratic momentum of current government-managed systems, plus the extra costs of having to extract a profit.

But I'd still wager my publicly-funded education is as good as your privately-funded education.  



> Equality of people? Does that apply to same sex marriages. If you actually read this thread you would see my answer.


I have actually read this thread, and, if I recall correctly, your position is that marriage should be the same as any other contract, and therefore open to individuals of whatever gender. My position is that it already _is_ a contract, and the fact that the law currently discriminates on gender is therefore unconstitutional.



> I'm sure this will distrub alot of people. But each one of these takes alot of research. You can't just throw them out there as proof of why government is justified to put their mits into.


I actually agree with you here. I'm of the opinion that if the private sector can do it better, let 'em. But the fact is that the private sector can't do everything better than government (especially if the government is being carefully scrutinized by a critical, well-educated, electorate). Neither the free-market nor the socialized model is inherently the best for all situations. Apply each where it is best suited.

When it comes to making computers, cars, cameras, (and most other things), or providing non-essential services, the private sector clearly does it best. When it comes to protecting the environment, providing health-care and education, ensuring public safety (or providing other essential services), the publicly funded, not-for-profit models are best.

Cheers


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"I have actually read this thread, and, if I recall correctly, your position is that marriage should be the same as any other contract, and therefore open to individuals of whatever gender. My position is that it already is a contract, and the fact that the law currently discriminates on gender is therefore unconstitutional."

NO!

My position is that some people are given priviledges through the government for being married and only certain marriages are acknowledged. You either accept them all or not acknowledge them at all. I prefer not acknowledging them at all. I don't need the government to tell me that I am officially married. I know when I am married.

You obviously don't understand the philosophy of the free market as a mechanism for service the public as a whole. Its one thing to disagree with my position its another not to understand it. Just take some time to learn about the philosophy and you would see counterpoints that I try to make. I can't possibly take the time to respond to all that you have.

When you make statments like this it shows you haven't studied it.

" Are you suggesting that most pollution is not produced by private corporations? Or that private corporations, responsible only to their shareholders, will voluntarily spend money and reduce their profitability to protect the environment?"

No! I am saying that if they own their own land they will protect it because it reduces the value of their property to pollute it. 

" Interesting beliefs. Not well supported by evidence, however."

Actually in my opinion it is well supported. Because all Healthcare systems as we know it are intruded by governments. 

You are looking at a world with a bias of being born into it with an already intrusive government. You and I know no difference. Its a philosophy. Your philosophy is that profit is an evil motive.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> " Interesting beliefs. Not well supported by evidence, however."
> 
> Actually in my opinion it is well supported. Because all Healthcare systems as we know it are intruded by governments.


Am I missing something here, or did you just say your belief that free-market health-care would work is well supported by evidence because no such thing exists?

Given that no truely free-market systems exist, any beliefs we may have about their potential are purely theoretical, not supported by evidence.

Even if you argue that government-run health-care systems don't work well, that is not evidence that other paradigms would work better.

So my original statement, that your beliefs are not well supported by evidence, is correct.



> Your philosophy is that profit is an evil motive.


Not at all. Profit is an amoral motive. Corporations are amoral. If it were profitable to prevent children from starving, corporations would be all over that problem. But it's not, so they aren't. You can't fault them for that...they're not charities (or governments). But we can fault our governments for not addressing important, but unprofitable, social issues.

This is my whole point. Governments are useful precisely because they have many of the characteristics of large corporations without the profit motive. They can therefore fill the gaps in society that the free-market does not serve well.

You and I can argue all day about where those gaps are, and you may have lots of good points to make, but the fact is that the free-market does not serve all the needs of a just society, so we need governments to provide the services that don't interest the private sector, and protect citizens and the environment from corporations when their interests are in conflict.




> I am saying that if they own their own land they will protect it because it reduces the value of their property to pollute it.


This is a perfect example. Corporations that do own their land routinely pollute it to death, and then write it off. The most egregious examples are small oil&gas service companies that dump tons of toxic waste on their private property (usually in secret), then go spectacularly bankrupt (after their executives have funnelled as much cash out of the company into their personal accounts in the Caymans as possible) leaving the public holding the bag for cleaning up the toxic mess.

Alternatively, who owns the ocean, so who's property value will be reduced when company X dumps their toxic sludge at sea? How can the free market protect us from that?

The completely free market is as ludicrous an economic model as the completely communist state. Society has and will continue to find a balance between these naive extremes that suits it's needs at the moment. Personally, I'd like to see that balance shift left, but you're free to disagree, and Canadian citizens are all free to vote for (or against) whatever they think is best. However, for this system to work, we need our citizens to be well enough educated to be aware of the issues, good enough critical thinkers to make their own decisions and not be bamboozled by rhetoric, and motivated enough to get out and vote. I'm not very happy with the current state of any of these fundamental pillars of democracy.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You have too many scenarios on at once - having a nationstate means having a government.

You did not answer my question on Montana - it's an indicator of how a "wealthy state" can turn into a poor state very quickly by way of unregulated "free enterprise".
The corporations that left the mess in both destroyed habitat and pollution sites have moved on.

Gov is only one pillar in a state and it competes for power with other institutions.

I can't imagine any even small "society" operating along principles you espouse.

Even the smallest farm/town community develops "common weal" rules about water and land use, rights of way etc.
Even the basic family unit "negotiates" sets of rules - that's where "common law" ultimately stems from is agreements amongst the small societal units that then becomes a more universal code - sometimes written sometimes based on precident rulings by appointed judges.

Perhaps warlord Japan would be a good spot for your approach but that was feudal and even there "custom" and "obligation" both upwards and downwards was expected.

Less gov is not no gov.
Less fed more local is perhaps a goal but in your world it's even hard to start.

Who owns an aquifer - how can the Ogallala be "private"


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"This is a perfect example. Corporations that do own their land routinely pollute it to death, and then write it off."

Actually that is a perfect example of how the government thru tax incentives makes it possible for the corporations to profit from polluting.

