USSC Justice Scalia Dead at 79

[albrecht]

It is somewhat bizarre how motivated and vitriolic certain posters are from Canada, and the UK, over a US Supreme Court Justice and our politics in general (and throw in a 20 year radio show host also.) I don't mind it and appreciate comments (sometimes people outside your land can give you unique, or at least different, perspectives) but it is a bit sad also. Are such countries so mediocre, the US stuff so interesting, or why so much motivation to always be discussing another country's politics, system, radio hosts, etc?

[onan]

It is somewhat bizarre how motivated and vitriolic certain posters are from Canada, and the UK, over a US Supreme Court Justice and our politics in general (and throw in a 20 year radio show host also.) I don't mind it and appreciate comments (sometimes people outside your land can give you unique, or at least different, perspectives) but it is a bit sad also. Are such countries so mediocre, the US stuff so interesting, or why so much motivation to always be discussing another country's politics, system, radio hosts, etc?

I think the better question is, why are Americans not anywhere near as knowledgeable about other governments?

[136 or 142]

As public as this forum seems to us, I doubt any offense travels to the Scallia family. I more strongly doubt anyone of them cares what we think.

Look, it's all opinion. I think Scalia was a schmuck (and not in a good way.) I can point to stories that support that claim. Others that see it differently will counter post and then another shiney will take the lead.

I am not looking for a flight to piss and or dance on his soon to be grave. I might watch a YouTube of it however.

I actually wasn't entirely either.  I mostly wrote here because I saw some comments that brought up that 'what a wonderful guy he was' bullshit and felt the need to counter that.

That said, I did post similar comments to what I posted here completely unprompted in a couple other places. 

On the one hand, maybe I could have waited before posting those things (or simply not posted them ever), on the other hand, if I waited the two weeks as suggested, most people will have moved on by then and relatively very few people will still care about Scalia one way or the other.

[136 or 142]

It is somewhat bizarre how motivated and vitriolic certain posters are from Canada, and the UK, over a US Supreme Court Justice and our politics in general (and throw in a 20 year radio show host also.) I don't mind it and appreciate comments (sometimes people outside your land can give you unique, or at least different, perspectives) but it is a bit sad also. Are such countries so mediocre, the US stuff so interesting, or why so much motivation to always be discussing another country's politics, system, radio hosts, etc?

Adam Stirling was a talk radio show host for around five years.  I believe he was a lawyer prior to that and left his radio job to pursue a masters in economics.

The United States effects (affects?) the world in a way that no other country does, not even China as of yet, even the Republican Presidential candidates acknowledge. So, if the United States is becoming an oligarchy (or already is one) due, in part, to Citizen's United, then it's likely to have a major impact on the rest of the world.

We already know that U.S foreign policy and military adventurism was for many years off and on based on U.S governments defending the interests of their major corporations even to the point of overthrowing democratically elected governments, so it shouldn't be hard to understand why people all over the world pay a great deal of interest in U.S politics and policy.

Other points of consideration:
1.U.S financial crisis of 2008 led to a worldwide recession.

2.U.S 'word reserve currency' can be greatly effected (affected?) by $20 trillion debt. 
I personally think this 'world reserve currency' stuff is greatly overrated in regards to pretty much everything mentioned about it and its supposed importance veers on conspiracy theory territory, but combining the world reserve currency status with the nearly $20 trillion of U.S government debt does seem to my semi trained understanding of economics to be a genuine concern.

3.Continued U.S military adventurism.

4.U.S oligarchs also control a fair amount of world wide foreign business interests, just as a lot of the world wide corporations are also U.S oligarchs.

[albrecht]

I think the better question is, why are Americans not anywhere near as knowledgeable about other governments?

Americans need to learn their own first! We are not nearly as knowledgeable about our own, to wit the the people we tend to elect, voter participation (though it could be argued that not participating shows some knowledge of the situation,) and what is taught in schools or shown in our entertainment. But still I wonder why some much vitriol and effort by foreigners about our politics, radio hosts, Justices, etc? To these Canadians, and others, think their country so boring or mediocre so that one must comment on others, with such vemon and effort? I've lived and traveled in many countries but never presumed, aside from local issues in which I was able to vote but didn't do so, to tell their politicians, judges, or radio hosts how to act. And wasn't that concerned about it (though would express my opinions, sure, over coffee or beers etc, but ultimately it is not my business or real concern- though what is happening with the EU, refugees, etc is sad.) And I appreciate the situation that the USA has so much influence (both outright in our sometimes crazy wars but also in our 'culture,' if one can use that word, of Hollywood, Coke, etc) that could cause others to be concerned but still?

