Objectivist Round Up - The New Years Edition!

Welcome to the New Years Edition of the Objectivist Round Up.

In this season of celebrations, parties and other festivities I'm reminded of the passage in Atlas Shrugged where Dagny talks to her Mother after her coming out party...

When Dagny turned, Mrs. Taggart saw only puzzled helplessness in her face; the face was calm, but something about it made Mrs. Taggart wish she had not wished her Daughter should discover sadness.
"Mother do they think its exactly in reverse?" she asked.
"What?" asked Mrs. Taggart, bewildered.
"The things you were talking about. The lights and the flowers. Do they expect those things to make them romantic, not the other way around?"

That sort of emotional abdication, of relying on the moment instead of what we as individuals bring to it is especially prevalent the holiday season. But as we enter a New Year we ought to remember that every day, every hour, minute and second is like that... worthless, unless we put our soul into it.

Happy New Years everyone!

Now without further ado, The Objectivist Round Up!

Kate Yoak presents Abortion: Making the choice posted at Parenting is....
Saying... "Drawing from my recent personal experience, I have decided to brave the subject of pregnancy termination and the principles in making that decision. "

Zip presents UNCOMMON SENSE: The Face of Anarchy posted at UNCOMMON SENSE.
Saying... "A post prompted by the excess of violence perpetrated by Anarchists at the G20 meetings in Toronto this summer."

Diana Hsieh presents Announcing Colorado's March MiniCon: SnowCon! posted at NoodleFood.
Saying... "Front Range Objectivism will be hosting a weekend conference in March in Colorado! Come join the fun!"

Kelly Valenzuela presents The Racist Roots of Anti-Immigration Activism Part III: Lies, Damn Lies and NumbersUSA posted at Mother of Exiles.
Saying... "Santiago Valenzuela finishes up the three part series."

Rational Jenn presents Rational Jenn: Parenting Principles posted at Rational Jenn.
Saying... "My favorite post of 2010. This post represents the culmination of years of thinking about and practicing applying Objectivism to parenting. And it's only a start, really, at outlining the premises and principles that my husband and I are raising our children by."

Kelly Valenzuela presents The Racist Roots of Anti-Immigration Activists Part I posted at Mother of Exiles.
Saying... ""Best of" post from Mother of Exiles by Santiago Valenzuela."

Kelly Valenzuela presents OCON on the Cheap posted at Rant from the Rock.
Saying... ""Best of" selection: Whether you go for the conference or to vacation and socialize with like-minded people or all three, you can do OCON on the cheap!"

Miranda Barzey presents Myers-Briggs Personality Types as a Tool for Introspection and Extrospection posted at Building Atlantis.
Saying... "How learning about Myers-Briggs personality types improved my understanding of myself and others, thus improving my relationships."

Benjamin Skipper presents Divorcing Time from Work posted at Musing Aloud.
Saying... "Have you ever thought that there isn't enough time in the day to get things done? Maybe it's because you're viewing your days in isolated chunks."

Benjamin Skipper presents Garbage Writing posted at Musing Aloud.
Saying... "A somewhat common occurrence for me is that sometimes I'll run into an article where I simply cannot do any brainstorming. Out of frustration I oftentimes go ahead and work to construct the piece anyhow, much of the time knowing I'll just destroy it immediately, and in this I have accidentally discovered the technique of writing "garbage copies.""

John Drake presents Developing habits, part 2 posted at Try Reason!.
Saying... "In this post, I detail some virtues/habits for cultivating in the new year. "

Gene Palmisano presents Sacred Cows posted at The Metaphysical Lunch.
Saying... "The place to cut government spending should start with foreign aid. This blog was written prior to the WSJ article exposing the Afghanistan government for funding the Taliban with American foreign aid dollars."

Jenn Casey and Kelly Elmore present Cultivating the Virtues Podcast #2: Temperament posted at Cultivating the Virtues.
Saying... "This is one of our favorite podcasts of the year."

Noah Stahl presents Out with Denial, in with Adult Conversation? posted at The Undercurrent Blog.
Saying... "Should the government treat Americans as independent adults with the freedom that entails, or should we be treated like children and forced to support one another through taxes and debt imposed upon us by Washington?"

Jason Stotts presents Best of 2010 posted at Erosophia.
Saying... "This post contains 10 of my best essays from 2010. There were a lot of good options this year and I think these represent the best of the best. I hope you enjoy them."

Kelly Elmore presents Thoughts on the Hierarchy of Knowledge posted at Reepicheep's Coracle.
Saying... "I often hear that unschooling, free-schooling, and life-learning violate the hierarchy of knowledge. This post looks at what the hierarchy of knowledge is (according to Ayn Rand and to me) and answers these objections to child-led learning."

Ari Armstrong presents James Discusses New Mars Novel posted at Free Colorado.
Saying... "Thomas James discusses his new hard sci-fi novel about Mars, 'In the Shadow of Ares.'"

Christmas

I think too many people expect "Christmas" to have some sort of profound effect on people as if the day has some sort of intrinsic spirit, when it is just another day, and the only "spirit" the day can have is a direct reflection of the spirit we give it. But having fostered completely unrealistic expectations people end up pissed off and disheartened that "everyone" is still exactly what and how and who they were throughout the year.

Here is my advice on Christmas... Use the day and the season to celebrate those people who you value. Don't worry about all of mankind... we are not all in this together. We are all individuals and as individuals we have to make rational value judgments about the people in our lives. That means the ones you deal with every day, your loved ones as well as that "idiot" that bumped into you without an apology when you were shopping.

Remember, you will have no more in common with the drug addled thief downtown on Dec 25th than you did for the rest of the year, and just because its Christmas it does not mean that his evil actions deserve to be forgiven, nor conversely do they become more evil because of the season.

It's Christmas. Buy something nice for someone nice, spend time with the people you love. Be good to yourself.

You want to know the best part about that idea? If everyone did it, if everyone rationally and selfishly chose to celebrate the people and things in their own lives that made life worth living (every day and all year) then there really would be peace on earth, and we'd get it without anyone telling us the way we got it was wrong or evil.

"Hey Buddy... Wanna buy a procedure?"

Why is this a surprise to anyone?

Take any good or service, regulate or prohibit it* and you will end up with the "criminal" element providing, for a price, that which the government can not or will not. From alcohol prohibition to prostitution, marijuana and soon MRI's...

When you think of it though, what this woman has done is not so far removed from what has been going on for years. Those with the money have been skirting the system by travelling to other countries for treatment, its the new millennium's version of crossing the border for a drink. Now they have just found an easier way, good old-fashioned bribery.

How perverted and absurd is it that supposedly free people have to resort to breaking the law in order to have the possibility of saving their own lives, or the lives of their loved ones?

What this country needs is free (unregulated) health care.

* In the case of medical services in Canada they have done both - it is regulated in the sense that the government controls nearly all aspects of our actual physical health care and it is prohibited because anyone providing health care outside of the system is breaking the law.

Destroyer.

I haven't been writing much lately, and although the new job has something to do with that I'm beginning to recognize the other main contributing factor, and that is what I'm focusing on today.

Basically I'm feeling politically disenfranchised, which is to say that the harder I look at society, the accepted system of morality and state of government the more it upsets, disgusts and alienates me.

As much as I believe that a properly constrained government is achievable, I am more sure each and every day that such a thing can not be created within or upon the current framework of any western democratic state. The Keynesian economic morass, corrupt political principles, moral bankruptcy and culture of entitlement both within these governments and within the general population makes the dream of building a laissez faire "purse" out of this "sows ear" a practical impossibility.