You don't even see that gov is involved. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the gov is deeply involved everywhere. Everywhere you show me a breakdown I can show you gov involvment.

OK I put my foot in my mouth on healthcare but we talked about this in another thread and everybody point to the US as an example of why the free market doesn't work in healthcare and I think that is not fair becuase I think it is totally manipulated by the gov.



I don't know anything about Montana and I am not going to spend time finding out.

Land use? Why should someone not be able to use their land as they see fit?
Rights of way? How does that need the gov to be successful. Are you telling me that groups of people can't work together on rights of way without the gov. 
Water? Like what? one person may have it sell it to another. Big deal.

Look there would still be rules in society. They are just not governed by force and they are not written on some sacred paper looked upon by someone who is considered elite. The best example I use is drugs. I don't do drugs because they are unhealthy and can destroy my life. Its not like if drugs were legal tomorrow I would start doing drugs. You have to think of all laws that way. Bad things are weeded out of our society because of common sense not because one group of officials say so. Examples of laws are given to me as if that means nobody breaks those laws. You do realize that gov officials can be bought, they can look the other way, and they can commit crimes themselves. So for every example of Businesses committing atrosities I can show you a gov official getting paid under the table for breaking the law and taking advantage of people.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Some history reading might be in order. Start with "water rights" If you don't want to understand how a "rich state" turns to a "poor state" then it appears you have little interest in understanding your own questions let alone someone's answers.

Later....dude.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

LOL

In Oregon not that long ago maybe 3 years they had a big issue with water rights. The government tried to stop farmers and ranchers from using their water rights in Klamath Falls. I was here when it was happening. I know exactly what was being said and what went down. It was blamed on the evil capitalists who were using to much water and hurting the enviornment. When really water laws said that the first in use had the first right. In times of drought and low water people who used water later had to give way to the senior users. Also, those who failed to use their water lost their rights and so it became a use it or lose it situation. The laws created excessive use. 
Even IF, and I say IF, montana is an example of how free market turned montana into a poor state I can still show you many examples of how law has distorted not only the wealth of a state but its enviornment as well. I am betting that you read something about how evil profit makers in Montana were abusing the water and you soaked it up like a sponge. When really it can all be traced back to water rights and the law starting the ball a rollin. But then again I really don't care about 1 small example in history when I can find many to the contrary. But hey take that Montana education you got and run with it.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> Land use? Why should someone not be able to use their land as they see fit?


Because a stream or groundwater polluted with turds of 2000 hogs knows no boundaries 
 

At the other extreme, in Ontario, we have vast Crown forest lands owned by the public. Doesn't mean I can go and cut down trees for my own personal use. 

You need legislation in both cases. 

E


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Oh my Goodness!!  

If your shi** is polluting another persons land you are violating his property rights. If you are ruining his part of the river or his part of the under ground water you would owe them compensation. 

You guys are not following your logic all the way through. It is because you are very inconsistant with your thoughts. You spot a crime, a bad statistic, or poor person your natural instinct is to make government programs, take from one and give to another, or start all new regulation. All by use of force.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Actually, I think we agree on the issue of privately owned property no? As long as the actions do not affect adjacent property owners. 

But what about publicly owned properties? How do you police actions on public lands? Is it just a free-for-all in your world?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Tragedy of the Commons*

Dudireno, many of these examples we're giving you boil down to a simple economic/game-theory principle: The tragedy of the commons (also known as the prisoners' dilemma). I don't have time right now to explain it, but it's a fairly simple principle, and it can't be solved by any free-market (self-interested-agent) system. 

The only solution to this type of problem that has ever worked is government intervention (or some other form of mutually-agreed-upon coercion). And the mathematics of this problem emerge whenever there are shared resources (air, water, land, wildlife, roads, radio frequencies, historical documents, educational resources, etc. etc. etc.). This is only one of many examples where the free-market completely fails to work, and it fails because of it's fundamental principles, so it's not like a little adjustment is all that is necessary.

To me, the irony is that one of the most common proposed solutions to the tragedy of the commons is privatization. But privatization has never worked, and has always made things worse when it has been tried. Furthermore, how do you privatize the earth's atmosphere, or the ocean, or giant underground aquifers? So, not only is privatization a demonstrably unsuccessful approach to this problem, it isn't even applicable in most cases.

Cheers

P.S. a guy named Coase won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on this problem. He concluded that only government legislation could effectively limit the Tragedy of the Commons. So if you think you've got a solution that's better, write it up and maybe you'll win the next Nobel Prize!


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

I agree bryanc:

The mechansim in the commons is the greedy notion that 'if I don't use it, my neighbour will, so I better use up as much as I can now for my own benefit'.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_When really water laws said that the first in use had the first right. In times of drought and low water people who used water later had to give way to the senior users._

Water laws - written and enforced by WHO.??

HAD to give way....says WHO???

You're dreaming, horribly naive or unread.

Gov is ONE pillar in a society and nation and requires checks and balances by citizens just as police require oversight by civilians. You have this black or white viewpoint that bears no resemblance to real interaction in societies by humans over time.

Chimps and gorillas have more societal sense than you do. 

Power without a checking force leads to abuse. Just look at your own nation - it would NOT do in N Korea what it did in Iraq cuz China would be all over it even tho N Korea was a greater threat. Checks and balances.

The US wants to be "free" to do what ever it wants in the world.......that time is OVER.

*F* in human social interaction and history - - remedial reading required.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bryanc actually there is some recent studies refuting the TC concept - I was trying to find it. Humans fall into three distinct groups of which the "freeloader" is the statistically smallest.

Cooperation and competition are BOTH evolutionary selectives - hard times versus times of plenty reward differently and we've evolved to get through both. The species was down as low as 80,000 worldwide at one point. Been bugging me where I read the article about the three strains of interactive approachs in humans. Apparently it applies to higher order primates.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Are we freeloading or competing in the tragedy of the commons? Certainly not cooperating. When did humans cooperate as a species?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Thanks MacDoc*

No hurry (I've got a lot on my plate right now) but if you can find a reference I'd like to read more about that research. Lots of ecology theory is based on prisoners' dilemma game theory, and exceptions to this rule are very interesting.