[albrecht]

Adam Stirling was a talk radio show host for around five years.  I believe he was a lawyer prior to that and left his radio job to pursue a masters in economics.

The United States effects (affects?) the world in a way that no other country does, not even China as of yet, even the Republican Presidential candidates acknowledge. So, if the United States is becoming an oligarchy (or already is one) due, in part, to Citizen's United, then it's likely to have a major impact on the rest of the world.

We already know that U.S foreign policy and military adventurism was for many years off and on based on U.S governments defending the interests of their major corporations even to the point of overthrowing democratically elected governments, so it shouldn't be hard to understand why people all over the world pay a great deal of interest in U.S politics and policy.

Or they could focus on their country, companies, military, etc and become a power to 'check' that evil old USA? Or, at least, stop moving here, investing here, or buying our stuff. Nothing would prohibit Canada from saying: no more trade with the USA, secede from the NHL and our military agreements, or stop selling us your products or buying ours, stop sending use news anchors and comedians, etc. Strengthen the current policy but insist that 100% of all media content is produced and made in Canada. Go for it. See how it works out.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I think the better question is, why are Americans not anywhere near as knowledgeable about other governments?

It's called American Exceptionalism, which means we don't have to care.  If you don't like it, you can suck it along with the rest of the world, chump. 

[136 or 142]

Or they could focus on their country, companies, military, etc and become a power to 'check' that evil old USA? Or, at least, stop moving here, investing here, or buying our stuff. Nothing would prohibit Canada from saying: no more trade with the USA, secede from the NHL and our military agreements, or stop selling us your products or buying ours, stop sending use news anchors and comedians, etc. Strengthen the current policy but insist that 100% of all media content is produced and made in Canada. Go for it. See how it works out.

Given the amount of trade Canada has with the U.S, that sounds like autarky.  We already know how that turns out and it isn't pleasant.

In a more detailed response, Canada has trade agreements with the U.S that we're we to abrogate them it would seriously harm us in return.  Also, as a democracy, I don't think the Canadian government can ban the import of items from foreign countries without doing something like imposing sanctions.

I also don't think a Canadian government could prevent its citizens from travelling to the United States, and, if need, be buying U.S sold products there.  (I'd write U.S made products, but let's be real )

[VtaGeezer]

From wiki:
Or, are you referring to a different ruling on 'money equals speech'?

You're right, it was 5:4
I made a quick check of the wiki summary of the CU opinions which upon reading the text, is misleading as hell:
Majority:   Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
Concur/dissent:   Thomas
I should have checked Cornell.

[albrecht]

Given the amount of trade Canada has with the U.S, that sounds like autarky.  We already know how that turns out and it isn't pleasant.

In a more detailed response, Canada has trade agreements with the U.S that we're we to abrogate them it would seriously harm us in return.  Also, as a democracy, I don't think the Canadian government can ban the import of items from foreign countries without doing something like imposing sanctions.

I also don't think a Canadian government could prevent its citizens from travelling to the United States, and, if need, be buying U.S sold products there.  (I'd write U.S made products, but let's be real )

Actually, with some privations for sure, I actually think countries as large as Canada (and the USA though less so now with our population and 'diversity') could exist as an autarky and likely do ok. You have plenty of fishing territory, water, timber, hydrocarbons, minerals, and arable land and a relatively small population versus land area. Obviously defense is the biggest issue and possibility of strife between ethnic types maybe complicating it. (And that the international community, banks, and corporations would never allow a major country to actually rule itself or be self-contained and after the TPP etc who know if even our local laws will hold any water if some supra-national entity complains?)

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Go stiffen your upper lip and squat on a spanner, Enid.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

1.Doesn't mean you use them correctly.  You didn't address his criticism, so -1 point for the dodge.

I've never been told in any of my discussions where I use those terms that I've used them incorrectly.  So, I highly doubt I'm not using them correctly.

Annnnnnd again, that doesn't mean you use them correctly.  That's -2 points plus a Marco Rubio cluster with oak leaf for walking into a fist repeatedly.

2.See above about coherency in writing.
This is what I wrote: "The correct response, in my opinion (hah!) to all unsupported opinions is 'why?""

That's not coherent enough for you?

THAT'S what you meant (not wrote)?  Why didn't you just say that then, rather than that pretzel of convolution? 

3.You don't really seem sincere about this.

I can only try my best.

I'll just leave this here for others to ponder.

