Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
a free Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship God in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
free to choose those who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold
for myself and for all mankind."
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Now, while I support free speech, I most certainly don't support the position of these people. The servicemen volunteered to serve the United States, expecting to receive pay, benefits and training, but failed to maintain their end of the commitment. The short description of their action is desertion, and is a crime against the American government.
These servicemembers claimed refugee status in Canada, and have made various arguments such as being real refugees (in danger of persecution by their home government), contientious objectors (a legal process which American servicemembers can claim within the American military, but which these servicemembers either did not claim or failed to prove their case) and various other claims. They were provided with access to the Canadian legal system, and went through the legal process and lost.
The people who support the American servicemen and want to stop the deportations are explicitly attempting to overturn the Rule of Law in Canada. Their ideal state was inadvertently revealed in London Ontario on October 10, when several thuggish "War resistor supporters" pushed a women into traffic for disagreeing with them. (Luckily she was not injured). I wonder if these "War resistor supporters" have contemplated what sort of society they are advocating for, or how they will fare against larger and more organized groups that disagree with them in such an anarchistic state?
By taxing non-productive, pollution-heavy activities while at the same time cutting personal and corporate income taxes, Canada will create jobs and stimulate growth, Dion argued.What activities are those? What is a "non-productive, pollution heavy activity"? Anyone? Anyone? Behuler?
The only two I can think of are Question Period and the CBC...
Non-productive, pollution-heavy activities... that's almost as sketchy as Commie Jack Layton's one liner about "The real economy", which is nothing more than socialist double speak for the miraculous creation of jobs without any corporate involvement (because they've all been taxed into receivership or moved to Mexico, where they have some rights).
Friday, October 10, 2008
This lie is being told by government and is reinforced by a simpering media who neither understand, nor in any way wish to protect the one and only system of commerce that allows them to function independently and freely. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Capitalism, and when I say capitalism I mean true lassiez faire capitalism could not have created this mess. I want this to be understood, this is not a claim that it wouldn’t happen but a flat statement of fact that it couldn’t happen.
Under laissez faire capitalism there is a complete separation of economics and government. So the initial causal factor that led to this market instability, namely the long line of corporate bail outs would never have happened and this would have fostered an ideal of fiscal prudence in all business sectors. Sure, perhaps the stock market would have risen slower than it did, but it would have risen on actual, hard economic indicators and financial data, not false and whimsical governmental vagaries.
The demand from the
Why? Because any banker in a system of laissez fair capitalism would know two things for sure.
- That his policies and his lending practices were his responsibility and his responsibility alone. A foolish gamble on persons who would most likely not qualify for a pay-day-loan much less a $200,000.00 mortgage would in all likelihood cost him his job. No ifs, ands or buts.
- That it would be impossible for government to save him or his bank from the result of stupid lending policies.
Another thing that could not have happened were capitalism to truly reign is that Banks would never have loaned money out at a rate lower than the established interest rate. Sub-prime rates are a government construct, which allowed banks to lend money to unqualified persons at a rate lower than what it cost the bank to borrow that money in the first place. The Bankers initially ordered to make the loans possible and then led to believe they would be bailed out by government saw, a win-win proposition.
Was there greed involved? Certainly, but it was not the cause, it was an all too predictable by-product of a system that had been gamed, designed, manipulated and constructed to appear to be real, solid and safe when in actual fact it was built on the vagaries of governmental policies, divorced from any real economic principal, and the worst self-serving political promises.
Capitalism didn’t fail us, the government did. Laissez Fair economics didn’t fail, they were never a part of the equation in the first place.
NB. Mark the intentions of those who claim this is a failure of capitalism. They are not throwing out the baby/capitalism with the bathwater/the market system. No, they are throwing out the bathwater and attempting to strangle the baby in its crib for good measure.
With every bail-out and every subsequent market shock, and every bad news story hyped to fever pitch they get closer to their goal. That goal is nothing less than the state ownership of the worlds banks, and that is nothing less than a stranglehold on the wellspring of capitalistic production… our money.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Two points in particular struck me:
1. Artists claim that they have "freedom" with State funding but not with private funding. Why does producing art approved by bureaucrats provide more freedom than producing art approved by any other patron? Apparently these "Artists" have no knowledge of the history of "Socialist Realist" art.