The whole mess needs to be destroyed, wholly and utterly destroyed. But more than the real and actual act of destruction is required, it must all be tied explicitly to the flawed premises that predicate the need for destruction.

In economics the boom and bust of our Keynesian economies must be explicitly tied to the idiocy of fiat currency and deficit spending, while at the same time the strength and self-correcting nature of a free market must be championed. The lunacy of handing economic control to elected but clueless officials or government bureaucrats should be writ large in the blood and sweat of the failures of that system. The businessman should take his rightful spot as the champion of the economic world and the politician and the bureaucrat should be relegated to purely political issues.

In politics we must kill the idea that government is an institution responsible for providing anything except a framework within which our individual rights (life, liberty and property) are protected from the initiation of force. It can not accomplish that goal by promising to serve any but the interest of the singular individual. No man, no group and no interest, however seemingly noble can ever be championed over the individual. There can be no law upholding the "rights" of women, or gays or consumers or blacks, or the poor, as each and every one of these demographic groups is explicitly consumed by the term "individual" and to rule in the favour of a single group is to destroy the rights of every individual outside of that group.

Our morality needs to be tied to this world, to our lives and to our purpose. This world is where we need our morality and what we need our morality for is living, not some absurd promise of an afterlife, or as some cosmic balancing act. Once that simple principle is recognized it is quite easy to see that the moral object of our lives is in the living, and that living with joy, and purpose is the good. All moral acts are those that serve us individually in the true achievement of our own happiness and our own goals and our own purpose.

Morality is not a floating abstraction that can be summarized in a few simplistic edicts. We exist as thinking rational individuals and as a result our morality must be based on the situations we find ourselves in. To declare "thou shall not kill" as a moral imperative, is an abuse of thought that demands that every moral man submit and become subservient to any immoral brute.

Perhaps the cornerstone of all of this is the need to recognize that the mere act of mortal existence, which is to say, drawing a breath as a human being entitles us to nothing. Even the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property must be secured somehow. Nature does not grant the right to live, only the ability to seek to live, nature will not give us liberty, only the ability to create liberty and nature will not bestow upon us property of any sort, only the will to create it in our own name for our own use.

The world as it is, as we have made it (thus far) is one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with reason, nature and the facts of reality. Our current societies (all of them) are a perversion of misguided morality, incorrect economic theory, corrupt politics and undeserved rewards. It all needs to be destroyed. It must be destroyed, before it can be replaced with;

• a moral code based on mans life and the living of it,
  
• an economic system based on and working in coordination with markets and market forces,
  
• politics based on and in service to individual rights and only individual rights and,
• the rational and selfish rejection of entitlement in favour of self-reliance and productive effort in all aspects of our individual lives, whatever our ability.
  

Objectivist Round Up # 173

The new job is keeping me quite busy so I've not been blogging (or much of anything else this week), however, my friends have been and this weeks Round Up is having a ball over at The Playful Spirit... Give it a whirl!

Objectivist Round Up #172

This weeks Objectivist Round Up is punched and filed over at 3 Ring Binder.

Check it out!

Objectivist Round Up #171.

This weeks Objectivist Round Up is at Reepicheep's Coracle. Check it out!

Hope? Nope.

Though I would hope that Op/Ed's like this would become more and more prevalent in the face of the petty tyranny governments today are subjecting citizens to, I'm pessimistically certain that they will not.

Only By Permission #9

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where soap bubbles breaking on the skin of a police officer constitutes assault.



There is a legal right in this country to demonstrate, it's nothing less than a hallmark of a modern liberal democracy. I personally disagree with the reason for the G20 demonstrations I believe that most of the people doing so are on par with loony conspiracy theorists. The right to peaceful protest aside, I absolutely believe that anyone destroying property or actually and physically assaulting a police officer (or anyone else) in the course of any demonstration ought to be thrown in jail. Full stop.

But... assault by soap bubble?

And now there is this... The Officer in question has launched lawsuits aimed at people who commented on the YouTube video for defamation of his character, something he ought to realize he did all on his own with his ridiculous overreaction.

Let's Forget.

With the news that the Afghanistan Government is in secret talks with the Taliban to end almost 10 years of war it seems like it is time to find out what went wrong.

Could it be (as I’m sure some are going to claim) that our failure in Afghanistan is the karmic result of the “fact” that our presence there was not predicated on any reason, moral right or principle at all?

Let’s examine that idea.

Let us disregard for a moment the reason we went there in the first place, forget that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ever occurred, that almost three thousand innocents died, certainly that is no reason to go to war.

Forget that once we found ourselves in that medieval throwback of a nation, that we tried to give them the benefit of every advancement in social theory from the time of the Protestant Reformation to The Women’s Rights movement. On what principle do we call for a separation of church and state? What ideal underscores the equality of men and women? Surely there is none at all, and this sort of trifling issue could never be worth the blood that has been shed.

Let’s overlook that once committed to the task, that we wanted Afghanistan to evolve from the politics of the feudal state to a modern liberal democratic republic. Surely there is nothing they need to learn from us. Look at the ideas forwarded by the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, Charters and Bills of Rights, certainly none of this is worth fighting for!

Yes, let’s ignore all this and examine for a moment the possibility that our failure is some sort of mystical retribution for the arrogance of assuming that our culture, or the rights we enjoy, or our form of government or our secular laws were ever worthy of protection or of being spread.

Objectivist Round Up #169

The Objectivist Round Up is over at Sacred Ego.

I am sure you will enjoy it.
I think it's going to be great.
I will go and check it out!

Only by permission #8

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where stopping a criminal becomes a criminal act.

Objectivist Round Up

The 168th Round Up is up over at Rational Jenn

Utilize your faculties and take a look!

A Tale of Two Moralities

A Judge in Ontario recently struck down the laws concerning keeping a Bawdy house, and communication for the purpose of prostitution. Predictably the religious and other moral busy-bodies have come out in opposition to the ruling and are promising an appeal.

With the voices raised in "moral" opposition to the ruling calling for the reinstatement of the old laws, this article is calling for us to leave morality out of the prostitution debate... and that is wrong.

Prostitution is a degrading, dangerous and often demeaning profession. I can’t for the life of me think of one single reason why any person who has the least bit of intelligence, self respect or personal integrity would want to be a prostitute. In my opinion, the person who seeks sex for hire is a lonely, miserable creature seeking to ameliorate some personal psychological defect, and the person supplying it is most likely equally as damaged.

But that moral judgment on the physical and psychological act of prostitution is an issue separate from the meta-ethical assessment of prostitution as a profession. By meta-ethical in this instance I mean how we support or defend our ethical judgments.

Ayn Rand said “Morality ends where a gun begins”. Not only does this mean that one can not be commanded to act “morally” (as one would in normal circumstances) when confronted with the choice of life or death through force but also, and more importantly, that the initiation of force is itself immoral.

For me the question of meta-ethics rests on one thing the initiation of force (or fraud). It is the initiation of force against a human being that is immoral. So meta-ethically speaking something which does not initiate force is not immoral. Since prostitution, (the exchange of money for sex) as defined does not involve the initiation of force it is not immoral meta-ethically, and for this reason morality must remain a part of our current debate about prostitution.

While anyone and everyone has the right to pronounce moral judgments on the nature of the world’s oldest profession these are personal judgments only, and can not be ripped out of our minds to be used as an ideal which we then impose upon all people. This is true no matter how many (or few) of us may believe in that ideal.