4.Now that you've  had the last word?

Works for me.

I guess.  You cut out the line about how SneakyVaginitus writes better than you do, and in the process renumbered all the references.  I'm gonna go with Srsly on this one -- you seem to be a bit of a putz.

[136 or 142]

Actually, with some privations for sure, I actually think countries as large as Canada (and the USA though less so now with our population and 'diversity') could exist as an autarky and likely do ok. You have plenty of fishing territory, water, timber, hydrocarbons, minerals, and arable land and a relatively small population versus land area. Obviously defense is the biggest issue and possibility of strife between ethnic types maybe complicating it. (And that the international community, banks, and corporations would never allow a major country to actually rule itself or be self-contained and after the TPP etc who know if even our local laws will hold any water if some supra-national entity complains?)

I don't think so.  Canada's GDP in 2015 was around $1.8 trillion and we imported around $420 billion worth of products.  I can't find any site that shows loans by foreign banks to Canadian corporations but judging by the 'contagion' that hit much of the world (though much less so Canada) following the 2008 U.S financial meltdown I'd imagine that it isn't insignificant.

Leaving aside things like the fruits and vegetables that we import either because they can't be grown here at all or can't be grown cheaply for many months of the year, I can't even begin to imagine the added cost of replacing the $420b that Canada imports (nearly 20% in comparison to our GDP) with Canadian made products, for the products that can be made here.

[136 or 142]

1.Annnnnnd again, that doesn't mean you use them correctly.  That's -2 points plus a Marco Rubio cluster with oak leaf for walking into a fist repeatedly.

For what it's worth, it also doesn't mean that I used them incorrectly.  If it means anything to you, there is not a doubt in my mind that I'm using those terms correctly, seeing that I've used them in discussions on other boards with one or two economics professors and used to use them in papers to my economics instructors, and nobody has ever said that I've used them incorrectly. All you have is one person here saying that I used them incorrectly and never actually explained in what way.

2.THAT'S what you meant (not wrote)? 
No, that was a cut and paste of what I wrote.  I also never edited it.  There was a prior sentence that I wrote that maybe could have been written better, but what I cut and pasted was a standalone sentence that I don't see how anybody could fail to understand.

4 (or 3) You cut out the line about how SneakyVaginitus writes better than you do, and in the process renumbered all the references.  I'm gonna go with Srsly on this one -- you seem to be a bit of a putz.

I'm sure there are many people who write better than I do, whether SredniVashtar is one of them, I'll leave that up for others to decide.  My own view is that I write better than he does and I am also superior to him in making coherent and consistent arguments.  I'm sure he'd be quick to tell you though that he is morally superior to me.

I'm having problems, as you may be able to tell, with quoting other comments, so I renumbered your comments to fit with the order of my comments. I meant nothing by it, and that you seem to think that it's in someway significant suggests to me that you seem to be a bit of a putz.  If you like however, I can go back and edit my post to fit your numbering scheme.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm sure there are many people who write better than I do, whether Srsly is one of them, I'll leave that up for others to decide.  My own view is that I write better than he does.

Sigh: I have been wrenched from my sabbatical to disavow you of the notion you're a better writer than SV. The southern nancy boy has his faults, oh boy does he have his faults!; And although it pains me to say so, and with quite deep seated regret to make his voluminous head any bigger than it already is, he is a far better writer than almost all on this esteemed vehicle for musing intercourse. It goes without saying, he is better than you; if only by dint that your grammar and parsing leaves a great deal to be desired.

You're welcome.


Anyway, while I'm here; the title. I don't know him, and hadn't heard of him until I saw it plastered all over the BBC website. Appearance and name suggests Italian extraction? Yes? Hey ho...

But scanning the thread sees some quite passionate opinions. What I will always find fascinating about the psyche of a lot of Americans, is the adversarial nature of almost anything. Take the current 'debates' over the Rep nominees. Debate? Yeah, if you take the mind set of 10 year olds in a yard as the bare minimum to qualify in an arena that will possibly decide the "Next President of the USA"...yep boys and girls. Trump is an asshole, wanting desperately to be taken seriously as a fool, wrapped up in the clothes of a moron.. and wants to be taken seriously by the world stage? Yeah...sure he does!

I'm digressing I know, this is an adversarial discussion about a deceased judge...I doubt 99.99999% of the British population could name one judge unless they'd stood in the dock in front of them!


Carry on chaps..

