An unprecedented move which could backfire as it did for Chirac in 1997. Macron is playing a dangerous gamble with the Fifth Republic... 🗳️🇫🇷

Damn it - he should run for president.

The Ohio Supreme Court's decision to allow chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' to contain bones warrants an examination of the principles underlying voluntary exchanges and the protection of consumer rights. When individuals engage in transactions, the terms and descriptions presented are expected to be accurate, fostering trust and informed decision-making. An advertisement promising 'boneless' wings that includes bones disrupts this trust, introducing an element of deception.

For a marketplace to function effectively, it is essential that representations made in the course of business transactions are truthful. Consumers rely on these representations to make choices that align with their preferences and expectations. If these expectations are systematically violated, the very foundation of voluntary exchange is compromised.

Thus, the court's role in addressing such issues is to ensure that the transactional environment remains transparent and honest. By upholding standards against misleading advertisements, the court helps maintain the integrity of voluntary exchanges, allowing individuals to engage in transactions free from coercion and deceit.

I see what you did there...and I approve haha

Let it pass you by.

She ought to be given a medal 🏅

Biden had no choice but to withdraw - the polling suggest he was going to lose to Trump. The problem is a) the VP has largely been abscent so hasn't really been able to develop a strong profile and b) the VP is Kamala Harris. The problem the Democrats face is not having a candidate that galvanises the same level of support as Trump. There is simply a dearth of credible candidates. Personally, I would encourage Mitt Romney to defect to the Democrats and get him to stand or Jimmy Carter.

I'll bare that in mind - thank you; I assumed erroneously that there was only one Halifax and assumed that everyone knew this corner of 'God's own county' ;)

(I have edited the title).

I was being ironic.

Yes - although "wood ear" (Auricularia heimuer) is a different species and is not native to Europe before can however be used in cooking. I must confess I've not tried it.

Sadly, that is the case 😔

hahaha - I missed the word 'not'...I've not tried it 😅

They don't - it adds to the flavour.

Like I said: a dangerous gamble with the Fifth Republic...

Never much on a hunch ;)

Lamentable but copyright is a critical mechanism for protecting the rights of creators.

I was being facetious.

I would have thought Biden supporters would support Biden. This is hardly a revelation.

About time too and Kamala is more unelectable than Biden. I can't see if this has already been mentioned but this been the first time since LBJ when sitting president refused to seek nomination for a second term.

And by the looks of things it seems like I was right it has (so far) spectacularly backfired. Obviously we have to wait for the second round but..

Sometimes I wonder why America is a called "the land of the free".

haha like something out of LoTR.

🤣😅

"it's not my fault Jack it's someone else's"

Text isn't always the best medium to convey irony/sarcasm.

Thank you 😊

While it is true that an employer may theoretically hire both labor and capital, in practice, the most efficient and productive enterprises are those where employers possess and manage capital. This ownership enables the coordination and investment necessary for innovation and progress. The bargaining power you mention is not an arbitrary imposition but a natural consequence of providing value through the creation and management of capital.

Responsibility is an inescapable part of human existence. Each individual must be accountable for their actions, regardless of the roles they play within a larger organisation. The idea that an employee can absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming they merely sold their labor is a dangerous fallacy. It undermines the very essence of individual autonomy and moral agency.

Consider the case of an employer and an employee conspiring to commit a crime. Both parties are making conscious choices, and thus, both bear the responsibility for those choices. Attempting to transfer blame entirely to the employer is not only logically flawed but morally indefensible. The employee, in choosing to participate in the crime, exercises their own judgment and will, and must face the consequences of those actions.

The law rightly reflects this reality by holding both the employer and the employee accountable. This alignment of legal responsibility with de facto responsibility is essential for a just and moral society. Each person must recognize and accept their own role in their actions and the inherent responsibilities that come with it. To do otherwise is to deny one's own humanity and the ethical duty to live as a rational, self-determined being.

Alas that is true.

The notion that legal responsibility should align with de facto responsibility and thereby necessitate that all firms operate as worker cooperatives, banning employer-employee contracts, is an egregious affront to the principles of individual rights and freedom. This proposition assumes a collectivist paradigm where the individual’s agency and sovereignty are subsumed under the collective will of the group.