The only meta-ethical reason for the prohibition of prostitution or any other act is the initiation of force against another human being. As defined, prostitution is a contractual agreement and is fundamentally no different than the purchase of any other tradesman’s labour and skill.

What we need with regard to this issue (and morality in general) is not to forget about it, but to discover it, and to differentiate between its personal and meta-ethical applications in our lives and in our governance.

Only By Permission #7

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where you have freedom of speech, as long as you say things we want to hear.

Only by Permision #6

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where appreciation of industrial design leads to "Your papers please."

Two Wolves and a Sheep

In parliament this week a long overdue bid to scrap Canada's long gun registry failed. This failure highlights the flaws in rational thinking on the part of Canadians just as much as the inherent abuses possible in a democratic system.

The greatest threat and failure of Democracy is the ability of 51% to vote away the rights of the other 49%. J.S. Mill and other heavy thinkers called this the tyranny of the majority. With the final vote on the registry tallied at 153 to 151, 50.3% of parliamentarians have indeed managed to dominate the other 49.7%.

The vote also shows the duplicity of politicians and the undue power political parties have in our system. MP's like NDP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore) who promised to oppose the registry in accordance with his constituents wishes but who devolved into a partisan jellyfish at the threat of party disapproval. Then there are the countless Liberal MP's who were under orders from their leader Michael Ignatieff to vote the party line. It is hard to know how many of them voted in favour of their party and against their constituents but Ignatieff's praise of party unity ought to send a cold shiver down the spine of anyone who is interested in the preservation of political freedom and liberty in this country.

This isn't only a political failure though, it's a failure in critical thinking on the part of a lot of people.

Cast a critical eye at the original article. The inclusion of Elaine Lumley's story about her son Aidan's death is designed to pull at the heartstrings, but look at the facts. Aidan Lumley was shot and killed by an unknown assailant using a pistol in downtown Montreal. Pistols in this country have been restricted and registered weapons since 1935. This registry is for long guns only, the kinds of guns found predominately in the hands of law abiding farmers and hunters.

The Governments own statistics demonstrate just how wasteful this program has been. In 2009 all the murders committed in Canada in that year accounted for just 0.025% of crimes committed, and of that number only 1/3 were committed with a firearm. Due to the statistical information it is impossible to know how many were from long guns as opposed to pistols but I am willing to bet it was less than 1/3 of that total, so a little quick math has the homicide rate by long gun approximately at 0.0027 % of all crime in this country.

Even with the statistics above showing the almost infinitesimal percentage of crime committed with long guns the most salient point is that no crime has ever been prevented by demanding that the weapon used be registered. What do people think, that a criminal will say to himself... "Well I was going to kill the guy, but then I realized that my gun was registered so I thought I'd better not..." ridiculous!

Although rather tongue in cheek, this is something one should think of too...

Objectivist Round Up

Kelly has the 167th Objectivist Round Up under way at Reepicheep's Coracle. Are you a man or a mouse... Check it out!

Objectivist Round Up

The 166th Round Up is live over at Erosophia, and it is dead sexy!

Check it out!

Tolerance

This article led to a conversation about tolerance. The person I was talking to claimed that she would "hate to have to tell my children I lost my job/car/house because I had no tolerance for another's belief and burned their holy book."

Tolerance is an anti-concept. It is designed to imply that something (like religion, social norms or traditions) just because of their nature, are deserving of a free ride, literally of being tolerated... Tolerance is defined as "to allow the ...existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance" or "to endure without repugnance; put up with"

Now that concept might be applicable to a boisterous child running slightly amok in the kitchen but do you think we really ought to tolerate an ideology that demands homosexuals to be hanged, women to be stoned to death for the crime of being rapped, where it is written that a man can take a child as his bride, where it demands the death of every single living person who doesn't believe what is written in some megalomaniac's piece of delirious, misogynistic hateful homophobic fiction?

Is this really what we want to tolerate?

No.

Only by Permission #5

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where the scientific method is observable, empirical, measurable and political.

NB - This is a direct result of abdicating scientific research to government. As anyone with half a clue realizes, if you can control the money you can control the message, the information, and ultimately (for a while) the truth.

Funding for science is not a proper role for a liberal western government precisely because supporting or censoring ideas is an indicator of demagoguery not freedom.

Only by Permission #4

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where the only business permitted is business as usual.

Objectivist Round Up

Jenn has the 165th edition of the round up over at Rational Jenn.

It would be silly to not take a look!

Only By Permission #3

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where watching what your kids eat is something the state does for you...

NOTE TO FILE

The United States has long been one of, if not the freest country in the world.

Now I'm not measuring or basing that opinion on some UN inspired leftist notion of equality of outcomes or so called social equity. No my yardstick is much simpler, it is ones right to life, liberty and property. You know, real individual rights, not the wet dreams of some social engineer or cloistered communist academic.

But I can't help but notice that the Americans - largely unaided by their current government - are leading the charge toward the ultimate inversion. From Home Owners Associations restricting everything from the colour of doors to flag flying with fascist zeal, to the passing of plebiscites restricting this or that based on the campaigns of vocal minorities, Americans are legislating themselves (and their neighbours) into servitude with startling precision and regularity.

Am I completely mistaken in thinking that the American "live and let live" attitude has been replaced by "Do as I do...or else."?

Guest Blogging

My first ever guest blogger post "The Atheist Conclusion" is up over at Atheist Evolution. Check it out.

Thanks again Jay for the opportunity.

The Objectivist Ethics

Over and over again as an Objectivist you hear people say things like "How can selfishness lead to moral action?" or "How can you be moral if your morals are made up, if they don't come from God or the community, or society?"

I would respond in kind and ask how one can act morally without being selfish, or without coming to moral principles on one's own through thought and introspection.

Learn how & why... The Objectivist Ethics

Only By Permission #2

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

I'm thinking this might turn out to be a regular feature highlighting the ridiculous inversion of rights and the stupid shit bureaucracies at all levels come up with to justify their existence and the decimation of our unalienable rights.

Where standing on your porch is resisting arrest...

Objectivist Round Up

The Ego Blog is proud to host the 163rd Objectivist Round Up.

Assert yourself, and check it out!

Muslim Terrorists and Moderates in Ottawa

The story broke yesterday with the arrest of two men, carefully unidentified, so carefuly in fact that simple information such as their ethnicity (information routinely given out in other arrests) was withheld - but that is perhaps a point for a future post.

Then today what was suspected by all, was proven to be true. The men accused are all of middle eastern descent and Muslim.

But again, for me, that fact is unimportant.

What is important is that one of the largest and most powerful Muslim organizations in this country the Muslim Canadian Congress is sounding out. However, the protestations of this group have not been in outrage at the RCMP or to claim racism or bigotry as has so often happened before in other places. Instead they have voiced their outrage against the ideology of Jihad. They have called for Muslims in Canada to stem this evil and to address this "serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth".

"Salma Siddiqui, the Muslim Canadian Congress vice-president said in a telephone interview that she was “livid and frustrated” that young Muslim men were still being seduced by the idea of fighting a holy war in the name of Islam.

“It has to stop,” she said."

Raheel Raza, also of the Muslim Canadian Congress went even further in this article when she admitted that...

"This is not something that comes as a total surprise . . . we have a problem,"

To add to the credibility of this group, to show that they are indeed the moderate western face of modern Islam in Canada, Muslim Canadian Congress has condemned the Ground Zero Mosque on the front page of their website saying...

“Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating 'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

For those that claim there are no moderate Muslims the words of Salma Siddiqui, Raheel Raza, and the Muslim Canadian Congress would seem to make a lie of that claim.

I should point out, that I do believe that Islamic fascism is a real and continuing problem. But regardless of that, as a rational individual I know that it is individuals that set their own beliefs, guide their own destinies and run their own lives. That simple knowledge will not allow me reasonably to condemn all Muslims as dangerous terrorists or Islamofascists any more than it is reasonable and proper to believe that every German, alive in the world between 1931 and 1945 was a Nazi.

Objectivist Round Up #162

The Crucible is feeling the heat of this weeks Objectivist Round Up.

Only By Permission

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted."
Ayn Rand, The Virtue Of Selfishness (The Nature of Government)

In a totalitarian state the government monitors and controls all actions. No citizen may do anything unless permission has been granted, unless the action has first been proscribed as legal by the state.

We living in Canada and"the west" are truly and rightfully horrified at the prospect of this kind of control. But are we just evading our own reality?

No, we may not be subject to jack-booted special police or the watchful eye of shadowy men in trench-coats on the street corner, but more and more we are subject to the petty tyrannies of a multitude of bureaucracies.

From the grand machinations of our Federal government which acts more and more like an elected tyranny once the required votes have been secured, to the perfidious tentacles of the Canada Revenue Agency. From Provincial politicians pushing their "father knows best" agenda's at the expense of individual choice and freedom, to municipal councils passing ridiculous by-laws and forcing compliance for compliance sake.

This is what Ayn Rand meant by the ultimate inversion. Freedom isn't a permission granted by "societies" to individuals, when and if they feel like it. It is an unalienable right, possessed only by individuals, and that right extends to absolutes, to the extremes of taste, action, and speech.

The limit to our freedom is force. Our right to do anything is absolute so long as it does involve the initiation of force or fraud against another person.

Just as it is no indication of the right to freedom of speech when the speech itself is banal, it is no indication of property rights when your "rights" are limited to certain "approved" activities on your own property.

More and more in this country and others we, the individuals are restricted. More and more we act only by permission, and as benevolent or humane as that insipid control may be it is still tyranny, it is still evil.


PS
Two examples from this week...
Liberty Seminar Shut down
Toronto Bans Kite Flying

Objectivist Round Up #161

Amy has this weeks enormous Round Up over at The Little Things.

Objectivist Round Up #160

Reepicheep's Coracle is where you will find this week's round up.

Get it while it's hot!

In Other News...

Rain falls, Dogs bark and alcohol is addictive and bad for your liver.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Alcohol should be banned any more than I would suggest dogs be surgically prevented from barking. The point is that the inconsistent and incomprehensible application of prohibitions in law create more problems than they solve.

Let each and every man decide what it is that he wishes to do with his own body and mind. So long as there is no initiation of force or fraud the government ought to have as much say about what I eat, drink, smoke, snort or inject as it does over how often I have a good bowel movement.

Communism

This is it folks. It's not a "good theory" maligned by practise... It's an evil theory that creates evil in practise.

Don't be so naive!

Behind a Veil of Hypocrisy

There has been a lot of noise lately about banning burkas, and it is all wrong.

Most of the articles cite security concerns, or the fact that the burka is a medieval form of misogynistic discrimination. Or the claim is made that there is nothing in the Islamic religion that demands the burka to be worn, and that is used as a justification for prohibition.

All of these “reasons” are ridiculous, counterproductive and contrary to individual rights.

The security issue as presented is only an issue if the appropriate security agency does not validate that the person under the veil is in fact who they say they are. Most airports have private rooms where a female security agent can take the individual in question so that their identity can be confirmed against their passport photo.

In the event that the person under the burka refuses to be so identified then it is up to the security agent to stand by its reasonable request (and against the inevitable knee-jerk of political correctness and possible threats of violence) and deny that individual the privilege of boarding the aircraft, or gaining access into the country, whichever is the case.

Such a policy applied uniformly to any and all passengers or entrants, would soon become known and accepted by all. It is the unequal application of a weak policy or selective screening that exasperates and perpetuates the problem.

The complaint that the burka is discriminatory is a moot point. Although as a rights respecting society we should watch out for rights violations - the initiation of force or fraud - against anyone it is completely and utterly impossible to make a claim of it without proof.

If a woman in a burka were to complain to a police officer that she was being forced under threat of violence to wear a burka then in that case there would be something that could be done, using existing laws and procedures. With help she could remove herself from that abusive relationship and the person who is threatening her with harm could be charged. But without that sort of proof we must operate on the presumption that her actions are her own, and she has chosen to wear the burka. To do otherwise, and ban the garment, regardless of the good intentions or the misgivings of the majority (or even a vocal minority) would be idiotic, illiberal and heavy handed.

The third complaint is really not a reason at all but a fuzzy headed kind of logic to which predominately religious and conservative opponents cling when all their other arguments have been ignored. It is nothing less than the cry of the closeted racist… “But they don’t have to wear it so why don’t they just dress like normal people… They should have to.”

It isn’t the burka. The burka doesn’t make a woman a terrorist, its not a sign of oppression or abuse, and it doesn’t matter that it is not a necessity of the religion.

If you can not grasp these simple concepts imagine outlawing baggy pants because they made every kid a gang-banger, or jeans and a halter top because they signify abuse and degradation or imagine if crucifixes were prohibited just because there was nothing in the bible that said they aught to be worn…

Religion of Perverts.

Is this religion of misogynistic, paedophiles and perverts the same one people say we shouldn't criticize out of respect for a culture that is "different" than our own?

Why?

Objectivist Round Up #159

Benpercent is this weeks host over at Musing Aloud. Get it while it's hot!!!

Your Body, Their Choice.

Whether Dr. Zamboni is a snake oil salesman or not. Whether his procedure is a real treatment or a fake, tested and proven or unproven and untested, the fact remains that the government ought not to be in the business of prohibiting or condoning what rational people in the maturity of their faculties do with their own bodies.

Being Dog Walked to the Ultimate Inversion

This is disgusting.

We have already determined the legal ages of certain aspects of our society, and this is reasonable. Although one might argue about the arbitrary establishment of a certain age for certain privileges, the need to have an appropriate level of maturity is not in question in most cases.

The reason that we have set 16 as the age limit for driving is because the majority believe that at that age most teens are mature enough to be given the responsibility. McGuinty decided that that was not good enough and instituted the graduated licencing system citing facts which listed young drivers as being more liable to be involved in an accident. Now he's extending the reach of the nanny state even more. Changing the rules again, shifting the goal posts away from personal responsibility. More control for the state, less responsibility for individuals. Death by a thousand cuts along the long road to the ultimate inversion.

Paternal is too timid a term for this school marm turned political hand holder.

Look at this legislation closely and you will see that the driving force behind this, and the graduated licence system is a deep distrust of the ability of individuals to act reasonably and rationally. It also incorporates the deep seated belief that the job of government extends far past protecting the rights of citizens to the belief that government needs to must protect its citizens from themselves.

That kind of forced benevolence is one shackle short of a set of manacles. McGuinty and all those who think like him would have us behave like dogs on a chain, with the great hand of government holding the other end, ready to haul us up short should we happen to stray off their preferred path. Actually, in McGuinty's case it is worse. Having already told us to "heel" he feels the need to constantly pull the chain tighter till we are choking in obedience.