Cheers


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> _When really water laws said that the first in use had the first right. In times of drought and low water people who used water later had to give way to the senior users._
> 
> Water laws - written and enforced by WHO.??
> 
> ...


The Oregon water resources department oversees the adjudication of amount, use, location, and priority of the Klamath Basin. Priority is given to those senior users amongst other priorities.

The federal government sent US Marshalls to oversee it.

Boy you sure are an arrogant little person. People far more educated than you believe similar or just like me: Ludwig Von Mises, Murry Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, David Friedman, Ayn Rand to name a few.

Later DOC.....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*What would she think today?*

I'm not saying that I know what Dr. Rand would think of our modern problems, but I'm certain that a philosopher of her calibre would recognize that the ideas she formulated in the '30s and '40s might not apply very well to the problems of the 21st century.

The world Ayn Rand lived in hadn't even begun to consider environmental problems, globalization, or the emergence of a single superpower. Her philosophies, while very novel and innovative for her time, are way out of date.

Citing Ayn Rand as a proponent of your position is like me citing Ghandi as a proponent of mine. Nice to give them credit for coming up with good ideas, but they were living in an entirely different world. Both of these people were important in their time, and their ideas have lived on, with some relevance to the modern world. But that relevance has to be considered within the modern context, which these great political philosophers could not have imagined.

Cheers


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Ayn Rand is a huge proponent of private property. We are very very similar. She has had a huge impact on my thinking

So I geuss Marx would be way out of date as well. He would be far more capitalist today.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Now you're getting it...*



Dudireno said:


> So I geuss Marx would be way out of date as well.


Indeed he is. Although I would not presume to predict what his philosophy would be today.

My point is that, while it's great that you've read Rand & Friedman, to uncritically accept their solutions to problems that have changed is not reasonable. While it may be true that an unregulated free market might have solved some of the problems that Rand was thinking about (I'm not sure it would have, but it's irrelevant), the problems we face today are considerably different, and many clearly are not amenable to free-market solutions.

Cheers.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> You're dreaming, horribly naive or unread.


Touché.



MacDoc said:


> The US wants to be "free" to do what ever it wants in the world.......that time is OVER.


The big bully with the big stick dictating the terms and conditions for the rest of the world, or at least those parts of the world with the resources sought by Americans and American corporations. Yeah, that's free enterprise. Yeah, that's fair trading.

Dubya's world view - freedom without responsibility. God told him it was okay.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

daBoss said:


> Touché.
> 
> 
> The big bully with the big stick dictating the terms and conditions for the rest of the world, or at least those parts of the world with the resources sought by Americans and American corporations. Yeah, that's free enterprise. Yeah, that's fair trading.
> ...


Well first off lets just say that War is not the free market. Lets also say that that the US foreign policy is not an example of the free market. 

But let me also ask you if you believe that Islamo terrorism is a threat to our society? They have only been on the attack against Jews and Christians for centuries. The United States as we know it is the current defender of the Judeo christian western society. 

How about the next time you speak against the US (which I admit is deserving in many many ways) you also apeak against the atrocities of Islam. Islam is at war with the west, with christianity, and with judaism. This is a war that goes back over 1200 years. All around the world we see attacks of muslims against non muslims.  To deny the threat is naive, ignorant or unread.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Correction, certain whacko sects of Islam are at war. 99.9% of muslims are like you and me. Many of whom I work with. They are just people. Don't let the news frighten you into condemning 1/3 of the worlds population because they have different religious views than you. 

Islam is not a threat to my society.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have many Islam friends who are, like Carex points out, average people who I am proud to know.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Dudireno,

You write:

"Islam is at war with the west, with christianity, and with judaism. This is a war that goes back over 1200 years"

That's rubbish... the "Judeo-Christian-Western society" you describe would not exist had not the Islamic world cared for and built on the works of the ancient Greeks. Although Medieaval Christian and Islamic armies did clash, it is also true that trade flourished... in both goods and ideas. The reintroduction of ancient thought to Europe, as passed on from Islam, is what we usually refer to as the Renaissance. 

As I'm sure you know there was a time when the Islamic world was considerably more advanced and progressive that its European neighbours. After the Renaissance though, Europeans rapidly pushed ahead with scientific and social advances which were not matched and the Islamic world ceased to be a serious rival or threat to them. That's where we stand today, except that there are some extreme, evil, bitter people who claim to follow Islam and who blame 'the West' for the poor relative state of Islamic nations today. Unable to match the the US or allies militarily, they resort to terrorism as a means of punishment and revenge. Unfortunately, US (and to a lesser extent, Western European) foreign policy has often exacerbated the situation rather than ameliorated it. Hopefully this will change as wars against terrorists last indefinitely and can never really be won until the root causes are addressed. See Northern Ireland, Basques in Spain, etc.

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Rand celebrates the power of the individual to change the world. Her politics stem from her escape from the Soviet Union and are coloured by them.

You are taking a bits and pieces of ideas out of context. Rand's concept of the nature of the freedom of the individual and the value of the individual ( Frank Lloyd Wright for instance ) was a needed offset to the post WWII "Big Brother" that Orwell also warned about.

Ideas, philosophies need to be looked at in context of both the writer and their milieu. Individual frredoms and reponsbilities are another pillar of societies - offsetting gov and supposed "moral dictation" by her "do gooders".

Rand influences me greatly as well as do Camu and other existentialists., understanding choices and freedom of the individual against the societal pressures of govs, religions and oppression of majorities.
But her politics are were strongly influenced by her Soviet experience and the inherent conflict between the individual and "the state" which neither she nor you apparently - have resolved.

••

In my mind there IS a civilization tectonic grind going on between fundamentalists on both sides complicated enormously by other frictions as populations grow and resources shrink.
Fundamentally - pun intended memes that may have served early human societies apply poorly to the modern situation and too many run from modern complexity and challenge to the supposed absolutes of early times.