2. The mantra of "investing in the arts because it is an $8 billion dollar a year industry is totally nonsensical. If an industry is as mature and as profitable as the Canadian "artistic" community claims, then they clearly have no need of further State funding, from ANY level of government.
If any Conservative party supporters are reading this, feel free to use these points. For that matter, if any Liberal, NDP or Green supporters are reading this, please enlighten me as to why artists who's works we never have heard of or who's names we don't know are entitled to our hard earned money?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
In Canada, Classical Liberals have become the governing party (and may possibly win a majority government mandate on Oct 14, 2008). Classical Liberals are also in charge of Alberta and Saskatchewan, two of the wealthiest and fastest growing provinces in Canada, and seem to be making inroads elsewhere.
In the United States, Senator Barack Obama is either tied or only marginally ahead of his Republican rival, despite the adulation of the press and a finance machine that can raise and spend cash at an astronomical rate, far beyond any rivals. Indeed, Senator Obama only defeated Senator Clinton by a small margin, despite having much the same advantage over her.
The reaction of the Progressives is quite illuminating. Consider how open the bias of the MSM has become against any manifestation of Classical Liberalism, its proponents or works. War reporting is astonishingly one sided. Victories are never reported, either spectacular events like the retaking of Anabar province in Iraq, or the small, incrimental gains that the Canadians make every day in Afghanistan. Political reporting is similarly hypocritical; think of the cone of silence which surrounds scandals like John Edward's illicit affair (while his wife is dying of cancer, to boot), the relationships between Democratic party congressmen and senators and "Freddie and Fannie", the two GSE's implicate in the current financial crisis, Elizabeth May's participation in a pro Hezbollah, anti Isreal rally or the almost open collusion between the Canadian Green and Liberal parties; then look at how political figures on the Classical Liberal side of the political spectrum are treated. Govenor Sarah Palin is constantly smeared or belittled in the MSM; a reader is much more likely to find her characterized as a "porn star" rather than the only candidate among the Presidential contenders to have executive experience (and in a large, wealthy and demanding state at that). Prime Minister Stephan Harper is compared to political figures like Hitler or George W Bush (although perhaps the Bush comparison can be seen as a compliment by the Classical Liberal side) and all manner of "Gotcha" journalistic tricks are brought into play rather than examining issues (although to be fair, the Conservative Party of Canada does this as well against their opponents).
Progressives see the ground being cut out from under their feet, and are mounting a surge from their commanding heights to block or limit the Classical Liberals from gaining or retaining power. All manner of dirty tricks are in play: In Canada, "Human Rights Comissions" target Bloggers and journalists who support Classical Liberal principles. In the United States, members of the Obama campaign threaten to prosecute people or organizations who present any contrary view of fact about Senator Obama, possibly fearing a "Swiftboating" of the Senator through revelations about his unsavoury mentors, his connections with the financiers involved in the financial crisis or even just the totally ineffectual nature of his "community organizing". Selective and manipulative press coverage is a given. Discussions in institutions of higher learning or even elementary and high schools are blatent indoctrination (and in many Universities, Orwellian "Speech codes" are employed to silence students and facilty).
It will be difficult to fight against the surge; the Progressives have the power and resources of the State behind them. They still control many of the largest and most important channels of communication, and the mechanisms of the Law are available to be used selectively in favour of the Progressive cause. Still the fight is of critical importance to each and every one of us. Only by standing for our rights can we maintain them. Blogging is perhaps the most notable weapon we have, but even if we are reduced to passing messages by Samisdat we should still make the attempt.
Our ultimate advantage lies in the fact that Progressiveism is a parisitical concept; if they are denied access to State power, they begin to wither on the vine. As usual, Ayn Rand has provided the template; Ellsworth Toohey may have been a "power" with his newspaper column, but once the newspaper chain folded, Toohey's power was gone; he did not create, but was only a parisite upon the creators.