The thing a statist like McGuinty will never understand is that individual liberty and freedom not only means that you can do all that is legal but it also allows that you as an individual have the ability to make a mistake, regardless of the consequences. Indeed, consequences that are understood and known beforehand are a mark of a free society. Not allowing an individual to make a mistake is a sign of totalitarianism.

This guy has to go.

Arguement

If you disagree with me tell me how. Attempt to show me where I have gone wrong. Explain to me your reasoning and your reason.

If you can not convince me don't resort to calling me names. Do not assume that I am "dogmatic", "pig headed", "brainwashed" or "stupid" for I will always use reason and reality to form my opinions. I will not resort to emotion, fiction, fantasy or faith.

If you can assure me of the same then perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle of our individual beliefs and we will both be proven wrong by a better argument still to come.

If you can not assure me of the same, then you have no business trying to convince me in the first place.

Judge...

Right and wrong are simple concepts, easily divisible, easily discernible. Applied with the proper principal it is quite simple and quite correct to say…

“I’m right. You’re wrong.”

Applying Equity, Equally

When I read this article, I thought, like most Canadians, that the issue at hand was about equality. With that in mind I indignantly criticized the policy for trying to correct discrimination by discriminating.

But it's not about equality its about equity, a word with a much more, shall we say, fuzzy (and therefore politically useful) definition. The equity in question is specifically Canada's version of affirmative action called employment equity.

To quote from the act itself:

"The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."

Whoa!

Tell me, which of these is true? Is the act designed to achieve equality so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability? Or is it to correct conditions of disadvantage through special measures and the accommodation of differences?

Pick one, have your cake or eat it. You can not do both. The two stated goals are incompatible, they are contradictory and therefore can not and will not be mutually satisfied. You can have equality based on merit or you can ignore merit and satisfy physical, gender or racially based criteria. But you can not consistently claim to do both.

Yes, it may very well be that the best person for the job also happens to be one of the preferred class (a woman, or disabled or a minority or aboriginal) but it will happen only by chance.

Sara Landriault commented;

“I do not wish to take anyone’s job, my only wish was to be allowed to apply based on my qualifications. No government should have the right to ask you your race or gender to see if you are qualified for a job. That is discrimination.”

She is correct. It is discrimination, but what is more is that she is only appealing to the very principle for which this act was apparently created to address, she is only trying to appeal to the equality part of the act, to have an equal chance based on merit to get the job. The response built into this flawed, discriminatory and racist act is predictable. Your merit does not matter, sorry you don't meet the (in this instance) racial criteria.

So I was thinking, since it is clear that the Employment Equity Act is really not about equality of any sort, only equity, and since the population of Canada consists of people, 88.79% of whom are designated as part of the "Non Visible Minority Population" (read the majority); by my calculations in order to apply this equitable policy equally, those identifying as "Visible Minorities" ought only to be permitted to apply for 11.21% of all jobs in Canada.

That is truly an equitable solution. What is more it applies the principle which denied Mrs. Landriault the opportunity to apply for the job to all Canadians as equally as possible. So lets do it that way instead!

I'm joking of course.

The idea is as ridiculous as it is distasteful to any reasonable rational person, we all know it and we all recognize it. So what makes the very same idea reasonable to seemingly rational people when applied unequally based on the same criteria of race, gender, handicap and ethnicity?

Objectivist Round Up #158

LB has this weeks Round Up neatly filed away in her 3 Ring Binder. Check it out!

Peace at any Cost

"Canada is supportive of it because there are no conflicts in the world that have been able to resolve themselves without any reconciliation and reintegration so we have indicated our support for that process."

Minister Canon is correct. but not in the way he believes he is.

Conflicts, or should I say wars, because war is where we are at, don't "resolve themselves". They are won or they are lost. Apartheid, the first "conflict" to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a war that the forces of freedom and equality won. Then they chose to engage the enemy in dialogue.

Just what are our politicians trying to reconcile with the Taliban? Do they so naievely believe that the Taliban and their fellow travellers are going to "renounce violence" when it has already gotten them so much?

The terrorists and Taliban have fought NATO to a virtual standstill. Why? Because NATO is not permitted to wage the kind of war that would see the Taliban defeated. NATO is becoming a UN light, hamstrung by feel good policies where the desire to reduce collateral damage is more important than winning the war. Could you imagine Churchill demanding that the bombing of Dresden be halted because of collateral damage?

What sort of negotiations would take place under this reconciliation commission? What concessions would the Taliban get in return for laying down their arms? Maybe they would only be able to stone adulterers every other day? Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays are kill an infidel day, but Tuesday Thursday and weekends are reserved for religious secularism? Girls schools are fair game for beatings and acid throwing but they promise not to kill homosexuals?

When the South Africans developed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it was because they knew that there was some value, some good in the white South African culture. They knew that their country would be less able, less stable and less prosperous without the whites and their skill, knowledge and experience. So someone please tell me what value is there in anything that comes out of the Taliban's twisted ideology?

Nothing.

Stop this insanity now. Don't offer any deal, no capitulation no reconciliation.

Lets get back to work and fight this war like it really matters, because you know what... it does.

Because for every Taliban scumbag hiding in a cave there are 40 or 50 more psychopathic fascists watching the goings on in Afghanistan on the Internet in Saudi Arabia, Iran Pakistan and Indonesia waiting for us to fail...

There is a cost that must be paid for peace. That cost is nothing short of total war. It's time for us to get our peace at any cost.

Objectivist Round Up #157.

Rachel has the Round Up this week at The Playful Spirit. It's the 3 year anniversary!

A Veiled Threat?

Well the French Parliament has decided to ban the Veil.

With all the problems that country has with a growing Muslim population accompanied by growing extremism, that is the French solution?

Gee, If they'd only been this pro-active in 1939... They could have stopped the Germans cold by outlawing Lederhosen.

Attempting to Have His Cake and Eat it Too

"When Jeremy Dyer was selected to represent his province because of his human rights art, he had no idea he'd find himself in line to shake Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hand.

The notion was an affront to Dyer, an activist who vehemently disagrees with many of Harper's policies."

Well, isn't that special.

To put this in perspective...

This young a--, activist was chosen to take a trip covering almost 3000km on the government's dime. He was put up in a hotel, at taxpayer expense and fed at government expense for the chance to get national exposure (read free publicity) for his artwork and his cause in a National (Government run) museum and when the Prime Minister shows up for the money shot - the handshake - this ungrateful little snot is rude enough to refuse to, to turn a phrase - dance with the one what brought him?

Perhaps if young Jeremy was so opposed to the government's policies he should have discovered the backbone to stand for his principles before he became the governments artistic whore, not after.

Later, talking with reporters about being asked to remove himself from the reception line, which he did, Mrs. Dyer's little boy commented that “That was the breaking point — when I was suppressed for my beliefs.”

Suppressed?! This mooching scab of an "artist" was suppressed? How? Was it the free flight, food and accommodation? The national exposure? The support of the cause of human rights as demonstrated by the PM and the government he is so quick to disrespect?

I hope that Jeremy Dyer learns a lesson from this which is best summed up by another marvellous saying, one about laying down with dogs.

Oh, I also hope that the government is paying attention. Its lesson is that Jeremy Dyer is a capricious, churlish, child and should never be given an opportunity like that ever again.

Objectivist Round up # 156

Sandi Trixx is hosting this weeks round up. Check it out!

O Canada CON?

While I'm not sure how many Canadian Objectivists there are, or how many even visit this site I though I would ask if anyone would be interested in a Canadian version of the OCON event going on now south of the border.