Advances such as the those embodied in the French Revolution and the original America and further advanced by Canadian and European approaches to secular societies are under severe pressure by "absolutists" of all stripes.

Tolerating intolerance is a difficult road to travel. There's been a coup in the US no less dangerous, perhaps far more so than the one in Iran.
To that extent there is a war by those who would impose on the great majority of humans who wish to and do live peaceably.
That would be the power of the individual once more..........


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Carex said:


> Correction, certain whacko sects of Islam are at war. 99.9% of muslims are like you and me. Many of whom I work with. They are just people. Don't let the news frighten you into condemning 1/3 of the worlds population because they have different religious views than you.
> 
> Islam is not a threat to my society.


Not all muslims are terrorists but a large majority of terrorists are muslim. No denying that fact. I don't see muslims denouncing the violence. I don't see the leaders of the muslims coming out and talking bad about the terrorists. Maybe that is the news fault but I don't see it. You can't blame the news for terrorist acts. They have happened all over the world. Not just the US. You don't think the terrorist acts have anything to do with frightening people?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

How in the hell did I take Rand out of context?? 

To read Rand and not understand her favortism to capitalism is absolutly ludicrous. She is all about Free market laissez-faire capitalism or whatever you want to call it. So am I. How is that out of context? Its out of context because you don't want to admit that someone intelligent has similar beliefs as me? She saw the government as only the police. That means not for laws protecting workers, she was not for taxing and redistributing wealth, she is not for telling people how they can and can't use their land. She wanted state completely separated from economics and unfortunatly economics is everywhere including healthcare. She would not approve of your state run healthcare. But than again your comments about how I took her out of context did not make any sense in regards to showing how I took her out of context. In fact if you take your comments point by point nothing in there even resembles an argument towards how I took her out of context. It appears you just want to try and make me think you know something about Rand. Not only that you tie us together at the end


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> I don't see muslims denouncing the violence. I don't see the leaders of the muslims coming out and talking bad about the terrorists.



Muslim groups all over the world have publicly denounced terrorism. Perhaps the reason you don't 'see' this happening is that it wouldn't really fit in to the current and popular news model.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I'll accept that. If its happening in the US it is not getting air time.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> How about the next time you speak against the US (which I admit is deserving in many many ways) you also apeak (sic) against the atrocities of Islam. Islam is at war with the west, with christianity, and with judaism. This is a war that goes back over 1200 years. All around the world we see attacks of muslims against non muslims. To deny the threat is naive, ignorant or unread.


Of course you missed my point. Look at the root causes of the world's collective dislike of Americans. Read. Explore. Open you eyes. Open your mind. What you allude to is a cover for other issues and ignores historical reality. Consider the many centuries of suppression and oppression towards Islam by the west, now expressed as anger towards the Americans. Consider how THEIR resources in THEIR countries have been virtually stolen by the west, more specifically the Americans. Consider American foreign policy of the last 75 years or so and it's jingoistic foundation. Consider the despots that the US has supported all the while turning a blind eye to the corruption and violation of human rights taking place right under their noses all in the name of protecting American corporate interests and the blatant disregard for non-renewable resources - best summarized by Dubya's comment about oil as "We don't have a consumption problem. We have a supply problem". The Shah of Iran, Noriega, Marcos, bin Laden are but a quartet of examples. All of them became more than an embarrassment to the US.

I could go on but this is a start.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I admit that the US foreign policy sucks!!!! What else can I say.

But now its your turn to be fair and balanced and admit that Islmaic terrorists operations are well known throughout the world. They have bombed buildings, planes, and cars. They have murdered tens and thousands including women and children. All over the World! Not just the US! They have murdered those they thought were a threat to their agenda. And most of the terrorists groups in the world are Islamic in nature. Why is that?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> I admit that the US foreign policy sucks!!!! What else can I say.
> 
> But now its your turn to be fair and balanced and admit that Islmaic terrorists operations are well known throughout the world. They have bombed buildings, planes, and cars. They have murdered tens and thousands including women and children. All over the World! Not just the US! They have murdered those they thought were a threat to their agenda. And most of the terrorists groups in the world are Islamic in nature. Why is that?


No muslims here ETA, IRA, LTTE, N17, BK, and include the US government or US citizens produced some of the worst Terrorist acts of 20th century including the Oklahoma bombing, the uni-bomber, and last but not forgotten the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Laterz


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> I admit that the US foreign policy sucks!!!! What else can I say.
> 
> But now its your turn to be fair and balanced and admit that Islmaic terrorists operations are well known throughout the world.<snippage> Why is that?


While there are plenty of terrorists that aren't Islamic, I expect you're probably right that there are plenty that are. Perhaps that's because the Muslim societies are the ones that feel most persecuted these days, and are the ones with the fewest alternatives.

One thing to consider when we're worrying about where suicide bombers come from is this outstanding piece of critical thinking. I'd be happy to hear anyone else's thoughts on this essay.

Cheers


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"No muslims here ETA, IRA, LTTE, N17, BK, and include the US government or US citizens produced some of the worst Terrorist acts of 20th century including the Oklahoma bombing, the uni-bomber, and last but not forgotten the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

Muslims themselves admit that most terrorists are muslim. But you seem to be fixated on your hatred for the US.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno, a high fraction of generated pollution is transmitted into the air or put into barrels and dumped elsewhere. Land value is impacted by neither. Both our countries are littered with brownfield sites where polluting companies contaminated their ground water and soil. Companies make a business decision weighing up the negative effect of pollutants on the value of their land versus the cost of reducing that pollution. When land value depreciation is the only criteria, guess which wins?

The EPA has supersites that will cost American tax payers billions to eventually clean up. We have some notorious sites too (e.g. Sydney tar ponds). Most, if not all, of these were created by private industry.