[albrecht]

Sigh: I have been wrenched from my sabbatical to disavow you of the notion you're a better writer than SV. The southern nancy boy has his faults, oh boy does he have his faults!; And although it pains me to say so, and with quite deep seated regret to make his voluminous head any bigger than it already is, he is a far better writer than almost all on this esteemed vehicle for musing intercourse. It goes without saying, he is better than you; if only by dint that your grammar and parsing has a great deal to be desired.

You're welcome.


Anyway, while I'm here; the title. I don't know him, and hadn't heard of him until I saw it plastered all over the BBC website. Appearance and name suggests Italian extraction? Yes? Hey ho...

But scanning the thread sees some quite passionate opinions. What I will always find fascinating about the psyche of a lot of Americans, is the adversarial nature of almost anything. Take the current 'debates' over the Rep nominees. Debate? Yeah, if you take the mind set of 10 year olds in a yard as the bare minimum to qualify in an arena that will possibly decide the "Next President of the USA"...yep boys and girls. Trump is an asshole, wanting desperately wanting to be taken seriously as a fool, wrapped up in the clothes of a moron.. and wants to be taken seriously by the world stage? Yeah...sure he does!

I'm digressing I know, this is an adversarial discussion about a deceased judge...I doubt 99.99999% of the British population could name one judge unless they'd stood in the dock in front of them!


Carry on chaps..

Yeah, it is sometimes both silly and funny. Unfortunately our Justices essentially determine what our laws are, no matter what Congress, States, or the people think or vote (a comparison that might help would be to think of them like that they are equivalent to your masters in places like Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg.) That is why it is sometimes, or always, so divisive and/or funny when it comes to nominations. We've ever had supposedly august bodies discussing public hairs on Coke cans at some points!

[albrecht]

I don't think so.  Canada's GDP in 2015 was around $1.8 trillion and we imported around $420 billion worth of products.  I can't find any site that shows loans by foreign banks to Canadian corporations but judging by the 'contagion' that hit much of the world (though much less so Canada) following the 2008 U.S financial meltdown I'd imagine that it isn't insignificant.

Leaving aside things like the fruits and vegetables that we import either because they can't be grown here at all or can't be grown cheaply for many months of the year, I can't even begin to imagine the added cost of replacing the $420b that Canada imports (nearly 20% in comparison to our GDP) with Canadian made products, for the products that can be made here.

It would be an interesting experiment. N.Korea tried but doesn't really since we, the Chinese, etc always need to bail them out. But with greenhouses, hydro-electric and nuclear, and all the resources you lot have up there. You could do it! Sure some privation and no more latest, cheap gadgets but in terms of basics of living- even with a higher standard than most of history. There is some crazy near here who he and some family have been "holed up" on their land in a stand-off with the police for 30 years. Never leaves his land. The Sheriff and Court have recently even said there is no more issue (statute of limitation) and no warrant etc but they still refuse to leave. Have their own crops, river to fish, hogs, chickens, wells, firewood, game to hunt and trap, etc and live. Bizarre but true. And, for once, the police were logical and said not worth people getting shot (on either side) over what was a minor ticket turned warrant, so just let them be.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah, it is sometimes both silly and funny. Unfortunately our Justices essentially determine what our laws are, no matter what Congress, States, or the people think or vote (a comparison that might help would be to think of them like that they are equivalent to your masters in places like Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg.) That is why it is sometimes, or always, so divisive and/or funny when it comes to nominations. We've ever had supposedly august bodies discussing public hairs on Coke cans at some points!

I have no idea how they're appointed (I presume by the incumbent Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, with guidance) but we have 'law lords'. These judges are the ones who discuss and give their word on points of law that could be contentious or are being challenged (either by the plaintiff/crown or the respondent/defendant). To my knowledge it isn't down political lines, but as the Lord Chancellor is an MP and therefore the sitting government's representative, it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Ultimately Parliament votes for or against proposed changes in law. As you say, the elephant is the EU, but I think that particular joke is wearing thin (As far as laws are concerned), even with the most pro EU advocate.

[136 or 142]

Yeah, it is sometimes both silly and funny. Unfortunately our Justices essentially determine what our laws are, no matter what Congress, States, or the people think or vote (a comparison that might help would be to think of them like that they are equivalent to your masters in places like Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg.)

And in the House of Lords.

[Yorkshire pud]

And in the House of Lords.

House of Commons. The Lords can give their view and can go against the Commons, but ultimately the Commons has the final say. 'Cos that's where the votes are!