Now I'm not suggesting that it would involve anything as extravagant as renting a floor in the Chateau Laurier (though given time it might be able to grow into that), hell I'd be happy with (and was actually thinking of) a weekend of camping by a nice lake somewhere shooting the philosophical breeze with like minded people...

As for events, perhaps Paul McKeever could be convinced to host a lecture or something, and I'm sure there are passionate Canadian O'ists out there who could be convinced to give a short talk followed by a collaborative bull session on subjects near and dear to them.

Couple that with good food, beautiful scenery and stimulating people, or any combination thereof, and I'd say you have the makings of a really good time.

Let me know if your interested...

P.S. Our Objectivist friends wherever they may be from would be most welcome of course.

Cheers,
Zip

Objectivist Round Up #155

Lots of Good Stuff...

Jen's our Hostess with the Mostess over at Rational Jenn

Blamestorming and Guiltmongering

In 2006 Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the Head Tax, a levee charged against Chinese immigrants to Canada. This tax is rightly considered to be among the most racist laws ever passed in Canada, and the apology was the right thing to do, regardless of how long ago this injustice took place. It was also proper to compensate those who had paid the tax.

For some raised in this age of collectivized guiltmongering and blamestorming that apology was obviously not enough.

So now the children of those Chinese immigrants that paid the head tax, but who died before the apology was issued feel that "The apology was not as meaningful to us as it was to other [Chinese families],” and that “The federal government left out a large chunk of people and you have to find some way you can meaningfully provide redress for them.”

Left out? Excuse me? I'll quote from the PM's speech, you tell me who was left out...

"On behalf of the people and government of Canada, we offer a full apology to Chinese-Canadians for the head tax and express our deepest sorrow for the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants."

Did the PM say, that the apology was only to those that paid the tax? No. It was issued in good faith to all Chinese-Canadians.

That can only mean one thing... It means that the "meaningful redress" that these non-suffering survivors are talking about is nothing more (or less) than "victim" talk for give me some money.

That is ridiculous. I would like just one of these poor downtrodden souls to explain to me and to show me in objective terms just how a law to which they were never subjected, which has been rescinded since 1923 has ever affected them in the slightest possible way. Hell, Sid Chow Tan, the president of the Head Tax Families Society of Canada was born on May 20, 1949, 26 years after the law was removed from the books.

I would wager that since the law was repealed 87 years ago that at least 90% of those family members calling for "meaningful redress" (money) are like Mr. Tan, and were not even born when the law was struck down.

But this particular call for restitution (as opposed to the original) really isn't about the effects of the law at all is it?

No.

It's a not so subtle reminder that there were times when Canadians and their government acted with malice and racism. But more than that it is about holding current generations hostage to collectivized guilt.

Aside from the stated goal to "promote racial harmony amongst all Canadians" the Head Tax Families Society of Canada by pursuing this frivoulous claim to collective hardship is only continuing to divide Canadians from Canadians based on a historic aberration and race politics.

Don't Just Let Them Speak, Let Them be Heard...

Canada and Canadians have missed a huge opportunity by banning Dr. Zakir Naik from speaking in person in Toronto at "The Journey of Faith Conference".

We should have let him come, more than that we should have put someone inside that conference to video the entire thing, every speech and every speaker.

Because maybe if Joe and Jill six-pack heard one of these people claim that "every Muslim should be a terrorist," or that it's okay to beat your wife - without leaving a physical mark of course (how very moderate of him) they would realize that this is an ideology of hate and fear and that every single person in that conference is a supporter implicitly or explicitly of the destruction of our way of life.

For those that would call me intolerant I say thank you. I have no desire to develop a tolerance for evil, or the cattle that follow it.

The Face of Anarchy

There seem to be a lot of young people who sing the praises of anarchy. Anarchism advocates;

“a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.”
*

The Anarchist will tell you that it is the state or capitalism or the world bank, or some conspiracy of rich and powerful that is responsible for the woes of modern society. They will tell you that if we were all just free to act as individuals without the confines of state or multinational corporations with their laws and force, money and power we would all be better off.

Right.

Last weekend Toronto got to see what anarchy really breeds. It’s not peace, it’s not freedom, it is brutal, mindless violence and destruction. It is the law of the pack, and as an individual you are one with the pack or you are its prey.

Now I do not hold a Hobbesian view of man. I do not believe that a man must completely subordinate himself to a “sovereign” (state or king) or face a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”, but I do believe that there is a proper place for the state as a protector of unalienable rights and those rights alone can make individuals sovereign.

The Anarchist dismisses the role of the state, and while they lay claim to some notion of rights they rely on the individual alone to assert his own individual sovereignty, they call for each man to be his own law. The result of course is that if one man's “law” is stronger than another's, by hook or by crook, with no one to counter their will or force, then the brute will win, and the weaker man will loose.

Now the Anarchists involved with the G20 protests would probably tell you that they only vandalized the apparatus of the state - police cars and the like - or the establishment - multinational corporations and banks. What is more they would claim that this vandalism is in keeping with their view of sovereign individuals, but those attacks are a dire warning to any real individual.

The small businessman ought not to heave a sigh of relief at being spared this weekend but he and everyone else ought to consider that under anarchy, the moment the mob recognizes you or your life’s work as established (and by definition, of the establishment) then you are doomed. Any right to property or person that you may have had while the mob’s focus was elsewhere is gone, suddenly you are not a person; you are not of the mob. You don’t matter.

Dog eat Dog is a euphemism often used in conjunction with capitalism and capitalists but I’ve yet to see a businessman operate with the sheer animal violence of the Anarchists. So when you watch TV tonight and you see the businessman cleaning his ruined storefront and when the news flashes the images of black clad hoodlums smashing burning and destroying bear in mind that you are seeing both the true face of capitalism (productive effort) and Anarchism (mindless destruction).

Values

They claim that money can’t buy happiness, and they mean that material possessions can’t make a person happy which is true.

But it isn't true for the reason that modern moralists want us to believe. It’s not because money or possessions are evil, or that they poisons us “spiritually” making it easier for “a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”, nor is it because they somehow create inequality, or oppresses the guy that doesn’t have quite as much.

No, the actual reason is that money, or any other possession for that matter, is not the requisite end, though it can be a means to the end (happiness) if used properly. If one treats money (or any similar good) as the end product of their life they are missing the point of that life.

If you buy a Harley Davidson for the prestige and believe that it will bring you the attention and the adoration of a certain crowd or group and therefore it will make you happy, your happiness will be a ghost; gone as soon as you step off the machine. If on the other hand you buy the Harley because you desire to ride and enjoy the particular feel of the scooter, that your value is in the quality of its craftsmanship its originality and of course the riding itself, then every time you ride you will be happy, and that happiness will spill over into other parts of your life.

The point is that life isn’t about the accumulation of physical wealth or goods. He who dies with the most toys may or may not be a winner, but it isn’t because of the toys.

The winner is the man who achieves his values, who lives by those values. But those values aren’t necessarily possessions; they are the actualization of concepts and reason, of moral and ethical choices. They are all the parts, pieces, premises and pleasures that further our lives.

Dr. Alice Mengele

I find it unfathomable that this article is categorized under "Best Doctors".

Here is a woman who is basically bragging about having "rehabilitated" a cold blooded killer. A man who would kill anyone for the right amount of cash. Who shows no remorse and thinks of his murders as "another day at the office".

