when will justice be served upon putin and all of his murderous thugs? he murdered hundreds of thousands and not only in Ukraine. instead the likes of trump roll out the red carpet for him. Does this "justice" thing only work if the murderer is not a dictator?

Fuck me, another person who doesn't know how tariffs work.

Those Alpha Centurions, they're eating the cats! They're eating the dogs!

Says who that a company 'dumps externalities' on us? It pays for disposing of the clothes.

How about your old clothes, you are throwing it away, you are paying for the trash to be collected, are you dumping externalities? You are PAYING for this to be disposed of, so does a company, everything else is authoritarian nonsense.

what else does it mean? First of all just dealing with it is resource intensive and companies already do. Secondly why do you expect people to behave in a certain way just because you introduce some authoritarian law? You SHOULD expect them to solve the problem in a way that makes sense for them. If it made sense to donate the clothes they would have. There are already outlets, where older unsold clothes is shipped to be sold at a lower price. Once nobody buys stuff there, it has to be disposed of, it requires space and handling, it oozes money by just sitting there idly. The companies will invent a mechanism to achieve the same result as happens now, it will be more expensive, that is all. People route around the damage caused by governments every dat.

the hell you say. Are you breathing the air? Eating the food? Drinking the water? Do you need clothes, a house, a car, petrol, entertainment? You are a walking talking externality. Again, people already pay for disposing of stuff, if the price does not cover something, that is a different question, but that is not the point of my comment. Lets say the clothing company does cover the costs of disposal, what business is it of anyone that they make 10,000 tons of clothes and then end up disposing of 700 tons of it because it doesn't sell? Why is the same logic not applied to everything, how about a crop that is not collected and ends up being ploughed back into the field? Why are you throwing trash away? As to donating clothes - a company should be within its RIGHT to destroy products it did not sell or donate, whatever makes more sense for them, they created the stuff.

"fucking idiot", says a moron who cannot read a paragraph. I talked about disposal costs, there are always costs for disposing of stuff, that is not the point of the comment. To tell people they cannot make things and then destroy things (and dispose with costs) is authoritarian nonsense.

So this is private property and it was created with private money, jobs were paid for, taxes were paid, these THINGS belong to the people (company) who created it. None of it is government's business how they want to use it but now government says: these things you own, you cannot destroy it, you must keep it? For how long do these things need to be stored and where, who is going to be paying to store it?

It is the same thing is the government came to your house and said: you cannot throw away this garbage, though you paid for it, you paid the taxes, you don't need it. Now you must keep it in your house even though you paid the waste disposal fees.

This entire thing is as insane as anything any government does on any given day.

I imagine a company can run a 'sale' of these unsold items for a price of 1 cent per ton of goods sold, 'sell' it to a company that will then dispose of it. Freaking nuts, but it is not even the inconvenience of this that is bothersome, it is the fact that people think it is perfectly acceptable to tell anyone what to do with their own THINGS they made, their property they made.

If the question is how the items are destroyed, some environmental impacts, that would be one thing (some costs added to disposing of THINGS, there are always costs). But fundamentally this is so much worse, it is some authority commanding your life in a way that shouldn't be possible.

after death there are no more issues to solve also, what's your point?

Sir John Kerr didn't wait for Gough Whitlam's government to ask his advice when he dismissed Kerr and his government. Quite the opposite, the minute Whitlam got a hint that the Governor General might fire him his first thought was to get a hold of the Queen to fire Kerr.

The moment a government in a Westminster parliament loses a confidence vote, they become a caretaker government, a very constitutionally bounded creature. More importantly, their ability to advise the Sovereign/Governor General becomes extremely limited; they can't advise the GG to make new appointments, make most orders in council, or pretty much anything beyond keep basic organs of government going.

In a no confidence situation, it becomes the Governor General's job to figure out what to do next, and the government, being a caretaker, no longer can advise on the use of Royal Prerogatives such as dissolution or appointing new ministers (a new government).

A caretaker PM can certainly tell the GG what he thinks, but as happened in British Columbia in 2017, when the Premier of the province, having lost a confidence motion on the Throne Speech, tried to convince the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the legislature and call new elections, the vice-regal representative is under none of the obligations that a premier or PM who enjoys the confidence of Parliament has. In that case, the LG simply rejected the advice, and asked the opposition leader to form a government.

This is why the concept of confidence (and its loss) is far a better moderator of government excesses than the much older notion of impeachment. The latter evolved as Parliament in England gained more authority, but could not directly go after the King, so would often go after the King's ministers and agents through the use of impeachment. But even by the American revolution, impeachment in the Westminster constitutional order had fallen into disuse in preference to confidence. One of the first governments to fall to a loss of confidence was the Ministry of Lord North, after the defeat of the British in the War of Independence.

In general, I don't think someone of Trump's demeanor would ever be able to get away with as much in a Westminster government. Boris Johnson probably pushed the margins as much as any modern Prime Minister in the UK, and in the end he was effectively removed by his own party. It was an even swifter judgment for Liz Truss, who ended up serving the shortest amount of time as PM, beating George Canning, who died in office after 119 days in 1827.

Here in BC we've had multiple Premiers forced to resign. The closest analog to Trump was Bill Vander Zalm, who was accused of a serious conflict of interest over the sale of one his personal properties. He hung on for some time after the allegations became public, and while he ultimately resigned in disgrace, his cabinet was sufficiently worried that he might ignore all pleas to depart that they they hatched a scheme with the Lieutenant-Governor to have the government vote no confidence in itself, which would have forced Vander Zalm to resign, and then the Lieutenant-Governor would ask the designated member of cabinet to form a new government.

In short, in the Westminster system, the Sovereign and his representatives hold certain reserve powers that function as negative powers; almost never used, but the mere fact that they do not accessible by the government of the day creates a ceiling on the constitutional games that can be played. What's more, there are both visible ways to get rid of errant PMs and Premiers (leadership reviews, cabinet revolts, caucus revolts) and much quieter ones (ministers using their access to the King/GG/LG to get around a head of government).

The US put all its eggs in one basket by making a unified singular executive with powers commensurate with a Tudor-era monarch, the Westminster system created a split executive, with an Efficient part that does all the ruling, and a Dignified part that reigns.

The wealthy aren't going to go first, and the sacrifices will be imposed. Oddly enough, the universe doesn't give a fuck how you feel.

He did no such thing, and warned against Brexit, which caused the economic crash.

You do know we can tell when you're lying.

85% of the population lives in urban areas, the average commute time is well under half an hour. Quit making shit up.

I live in southern BC. We haven't had a snowfall here that lasted more than a few hours, and almost the entire winter has been above 0.