[albrecht]

I have no idea how they're appointed (I presume by the incumbent Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, with guidance) but we have 'law lords'. These judges are the ones who discuss and give their word on points of law that could be contentious or are being challenged (either by the plaintiff/crown or the respondent/defendant). To my knowledge it isn't down political lines, but as the Lord Chancellor is an MP and therefore the sitting government's representative, it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Ultimately Parliament votes for or against proposed changes in law. As you say, the elephant is the EU, but I think that particular joke is wearing thin (As far as laws are concerned), even with the most pro EU advocate.

Soon it will all be moot once things like the TPP and other 'free' trade supranational laws and treaties are passed and some international bodies will determine what our laws and regulations are. 
ps: our Justices are appointed by the President but need to be confirmed by our Senate and so much politicking and scheming. Congress determines the number of Justices (over time it was expanded from initial composition as the country grew and/or for political purposes.) One of the more bizarre thing, if one looks at it from the outside, is the Court, arguably at least, expanded/created much of its own jurisdiction- which is somewhat bizarre logically speaking.

[136 or 142]

It would be an interesting experiment. N.Korea tried but doesn't really since we, the Chinese, etc always need to bail them out. But with greenhouses, hydro-electric and nuclear, and all the resources you lot have up there. You could do it! Sure some privation and no more latest, cheap gadgets but in terms of basics of living- even with a higher standard than most of history. There is some crazy near here who he and some family have been "holed up" on their land in a stand-off with the police for 30 years. Never leaves his land. The Sheriff and Court have recently even said there is no more issue (statute of limitation) and no warrant etc but they still refuse to leave. Have their own crops, river to fish, hogs, chickens, wells, firewood, game to hunt and trap, etc and live. Bizarre but true. And, for once, the police were logical and said not worth people getting shot (on either side) over what was a minor ticket turned warrant, so just let them be.

There have been a number of countries that have practiced autarky at one time or another.  I'm most familiar with Spain due to having read a biography of Franco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

While it seems all of the countries mentioned there were poor to be begin with, unlike Canada, I think it is instructive that at least two of those countries experienced massive economic growth once they embraced trade.

Spain; Under dictator Francisco Franco, was an autarky from 1939 until Franco allowed outside trade again in 1959, coinciding with the beginning of the Spanish miracle.

India; Had a policy of near-autarky that began after its establishment as an independent state, around 1950; it increased until 1980 and ended in 1991 due to imminent bankruptcy

Interesting that you brought up greenhouses as that is the example that my instructor of first year macroeconomics used to explain the concept of comparative advantage. While Canada probably could grow all the fruits and vegetables it imports in greenhouses, she said that prices for those goods would be, on average, at least four times higher.  This was quite a few years ago now, but I doubt things have changed all that much (even with the drought in the Western United States.)

[136 or 142]

House of Commons. The Lords can give their view and can go against the Commons, but ultimately the Commons has the final say. 'Cos that's where the votes are!

No, I meant that the Law Lords are in the House of Lords, unless they no longer are.

[Yorkshire pud]

No, I meant that the Law Lords are in the House of Lords, unless they no longer are.

Yes they are, but the commons decides law and votes on it. The House of Lords gives guidance. The Law Lords give their interpretation of the law and sometimes have told the Lord Chief Justice he/she is wrong on a point of law. Naturally, what happens then is the sulking government proposes a change in that pesky law that prevented them riding rough shod over the proles. Tony Blair was notorious for it.

[albrecht]

There have been a number of countries that have practiced autarky at one time or another.  I'm most familiar with Spain due to having read a biography of Franco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

While it seems all of the countries mentioned there were poor to be begin with, unlike Canada, I think it is instructive that at least two of those countries experienced massive economic growth once they embraced trade.

Spain; Under dictator Francisco Franco, was an autarky from 1939 until Franco allowed outside trade again in 1959, coinciding with the beginning of the Spanish miracle.

India; Had a policy of near-autarky that began after its establishment as an independent state, around 1950; it increased until 1980 and ended in 1991 due to imminent bankruptcy

Interesting that you brought up greenhouses as that is the example that my instructor on first year macroeconomics used to explain the concept of comparative advantage. While Canada probably could grow all fruits and vegetables it imports in greenhouses, she said that prices for those goods would be, on average, at least four times higher.  This was quite a few years ago now, but I doubt things have changed all that much (even with the drought in the Western United States.)