What'smore, reading the comments section I'm flabbergasted that the only thing that bothers the commentators on the page (presumably other doctors) is that the article claims that a psychologist prescribed meds...

This article doesn't showcase ethical action but moral apathy. It's not that this "doctor" doesn't recognize that her patient is an evil cold blooded murderer it's that her position as a Doctor has given her a free pass at having to judge the moral from the immoral. What an abject failure this woman is as a rational human being.

I will go farther. She is evil. Pure unmitigated evil. She is right up there with the guards at Dachau and Auschwitz claiming ignorance and innocence because they didn't actually drop the gas pellets into the chambers, or stuff bodies into the ovens.

"Best Doctor" eh? Well done Dr. Alice Mengele.

Objectivist Round Up

The 154th Objectivist Round Up is being hosted at Trey Givens blog this week.

Visit and enjoy!

Lessons in Socialism

There is a phrase that I use at work from time to time to illustrate and explain the apparent laziness of those people who seem to have the easiest of jobs but who fail, again and again to do them efficiently or correctly. Unfortunately the phrase has proven correct more often than I care to remember.

The truism? “The less people do the less they want to do.”

I’ve used it time and again but I’ve never thought of it as being applicable to an entire society or an entire social system. It is.

This is a lesson in socialism and Theodore Dalrymple has it learned well.

Let Me Get This Right...

The people who actually live in the Canadian Arctic are saying that Polar Bears are not at risk because they (like all animals) are adaptable, they have adapted before and therefore ought to be able to adapt again. On the other side of this argument the "scientists" are saying that just isn't so and that the Nunavut Government, their advisors and the Inuit who live with the Polar Bears are discounting the scope of the climate change crisis and that Polar Bears can't possibly adapt for it.

Isn't that the same climate change crisis that has been completely, unequivocally, undeniably out to lunch on every single solitary prediction, model and/or forecast of doom and gloom since Al the oracle Gore spake the divine climate prophecy - assisted by one hell of a power point presentation?

Is this the same climate calamity that was so completely unscientific that "scientists" had to lie and obstruct, alter and destroy data to silence dissent?

Yeah, I thought so.

More Government Never Made Anyone Free

I agree with Michael Den Tandt’s article here, when he says that Canadians aren’t buying what politicians are trying to sell in this country but, as usual I take a more extreme view of what is needed to rectify the problem and I see in Mr. Den Tandt's solutions more problems still.

He starts with the sacred cow of Canadian politics, health care and admonishes the MP’s to “increase private-sector involvement” but then he himself raises the spectre of the evil corporations taking control… Newsflash for , well, practically everyone in Canada… Businesses especially large ones have an economy of scale and a method of operation that make things more affordable and their processes more adaptive than both government and smaller operators.

Don’t believe me? Go to your local Mom and Pop shop and buy practically anything… Now find the same product at Wal Mart and tell me which is more expensive. This isn’t just a fluke it is an actual principle of business economics and a central feature of a capitalist (as opposed to socialist) system.

Next Mr. Den Tandt asks for an increase in the GST back up to the 7% that it was before the current government cut it to 5%. I want to connect this with points #5 which is to “Stop taxing artists, musicians, actors, novelists, filmmakers and poets for their first $30,000” and #6 which adds farmers into the mix.

Now if you are going to rely on taxation as Mr. Den Tandt seems want to do, then what sense does it make to cut in one place just to gouge in another? He might also want to look at the tax rates. If he did he would see that people who make $30,000 a year are already taxed very little, in this country but the GST he wants to increase is a consumption tax and hits everyone (and cutting it helps everyone) equally. If Mr. Den Tandt really wants to help these people who are… wait for it… actually small business owners, then he would instead be calling for an elimination of corporate taxation instead on trying to game a broken system.

The third point he makes is to call for government to “Get behind renewable energy, in a serious way.” Mr. Den Tandt should check the figures. The cost of producing Wind & Solar energy is at least 5 times what it is for traditional sources. Scrap this greenista pipe dream and move toward building new and cheap (in terms of the cost of energy) nuclear power plants. Oh, and do it through private business so it will be done in a timely manner and on or under budget.

Point number 4 is to get back to “Participaction”… Seriously that is not really what we need, although exercise is good and it is good to encourage people to do it what is needed is some serious consideration of changing the Canadian diet. Paleo is the way to go in my opinion, but failing that we need to eat real food, not the processed, carb-laden, gluten-soaked crap that we have been feeding ourselves. In my opinion the Canada food guides reliance on carbohydrates over protein and healthy fats to generate energy is the single greatest cause of the obesity in our society today. But in the end there is no place for the government to tell people what they must eat or how they must live. These decisions must be based on the individuals desire and that can't be institutionalized.

Although I already touched on points #5, this time I’ll tackle it from another angle altogether. Artists, musicians, actors, novelists, filmmakers and poets do add considerably to the cultural richness of any society but here’s the rub. In order for this contribution to be real, lasting and honest the people, individuals within the society have to support them.

I know what many of you are thinking, how does that differ from Mr Den Tandt’s point?

Well, he is asking for the force of a government gun to take tax money, to FORCE us to support them. I am saying that in order to survive the artists, musicians, actors, novelists, filmmakers and poets must produce a product that people WANT.

If any other business (and these occupations all fall into that category) were to try to demand subsidies, on the basis that no one will willingly buy their products, so we all ought to pay for them to continue to make something no one wants, the uproar would be deafening. But that is exactly what artists ask for time and again and what Mr. Den Tandt supports in this article.

Next the author calls for Canadians to “Get back to the basic values of thrift, hard work, responsibility and politeness…” in and of itself this request is not terrible but then it becomes so when he adds… “Start by passing a law that says parliamentarians must show personal respect toward each other in the House. But then extend it beyond that. Canadian children are graduating high school with great technological skills but lacking some of the basic tools of deportment.”

Pardon my lack of deportment Mr. Den Tandt but WTF do you think gives government the right to regulate manners? This is nothing short of some sort of Victorian puritan fascism. Who’s manners? Are we talking High society etiquette here or something less stringent? Do we need a Manners Czar and Behavioural Police Mr. Den Tandt? To hell with that Jack!

Next Mr. Den Tandt calls for one of the half measures that characterizes both the right and the left in this country… He wants the long gun registry cancelled. Here’s the thing, the exact same reason that the Long Gun registry is a farce and a huge waste of taxpayers money also applies to hand guns and every other prohibited weapon in the country. At its root it is an attack on property rights. Beyond that principle it is ridiculous to label a weapon as dangerous. The weapon is a tool just like any other it has no will it can not BE dangerous in and of itself.

Additionally it is a bald-faced application of the concept of a thought crime to deny any adult the ownership of a weapon because he/she might kill someone with it. Why don’t these prohibitionists come out and say what they mean…

“No, you can’t own that 357 magnum because I think you are a killer and I don’t want you to have one. Yes the rifle is okay, as long as we know, because you won’t be able to kill as many people with that”

Do you see how insulting that is? It’s like telling people they can have a computer but no internet access because they would only surf kiddie-porn if they could get on the net.

The ninth point starts off well, calling for an end to the Reserve system. Mr. Den Tandt correctly recognizes it as the reason that in a country like Canada with all its wealth and promise there are little pockets of the third world and they are the Indian reserves. I also agree with his call that the law be applied equally to all.

As for the last point it is useless window dressing. You can make people “swear” to do anything but you can’t actually MAKE them abide by that oath.