We've been through healthcare funding before. The fact is that Americans pay more per capita for healthcare than do Canadians is difficult to reconcile with the idea that private delivery is more efficient/effective. Moreover, in a report last week, US healthcare costs are expected to rise explosively over the next decade. We're under similar pressures but I see no evidence of cost-control in the private system.

As for private versus public education, it simply comes down to how much a society is willing to invest in education. There is an enormous economic cost to society in failing to ensure good education to all of its people. I went through an entirely public education in the UK. Like bryanc, I've a PhD and work in research. So public education can be excellent and the only question is why some systems underperform.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"Dudireno, a high fraction of generated pollution is transmitted into the air or put into barrels and dumped elsewhere. Land value is impacted by neither. Both our countries are littered with brownfield sites where polluting companies contaminated their ground water and soil."

This should be compensated for. I am all for compensating individuals who have been hurt by others or their property damaged by others. In the US the courts have pretty much shut down the idea that anybody can sue based on air pollution. If you have ruined my water or soil you should be responsible. Is that hard to prove? Can be. Can it be proven? yes.
I doubt that all pollution will ever be eradicated. But there is really no debate that most pollution is on public lands. Look it up. You can find many sources that indicate so.

"The EPA has supersites that will cost American tax payers billions to eventually clean up. We have some notorious sites too (e.g. Sydney tar ponds). Most, if not all, of these were created by private industry"

Who do you think they will pay to clean it up? My guess would be private companies would have the ability. I really don't know but just a guess. Those responsible for the pollution should pay. And I bet most of those sites are owned by the public. There can be a profit motive in buying polluted land and reselling it. Another free market mechanism.

"As for private versus public education, it simply comes down to how much a society is willing to invest in education"

Are you really suggesting this is based on the amount of money. Private schools do far more with lower per student money. The US pours tons of money into education. 

"There is an enormous economic cost to society in failing to ensure good education to all of its people."

yea we better privatize it as soon as possible.  

I went to private school through high school. My higher education was partly public and partly private. Although I paid quite a bit of tuition to go to a publically funded school. So it is quite different than the free grade schools.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno, it is you who is suggesting that pollution is primarily due to public sources, not corporations. Customarily, the burden is on you to demonstrate that.

However, to get you started, here are a few links (please read them):

Top polluters tied to Bush fund raising.
Mining company pollution - EPA list
The auto industry as polluters

But you are correct in that some public organizations are heavy polluters. The worst is the US department of defense which has been granted specific exemptions. They are no newcomers to the field either, as many abandoned US bases around the world (inc. Canada) are full of toxic materials, left by the US military.



> Dudireno: Who do you think they will pay to clean it up? My guess would be private companies would have the ability. I really don't know but just a guess. Those responsible for the pollution should pay. And I bet most of those sites are owned by the public. There can be a profit motive in buying polluted land and reselling it. Another free market mechanism.


.

There are plenty of companies that do environmental clean-up but that is not relevant. The original polluters are either long gone/bankrupt, have changed ownership or have forced the state to pay (in order to protect "jobs"). The point is that many dirty industries are not held accountable for their transgressions and the tax payer is left with the bill. Profiteering from the transgressions of others is a reality but is no excuse or justification for the initial pollution.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> Are you really suggesting this is based on the amount of money. Private schools do far more with lower per student money. The US pours tons of money into education.


.
As you do for healthcare. Is it more efficient? Show the per capita student expenditures of the private and public systems. If there was no public school system, what would you have the millions of students who cannot afford private education do? Learn to shoot?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dudireno you're NOT a good case for better edu via private.

The US has made terrible choices in how to spend tax payers money weapons and foreign adventurism versus fixing it's education and healthcare systems.

As to Rand out of context - you are out of "historical context". She's a product of her background and times - much value - much that does not apply to today's world.

The 60's gen in the states was a reaction to the same sort of uber government control that came out of WWII. Rand came out of Russia, so did Koestler - it shows in their thoughts and writing.
She has much to offer the individual - she's dated politically as is laissez-faire.

Every time you speak of "award" or compensation you indicate the the state as arbiter.
You also have steered clear of the Ogalalla aquifer - it's exactly that kind of comon resource that crosses I think 6 state boundaries.

Even Texans have had to "play ball" on the aquifer issue and with the Colorado river.

You can't have a modern society without institutions to govern. You CAN have a modern society where individual freedoms are very high but responsibilities are also due the state and the state is accountable to it's citizens.

I'd say Canada and some of the northern European states have reached a good balance of cost/reward for their citizens. Allowing much free enterprise without the abuses that can accompany unregulated industry or enterprise and keeping an honest gov as well.

The US does not do well in the corruption ratings - it's ranked in with Chile.

Checks and balances.

In Rand's mind, and rightly, gov had too much power and lent it to corrupt institutions like churches and unions and thereby robbed individuals of their rights and rewards for invention.

Things like the US gov robbing Armstrong of his patents, of submerging geniuses like Frank Lloyd Wright in "rule by committee ( Fountainhead was based on Wright ) she fought quite rightfully against.

She was a product of her times and the political system she escaped from and escaped to.

Neither are particularly applicable right now tho similar forces are always a threat - tyranny of gov or organization over the individual.
Right now with a shrinking world "common weal" is critical.
Books like Collapse and increasingly strong warnings by the science community about climate change and forest cover/habitat require a level of world cooperation that is unprecedented.

Some societies ( New Guinea highlands ) have been successful for tens of thousands of years. Others have failed miserably in a few hundred. It's the choices made and the lessons learned that made the difference.

We're at a hinge point now where cooperation instead of competition is critical.
The world knows how to produce vast personal well being for a few of it's dwellers.

How to both sustain it and accommodate the rest of the planet will not rest in the hands of the corporations but in the combination of political will to take long term views and the willingness of the first world citizens to both accept and force change.

One of the successful peoples of the Southwest commented to a first worlder.
*We were here before you, we'll be here after you.*

He may well be right given the choices being made now, particularly in the US by both people and govs.