I'm just speculating. It would be an interesting experiment. Albania pretty much was one for some time, Burma in some regard. Not places most people would want to live. Obviously trade benefits a country etc. Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc. But economists often (at least in the older days) don't take some things into account. On paper sure, completely free, logical trade and decision making in perfect markets where everyone has information. And costs would rise (as you mention) but in some cases- ok not full on autarky here- higher costs could be acceptable as a trade-off for things like employment, defense, ensure important industries/food production, etc and not being totally reliant on others. Or if the costs would be off-set by savings in other areas (like war making.) Even in a case, for example, of wanting to maintain a culture, way of life, tourism, etc (as in say subsidizing, or protecting by tariffs, something for the sake of keeping it around or drawing tourists, etc.)

[136 or 142]

Yes they are, but the commons decides law and votes on it. The House of Lords gives guidance. The Law Lords give their interpretation of the law and sometimes have told the Lord Chief Justice he/she is wrong on a point of law. Naturally, what happens then is the sulking government proposes a change in that pesky law that prevented them riding rough shod over the proles. Tony Blair was notorious for it.

Oh, I didn't know that.  I think this is the difference between having a written constitution like the U.S has and the 'unwritten constitution' that the U.K has.  I believe that U.K constitutional law is mostly based on precedent.

[136 or 142]

I'm just speculating. It would be an interesting experiment. Albania pretty much was one for some time, Burma in some regard. Not places most people would want to live. Obviously trade benefits a country etc. Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc. But economists often (at least in the older days) don't take some things into account. On paper sure, completely free, logical trade and decision making in perfect markets where everyone has information. And costs would rise (as you mention) but in some cases- ok not full on autarky here- higher costs could be acceptable as a trade-off for things like employment, defense, ensure important industries/food production, etc and not being totally reliant on others. Or if the costs would be off-set by savings in other areas (like war making.) Even in a case, for example, of wanting to maintain a culture, way of life, tourism, etc (as in say subsidizing, or protecting by tariffs, something for the sake of keeping it around or drawing tourists, etc.)

I think the other most interesting things about that list of nations was that, other than India, at the time they tried autarky they were all dictatorships.  I realize that prior to free trade agreements and the resulting protection for businesses that commerce, at least in Canada, didn't have the same constitutional protections as basic human rights.  But, even then, Canadian governments usually could not justify to the public barring the importation of foreign goods except on the grounds of things like health protections or sanctions.

Certainly banning people from traveling in order to prevent them from illegally bringing back some foreign goods would be very difficult to enforce, both the ban on travel and the illegal importation of goods.

Of course, Canada has autarky/cartelization in our dairy sector, and the general agreement of most trade economists is that this raises the price of dairy products by at least 25%

[albrecht]

I think the other most interesting things about that list of nations was that, other than India, at the time they tried autarky they were all dictatorships.  I realize that prior to free trade agreements and the resulting protection for businesses that commerce, at least in Canada, didn't have the same constitutional protections as basic human rights.  But, even then, Canadian governments usually could not justify to the public barring the importation of foreign goods except on the grounds of things like health protections or sanctions.

Certainly banning people from traveling in order to prevent them from illegally bringing back some foreign goods would be very difficult to enforce, both the ban on travel and the illegal importation of goods.

Of course, Canada has autarky/cartelization in our dairy sector, and the general agreement of most trade economists is that this raises the price of dairy products by at least 25%

Obviously there is no 'pure' country with regard to economic or political theory. Of, if there are they usually result in hell-holes. When you start to look at details the USA has TONS of regulations and laws that impact businesses and trade. As do most countries. Some of it is usual political favor, some have some logic, some are liked, and many are not or not even known about (unless one is in that industry.) Importation of goods can be limited by a country though you are correct that smuggling can always happen but most countries' regulate some. I recall being asked about cigarette or tobacco when crossing over to Canada even!

But I'm for more self-reliance and trading blocs between civilized countries or countries on which was can agree (for the most part) and not with dictatorships, communists, Muslims, etc. But, obviously, for certain things that is impossible. But also it is dangerous for a country to rely on potential enemies for crucial things.

Back to Scalia. Other than the Indian guy any other candidates being talked about?

[136 or 142]

Back to Scalia. Other than the Indian guy any other candidates being talked about?

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=229230.0
Inevitable question: Who does Obama nominate to replace Scalia?

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=1.0
U.S General Discussion

[Jackstar]

    Of course, the Founders had no idea that corporations would be doling out health care for their employees.

I seem to remember Thomas Jefferson doling out a little health-care.

I'm sure they would have preferred to have health care left up to the individual.   

Yes, because they knew all about cancer and radiation therapy and the effects of the Industrial Revolution on the environmental causes of illness and disease. Of course.