 | | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) US D of I ROSCO (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) Whereas I would call it a lie but not necessarily dishonest. I go back to my example I gave earlier. Are inflatable tanks lies? Yes. Are they morally wrong? Not necessarily. (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Yeah, its gets attenuated pretty fast. In the U.S. such a thing has it's origins in congressionally generated legislations, is duplicated by administrative law (sometimes with errors, additions, and omissions), and implemented by people that (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) Yes, both received something of value (to them) in exchange for their goods. (...) Again, you're receiving something of value for your goods, so it's not a gift. Generally, in working out a trade, both parties agree on some kind of monetary (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) I think we're getting way off here-- the question is "Is it honest to mark packages as 'gift'?" Is the PBJ merchandise? Eh, I dunno. I'd hesitate to call it such. But I certainly wouldn't call it a gift. If you're trading Lego for Lego? Eh, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) The form, at least in the US is very terse. There is essentially no explanatory text. It seems to me that they leave it up to my discretion to use the form how I see fit. What do you check if the package contains gifts and merchandise? Both? (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) If my seven year old son trades his PBJ at the lunch table in school for the next kid's swiss on rye, was it merchandise? If not, is it because of your profit clause above, or because it wasn't a cash transaction? He thought it was a (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Nope, that's pretty close. I would say that ethics are not a combined morality, but rather are a suggested morality, but that's only because it has a different implication of the derivation.(1) Further, something as broad as a societal ethic (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
That's more or less what *I* mean (agreeing with James' further tweaking of these words), but those are not the accepted definitions of the word, not exactly. Generally, the definitions for the words "moral(s)" and "ethics" are very similar, except (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) So-- ok, I've heard several times now that there's a distinction between ethics and morality. Personally I never was aware of the distinction, but what exactly is it for those who distinguish? At a guess, I'd say you're defining it as: - (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