If you won't look at clear situations like Montana that illustrate the forces and dynamics at work between private polluters and a state and it's citizens why are you tossing out ideas then refusing to look at real situations where they apply.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Dudireno, it is you who is suggesting that pollution is primarily due to public sources, not corporations. Customarily, the burden is on you to demonstrate that.
> 
> However, to get you started, here are a few links (please read them):
> 
> ...


Your first link is an example of how industries pay off officials for special favors. Not exactly the best example for your cause.

The second one doesn't indicate where the pollution is going. It just says it is produced by private companies. I never said pollution is performed by public entities I said it is on public property and that can be by either public or private entities. 

And your last example is about air pollution which is considered public property and court precidents lead to non ability to sue for damages. Not only that the automobile industry is highly regulated by the government in regards to emmissions. So in my opinion would be a good example of how government regulation is actually not accomplishing its stated goals. 

Your last paragraph demostrates that companies are not held liable for their transgressions. The government allows them to claim bankruptcy and the courts don't hold them accountable to damages done to other individuals. If you hurt someone or their property that should be a crime. From the sounds of your last paragraph you agree you just shift the blame to those who are able to shift responsibility. The entities who are responsible for hurting other individuals should be held liabel just like any other crime like stealing, murder, injury. It is the government who gives the hurt individuals no recourse.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> "No muslims here ETA, IRA, LTTE, N17, BK, and include the US government or US citizens produced some of the worst Terrorist acts of 20th century including the Oklahoma bombing, the uni-bomber, and last but not forgotten the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"
> 
> Muslims themselves admit that most terrorists are muslim. But you seem to be fixated on your hatred for the US.


Nope no hatred just contempt, and I've seen terrorist lists between ETA, IRA, LTTE, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski they've done allot more damage than most of the Muslim terrorists that you speak of, and that does not include the acts of Terrorism on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the current ones being pepertrated by your government in Iraq.

Laterz


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

You can't have it both ways Dudireno. Your forté/modus operandi seems to be in selective twisting of your arguments when people reply. It's a game but only if someone chooses to play along.

Corruption is not limited to government, as you well know. These companies are the largest polluters and are private companies. That they try to avoid their responsibilities through influencing politicians is not relevant to the fact that they are prvate and they pollute.

I doubt the polluters in the second example are on public land/public property.

Your reply that air pollution is considered public property may explain your odd stance that most pollution occurs on/in public space. I am not going to argue based on that basis since it provides no recourse for reduction of pollution.

I would argue that we need to give our legal channels more weight and, in your case, restore the powers of enforcement to the EPA. Then there will be incentive to act responsibly rather than for short term profit. So we are arguing to the same end - except I cannot see how we can strengthen the legal system of enforcement through private enterprise........ only through public administration.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Held responsible by WHO. You want to dump gov but then have recourse to it.

The Supersite pollution is not on public lands it's private that has been taken over by the Gov for cleanup.
Look at Montana - look under gold mining pollution. If you won;t look at your own back yard how can you question other nation's approachs.
You have severe inconsititencies in your approach.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> But you seem to be fixated on your hatred for the US.


No big surprise here that you would interpret a valid difference of opinion as hatred. I guess you subscribe to Dubya's narrow world view of you're either with us or you're against us. Pity.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"Every time you speak of "award" or compensation you indicate the the state as arbiter."

I was waiting for someone to call me on this. I actually am well read in anarcho capitalism. Which is exactly that, no state. I never bring it up because it is just too much for people to handle and they know nothing about it. I am willing to accept a state for policing against injury to another person or property including courts. Any further than that is too far. 

" You also have steered clear of the Ogalalla aquifer - it's exactly that kind of comon resource that crosses I think 6 state boundaries."

I didn't mean too. Its just like air pollution. If you pollute it and that effects someone else you can be held liable. or like a lake. Many people can own property on a lake. If you drain it and others own it as well you are held responsible for ruining anothers property.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"You can't have it both ways Dudireno. Your forté/modus operandi seems to be in selective twisting of your arguments when people reply. It's a game but only if someone chooses to play along."

This is actually quite the opposite. You have been misrepresenting my opinion. You have insinuated that I have said things that I haven't. The healthcare comment you made about me is totally inaccurate. You insinuated I said more money in healthcare means better care. I never said that. You are the one who said more investment in education equals better education. And I promptly asked asked you for clarification as to whether that was what you meant. You said that I said corporations didn't pollute. I never said that. I said most pollution happens on public land. BIG difference. The gov allows pollution.

What did I twist? You continue give bad examples that I can easliy show can be contributed to the gov. Your lack of understanding my position makes you think I am twisting your arguments. You are oblivious to how intrusive the gov is. I legitimatly disputed your links with logical arguments that are totally consistant with everything I have said so far. Why would you provide a link that showed corporations were paying Bush as an example of how the gov isn't at fault in pollution? Your accusations are cowardly.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

All I can say is that the miscommunication seems to be two-way. I'm sorry if I am not following your arguments or points. I do think you are very selective about which points you choose to follow up. 

You blame government for everything including not effectively punishing those who transgress the law. You place air pollution into the public domain rather than the private sources that generate it. The list of top polluters are all private companies. You picked on the subtext that they also contributed to the Bush campaign. Is that why they are polluters? As for investment in education, I guess I believe that this is a good thing. US public schools lack investment and the morale of teachers is low because of this. So I would argue that increasing that investment would pay off in terms of better education for the people who have no choice but to attend those schools.

As for the intrusiveness of government, that is an opinion. I don't see government as an evil. I may not trust certain politicians or their motives but they can be kicked out at the next election. I don't trust corporations to care about anything except their stockholders and I don't think that they are capable of controlling their self-interests. Do you support the integrity of the tobacco industry or is that the governments fault too?

Regarding healthcare, you believe that private medicine is more efficient than public medicine. Then why is it twice as expensive in the US compared to Canada? There is not a 2 fold difference in standard or cost of living. Even proponents of private medicine in Canada have stopped using the US as a model as the facts undermine their argument.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Wow I didn't think you would respond so positively. I also apologize for miscommunication. I appreciate your response!