In the moral universe that respects individual liberty, each person has the right to enter into contracts of their own volition. The employer-employee relationship is one such contract, where each party consents to specific terms for mutual benefit. To mandate that all firms must function as worker cooperatives is to obliterate the sanctity of voluntary association, replacing it with a coerced collectivism that is antithetical to the very essence of a free society.

Worker cooperatives may be suitable for some, but to impose this structure universally disregards the diverse needs and aspirations of individuals. It denies the entrepreneur the right to create and lead a venture according to their vision, and it strips employees of the choice to enter into employment agreements that they find advantageous.

Legal responsibility should indeed align with de facto responsibility, but this alignment must be rooted in the acknowledgment of individual rights and the freedom to choose. Forcing all firms to become worker cooperatives would destroy the foundation of capitalism—the system that recognises and protects individual rights, allowing for innovation, productivity, and human flourishing.

To assert that legal and de facto responsibility should match is to acknowledge the inviolable sanctity of individual effort and its resultant rewards. This principle, indeed, forms the bedrock of property rights, recognising that a person's labour and its fruits are inherently theirs to claim. The notion that employment, by its nature, contravenes this principle is a profound misapprehension of the dynamics of a free-market system.

Employment is a voluntary transaction between individuals—an agreement where one chooses to trade their labour for compensation. This exchange is not a violation of rights but a manifestation of them. The freedom to contract, to negotiate terms, and to mutually benefit from each other's strengths is the essence of a capitalist society.

To suggest that labour isn't transferable is to deny the autonomy of individuals to dispose of their effort as they see fit. It is to ignore the fact that in a true capitalist society, the individual retains full control over their labour, choosing when, where, and for whom to work based on their own rational self-interest.

The foundations of capitalism do not need destroying; they need understanding and appreciation. They are built upon the recognition of individual rights, the freedom to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges, and the respect for personal property. It is through these principles that human potential is unleashed, innovation thrives, and societies flourish. To dismantle these foundations is to undermine the very source of progress and prosperity.

Your assertion that employers violate workers' inalienable rights by controlling opportunities does not align with the principles of a free society.. Employers provide opportunities through their legitimate ownership of capital and resources, and workers voluntarily agree to the terms of employment. This voluntary exchange is a fundamental aspect of a free market. Legal and de facto responsibilities are aligned through voluntary contracts, and any perceived imbalance does not justify infringing on property rights.

As for landlords and land, the legitimate acquisition and ownership of property are central to individual liberty. If landlords have acquired land through just means, they have the right to control its use. The idea of equal claims to land undermines the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer of holdings. Historical injustices in acquisition should be rectified, but this does not negate the current rights of property owners.

Trump is a douchbag....

In the realm of human interaction, the employment contract stands as a testament to mutual consent and the pursuit of rational self-interest. Employment is not a mere exchange of labour for compensation; it is an embodiment of individual choice and the recognition of one’s value.

The assertion that no factual transfer of responsibility exists within traditional employment is fundamentally flawed. When an individual agrees to an employment contract, they are consciously choosing to trade their skills and effort for a commensurate reward. This is a voluntary transaction where both parties benefit: the employer receives the value of the employee's labour, and the employee is compensated accordingly. To claim that this transaction is unfulfillable is to deny the efficacy of human action and the capacity for individuals to uphold their agreements.

I particularly like Revelation of St John when the good Lord smites degenerates with fire and brimstone.

The question fundamentally misunderstands the nature of human existence and the principles of a free society. No one deserves to starve or be unhoused, but reality does not cater to mere desires or needs. The essence of survival and prosperity lies in an individual's ability to think, produce, and trade value for value.

Those who are not smart or lack drive must still be responsible for their own lives. A free society offers opportunities for all, but it does not guarantee outcomes regardless of effort or ability. The moral and practical basis of capitalism is that each individual must earn their way through rational thought and productive work.

It is not the role of employers to ensure the well-being of their workers beyond the agreed-upon exchange of labor for wages. Employers do not exploit workers; they offer them opportunities. Workers are free to accept these terms or seek better ones elsewhere. The notion of "poverty wages" ignores the individual's responsibility to improve their skills and increase their value in the marketplace.

Hardly a shock.

The manual to Windows Me?