Canada has to become a place where the people coming to its shores see enough value in it to change their ways. They ought to respect the culture of the country and more than that, have come here for its freedoms (not its social programs). Being a Canadian should be their highest priority their most fervent wish. They should want to change their culture for the better. Honour killings are a crime and they should be treated as such with the full weight of the law behind their prosecution, not empty rhetoric.

On the whole I’m disappointed in this list. If this is the sort of thinking that passes for innovative and progressive in this country then we are hurting. Less government, not more is the way to develop economically, socially and culturally. Stop looking to the government to solve your problems or to implement your pet solutions. Stand up for yourself, stand up for individualism and individual rights and check your premises.

More government never made anyone free.

Objectivist Round Up

The 153rd Objectivist Round Up (the first I have participated in) is being hosted by Lynne at the 3 Ring Binder.

Check it out and get your O on!

But We've Always Done it That Way

Imagine if you will people arguing that women, aboriginals and other visible minorities shouldn’t have the right to vote, that blacks should ride in the back of the bus that some people are born better than the rest of us and it is just too much of a bother to change it all.

It’s ridiculous to expect any rational person to go along with that.

We’ve come so far in the last hundred plus years that these ideas are obviously backward, misogynistic, racist and just plain wrong. But that is the argument forwarded by Matthew Rowe of the Monarchist League of Canada in response to a survey that said 2/3 of Canadians believe that we should cut ties with the monarchy once Queen Elizabeth II’s reign is done.

When Mr. Rowe says that “Canada has always been a Monarchy” and that it is “part of who we are as a nation.” What he is really doing is yelling STOP! and trying to hold an entire nation hostage to a system that has been woefully out of touch with the ideals of a modern society for decades, and at odds with the facts of reality since the concept of hereditary rule was first dreamed up.

I am not arguing that the monarchy has not served a purpose within the narrow confines of the Canadian Government. Indeed the constitutional monarchy which is Canada has fared quite well for the last 143 years. Our government is stable and it works well for the most part, but Rowe and his ilk seem to claim that this is as good as it gets, that we as a country and a society ought to be satisfied with the institutions and processes that the Fathers of Confederation cobbled together in 1867.

I disagree.

A constitution is a living document and as a society evolves its constitution ought to evolve along with it. This is not to say that change ought to occur for changes sake, but that when false premises are corrected or better solutions become available, to cling to the old for the sake of rigid conservatism or expediency is a detriment to individuals and therefore to the country itself.

I would be much more willing to hear Mr. Rowe’s position if instead of complaining that we’ve always done it that way, he had merely said that the system works and has proven itself as viable as any other we might choose, but he didn’t. Instead he appeals to authority, emotion and collectivism.

Canada should separate politically from the English monarchy, what’s more is that we as Canadians should be demanding it.

There is no good reason not to. It is an anachronism and contrary to the principles of a liberal society to have an unelected head of state. A Canadian republic would be just as stable if not more so than our current constitutional monarchy. Democratic representation would be enhanced and the legitimacy of the post of Head of State (whatever we might call it) would be ensured through election.

Removing Canada’s ties to the Monarchy would necessitate significant changes in the constitution which would mean unprecedented debate on that same document, perhaps an almost complete rewriting of it.

Many within the establishment raise the fear that such a reworking would lead to the fragmentation of Canada as the Maritimes, Quebec, Central Canada and the western provinces all vie for their fair share and all seek to right perceived wrongs.

This is the boogeyman that has kept us bound to not only the Monarchy but to the best laid plans of 1867. More than tradition, more than simplicity, the fear of the dissolution of Canada has kept us Canadians from seeking our own way separate from historic institutions.

The truth is that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If the singular act of choosing to evolve as a society is enough to destroy the Canadian confederation then I would argue that this nation is already dead and we might as well get it all over with now, rather than later.

Right, For all the Wrong Reasons

Irvin Studin’s idea to increase immigration into Canada is a good one, but although he momentarily catches sight of why it is a good idea when he says, “The Canada of 100 million has a far larger national market and the attendant economies of scale and scope…” this is a mere afterthought for him.

To Mr. Studin, hailed as something of a public policy wonder-kid, the prime reason to open immigration and increase Canada’s population is to “build strong national institutions and structures across the vast territory of Canada -- institutions that, while today are often absent or weak, would eventually serve as a bulwark for international strategic influence. Second, a far larger talent pool to populate the strategic arms of the state -- the military, diplomatic, civil service and political branches of government, as well as business, cultural, educational and scientific sectors.”

If you read the entire article it becomes quite clear that Mr. Studin’s intent is solely focused on increasing the power of the state both within and outside of Canada.

He envisions some sort of superpower which will simultaneously see the Canadian people held from cradle to grave by the “strategic arms of the state” and witness the rise of Canada as an international military and diplomatic force, with emphasis on the force part.

This is exactly the wrong reason to increase immigration and Studin's plan which counts on immigration as a force in and of itself is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

I agree that Canada ought to open up immigration and have it limited only for national security reasons, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases or to keep criminals out. But there is something else that must be done first.

First we should begin to dismantle the so called social safety net. The reason why we should do this ought to be self-evident. We want people to come to Canada to work. We want them to come here for the opportunity to succeed and thrive in a country that offers them more freedom to achieve than the one they just left.

Consider the United States in its early history. Immigrants didn’t flock to America for social services or “strong national institutions”, they came for the opportunity to be free and to make their own way in the world. As a result of that “pioneer spirit” the USA went from upstart colony to world superpower in less time than Mr. Studin could imagine in his wildest public policy wet dream.

Once we have ensured that immigrants won’t be coming to Canada to turn the “social safety net” into a hammock there is another step we must take before we can open the flood gates, and be reasonably assured that those that come will be those that want the freedom that we can offer, the freedom to prosper.

Now with immigration comes the economic benefit of all those added people. Mr. Studin continues to apply all this human power to “applied research institutions; to aid the generation of policy ideas; to create bona fide national institutions of higher culture in the musical, visual and theatrical arts; to justify national sports leagues” but he seemingly ignores the very thing that makes all of that possible… Individual economic activity.

To make this immigration plan work you can not just dump a bunch of people onto the land and expect great cities to rise, or… well you could if no one was going to get in their way… but sadly Canada is an over-regulated, politically restrictive pseudo-capitalist, bureaucratic welfare state.

So step two, before immigration can be opened up with any realistic hope of creating the wealth and its serendipitous cousin the power - that Mr. Studin so fervently desires - is to begin dismantling the bureaucracy. We would need to get the government at all levels out of the way of the people who actually make that wealth and power a possibility.

The best way to accomplish this would be to have, as Ayn Rand put it in her brilliant collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness, “a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church..” . Initially, however, I think we could go a long way by eliminating superfluous regulations, business taxes and the sort of nickel and dime, money wasting red tape nightmares that make it so hard to open and run a business today.

Sure it will mean that consumers will have to be more aware of the services and goods they contract and consume, (with lessened regulation I am not so naive to think that some unscrupulous men won’t try to cheat and defraud) but that is part and parcel of being free. Besides we are not talking about eliminating the courts or police services and such frauds should be held to account by the law.

So now with the social safety net severely curtailed if not gone completely, and our bureaucracy restricted to the absolute bare minimum, Irvin Studin’s proposal for increased immigration could be implemented with reasonable chance of success.

Although this would no doubt lead to more economic, political and international clout for Canada I doubt that with the reduced scope of “strong national institutions” and the reduction or elimination of “strategic arms of the state” that Mr. Studin would recognize or appreciate the change.