I choose what I want to respond too because there is alot for me to cover. I am the only one who seems to have my opinion here. 

I am not sure what you mean by the integrity of the tobacco industry. 

My argument against the high cost of healthcare in the US is that the government is highly intrusive in the US. It essentially not a free market system. There are rules and regulations throughout the spectrum of healthcare. Including FDA, Medicare, Medicaid, and stark laws. There are rules as to what is required to be offered by insurance companies, gov incentives to offer employees coverage, special interest groups, etc. There would be no special interest groups lobbying the gov if the gov stayed out. On and on. We are terrible example of free market healthcare.

More money to public education in this country would go the adminstrators. Teachers take alot of heat for things that aren't there fault. Teachers are highly underpaid and many are highly underqualified. Yet adminstrators make 6 figures.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I held up the tobacco industry as a set of corporations that, if left to their own devices, would quite happily be consigning millions of their customers to emphysema, lung cancer, oral cancer, etc. These corps still conduct "research" that claims the harmful effects of smoking are exaggerated and that smoking-related diseases are caused by other effects (such as flying in aircraft and chest X-rays.....). I don't think they would have voluntarily admitted their products are harmful (and in fact still don't). This is not an industry with integrity and it needed public health research and governmental sanctions to reign in. Could the government do more? Yes (especially with selling to kids), but then people should be free to make an informed choice.

I agree that the plethora of regulations and rules add significantly to the cost of healthcare delivery, but surely you do not suggest the pharma industry be self-regulating? I also think that the insurance companies are incentivized by high health costs and would employ other practices to maintain them even if government was not convoluting the system.

Ahhh.... administrators.... Now we are getting to the beef. These people should not be seen as a form of government, even though they set policies and generally get in the way of everything. I'm all for lean and mean management. Effective administrators are important but their role should be *subserviant* to the delivery cohort (be it healthcare workers, teachers, soldiers, whatever). Their job is supposedly to enable the front-line workers. If so, they should be responsive to them and not consider themselves gods. I'm 100% with you on that point. The question is how to correct the beaurocratic layer that serves itself first and its functions second? This is true of all middle management - from IT execs to HR people. I don't know the answer - but I also fight this layer constantly and with vigour


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

You really think that Smoking wouldn't be considered harmful if it wasn't for the gov? There are hundreds of ways to inform the public that smoking is bad for your health. How about Mens Health Magazine, TV, charities, and "Private" schools. Besides this leads to no end. Are you one of those who wants to make laws for selling food at McDonalds? If you are obese should you blame McDonalds?

Self Regulating? No. You look at it the wrong way. The public regulates them. They regulate them by news, consumer reports, friends and family, buying, journals, etc. etc. These forms of controls are outdated because our gov in the US has turned itself into the protection agency for all of mankind. The current generations turn to the gov for protection instead of informing themselves. Where there is enough demand an entrepenure(spelling?) will fill. And that is a very efficient way of determining what gets appropriate attention. 

To think of Public School administrators as not gov is inaccurate. If these schools were private schools biding for gov contracts each year I could agree. 

"The question is how to correct the beaurocratic layer that serves itself first and its functions second" 

You privatize it. Businesses that don't streamline their managment or that don't have good managment get squeezed out by those who do. They don't turn a profit if their managment sucks.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Yes, Dudireno, I do think the decline in smoking rates is primarily due to government efforts to educate people as to the effects of smoking. I don't think the public has the wherewithall to fight big tobacco on its own, especially due to the fact that smoking is so addictive. The fact that there are still so many smokers demonstrates how potent the addiction is. Government is playing a critical role in reducing smoking as the industry is a formidable force that plays as dirty as it can.

Public regulation has few teeth. That's why sanctions are needed and they are brought forward by government on behalf of their people. Government is also needed to protect from the tyranny of the majority.

There are many, many instances of poor business management and ridiculous compensation schemes that pay out bonuses to executives regardless of the performance of the company. There is no correlation between executive pay year-on-year and market performance. Middle management may be different but, at least in Canada, private sector payscales are almost always higher in the private sector. The difference is usually in the form of better job security in the public sector.

There is corruption in both private and public management. Both should be dealt with with equal effort and penalty.

Gotta go now, have a class to teach.

P.S. Entrepreneur. As in the famous (but incorrectly attributed) quote of GWB: "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for 'entrepreneur.'"


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

This is a column I read each week and the latest one from yesterday seemed so appropriate to our discussion.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/ceos.html


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno, regarding CEO's, I think the pertinent question is whether the decisions a CEO makes drive the company. Most CEO's do not make the key decisions, their executive board does and they make their decisions based on the ideas of others. The CEO is the point person and their job is on the line but so is every employee's. CEO's in the public sector typically earn far less than those in the private sector yet do the same job. Even then, CEO's of public companies are regailed for their salaries. There does seem to be a problem when a CEO is given a multi-million dollar bonus when his/her company has performed worse than in previous years. Moreover, their severance packages are often so generous that if they are fired, there's little downside for them personally. That does not translate into effective risk taking and responsibility.

Many CEO's are excellent. Others are at best mediocre. But at least they are visible. Not so with hidden, ineffective middle-managers who have a me-first attitude - the target of so many Dilbert cartoons. You can find such people in all streams of business.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

You left the phrase out about the workers being enslaved by the evil capitalist.  

I show you a link with facts showing examples of CEOs recieving large incomes but in retrospect represent a small piece of their worth. You respond with a post that is riddled with opinion. I am so tired of this whole "post your links that support your opinion". 

How about instead of you telling me what is wrong with everything you give me a viable solution to how a CEO will not be "overpaid". Do you want income equalization laws, etc. 

Also, how is a CEO with high income a problem? Do you have contempt for the rich? That is not an accusation I truly don't no where you are coming from with that. If someone is making money does that mean at the expense of someone else?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Not sure where you are coming from with the "post your links..." thing. Do you want me to find some examples of discordant renumeration/performance of CEOs? 

Here are a few:
1. http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2003-03-31-ceopay2_x.htm 
2. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200103/28_catlinb_ceo/
3. http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/CEOsOverpaid.htm
4. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0417-04.htm

  

I think the issue comes down to how to value a CEO (or any position for that matter). I don't think its an easy question to answer and citing Jack Welsh as a good example of an effective CEO doesn't prove that all CEO's are worth their pay (in the same way that Ebbers conduct should not be used to tar all CEOs). Jack is the ideal and there are CEO's like him and others who are nothing like him. It is a free market and anyone can apply for these positions if appropriately qualified.

Are CEO's overpaid? Not necessarily - especially through salaries (which are easy to compare with market standards) but bonuses and other reimbursements tend to reflect the biggest disproportion to apparent "worth" to a company. I do have a problem with someone earning money that does not reflect their worth to their job as its inefficient and undeserving. I have no contempt for those that are rich through their own legitimate efforts (inc. pro sports and celebrities). I've known quite a few CEO's (in private and public jobs). Some are truly inspirational and dedicated. Others are simply looking for the next stepping stone, others you wonder why on earth they are able to hold down the job. It's simply not possible to generalize. Some CEO's are worth their compensation, others are not. The problem seems to be that market forces are not very effective at weeding the latter out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Economist thinks it WAS way out of control. 
The GINI ratings for the US are awful and much because of the insane compensation - even when companies are in dire straits.
Compare that to firms like Toyota and the big US Steelmaker whose name escapes where all staff and management share in rewards and if the plant has a bad year they ALL have a bad year.



> Bosses' bonuses are booming, but that is not all bad
> 
> NOW is the season when American companies file their annual reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Among other things, these documents give details of the pay of the companies' top executives. This year these closely watched numbers are being translated into headlines about huge increases in bonuses for the people who run the world's biggest companies. A study by Mercer Human Resource Consulting for the Wall Street Journal shows that last year's bonuses for the CEOs at 100 large American companies rose by 46.4%. The median bonus was $1.14m.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Sorry used to be jwoodget the "post your links..." wasn't actually to make you post a link. People asked me to do that before when I thought it was unneccessary and I have to admit it may not have been you. I was just making a point that I didn't need proof to believe that you were giving those opinions based on actual information.

I just think we fundamentally differ and can agree to disagree. I just don't have a problem with these CEOs getting paid alot. I think many gov employees are over paid. I think many employees that I have worked with in my life didn't work near as hard as I did and were either paid as much as me or close to it. However, I went on to succeed and I don't think those people did. They showed a lack of work ethic. My hard work and turning the other cheek kept me appreciated by my bosses. I recieved many benenfits in other ways. We can find examples of unfair salaries throughout the work force. I just think when you make millions you will be a larger target and recieve more animosity and scrutiny. 

I feel as if you want equality of outcomes not equality of opportunity.

But again what is your solution? I just don't see how we can police all these salaries without being intrusive. How are we going to determine standards that says this guy is getting paid too much and how will that change as society changes. And I think fundamentally it would be wrong. These people are being paid voluntarily by those involved in the companies. Unless you are suggesting all these bonuses are just fraudlent stealing. A CEO is essentially the employee of the shareholders. If you don't like whats going on don't be a share holder. That is our best recourse against this. Stop giving them the money if they aren't deserving. How can you disagree with that. If we didn't buy products from Wal Mart they wouldn't be around. You put responsiblity on the companies and private entities. I put responsibility on the consumer. A companies only responsiblity is to make a profit as long as they do it without stealing or force. To make a profit means they are producing a product or service that serves their fellow man. They have no obligation to do it as you see fit. In fact if you decide to be intrusive you could argue you are trampling another mans right to interact with this group of private businessmen.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

MACDOC what would you say to this

"Let's look at who doesn't pay taxes. According to a study done by Scott Hodge, President of the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, and his colleagues, 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders will have no 2004 federal income tax liability. The Tax Foundation study concludes, "When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans - 44 percent of the U.S. population - are outside of the federal income tax system."

Who does pay federal income taxes? The top 20 percent of income-earners pay 80 percent and the top 50 percent pay 96.5 percent of total federal income taxes. Given these figures about who does and does not pay federal income taxes, what are we to make of John Edwards' stump speech? He's right in one sense. One group of Americans, those at the top, who work and pay virtually all federal income taxes and another group, those at the bottom, who work and pay little or no federal income taxes."

Income redistribution doesn't solve anything. The top 20 percent of income earners pay 80 percent of the tax. Fundamentally we are taking from one and giving to another by force.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Here is the fundamental difference. You guys put social Justice ahead of Freedom. I put Freedom ahead of Social Justice. Not only do I value Freedom more so than Social Justice it can be argued that Fredom leads to Social Justice. 

how would you rank these four?

Freedom - individual freedom
Liberty - National Independence
Peace - absence of large scale warfare
Justice - Social Justice 

They are in the order I would rank them. I think if you answer this question you can see our fundamental differences. Actually this would be a good one to start a new thread. I think I will do that.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

*Getting down to the Fundamentals*

How would you rank these four? I am putting them in my own order

Freedom - Individual Freedom
Liberty - National Independence
Peace - absence of large scale warfare
Justice - Social Justice, equality of outcomes


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Oops I meant to start a new thread. That was brilliant!!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I tend to agree insofar as the CEO's are answerable to their shareholders. In many cases, the shareholders have questioned the compensation and bonus deals of senior management. The shareholders are not party to the employment contracts as they are drawn up by search/compensation committees and this can lead to major disconnects between performance of the company and the executive compensation. The shareholders are having some successes - such as the trend away from granting options that are not properly expensed (Apple is one of the companies still to properly report the impact of such options on the bottom line - in part because this has a huge effect when the options are as far above water as Apples are).

I do believe in hard work being rewarded. Remove that incentive or tolerate waste and inefficiency or inappropriate reward and the morale of your employees declines dramatically.


----------

