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.

You First.

Well here it is, finally, spelled out without any ambiguities, with no equivocation and no weasel words.

In one concise article Mr. Singer says what a good deal of environmentalists are afraid to. Which is to say that he says what they wilfully evade, that the end result, the final solution of their Green fascism is the end of humanity.

Well I for one would like to invite them all, each and every one to do away with themselves, in whatever ecologically sound manner they wish of course.

So Mr. Singer, Mr. Benatar... This is your philosophy, and since all philosophies are constructed to show man how he ought to live, I hope you will have the intestinal fortitude and courage to live by yours.

Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not asking you to do something I wouldn't. I do my very best to live my life by my philosophy (Objectivism), its just that were we both to do so, you would see that your philosophy leads you to your death and mine encourages me to live.

So lets both start...

You will go first.

Farewell

For reasons of my own I have decided to go solo with this blog from here on out, so Thucydides will no longer be posting here.

I appreciate and have enjoyed his posts for Uncommon Sense and I hope that he begins a blog of his own, and lets me know so that we can all enjoy it.

Thanks again Thucydides, keep in touch.

Zip

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much

This sounds like a scared Liberal in a CBC suit.

Why shouldn't the right of the political spectrum in this country have what the left has enjoyed in the form of the CBC for all these years?

Of course partisanship on the left is just considered good reporting, on the right it's "drive-by attacks... misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian"

All that aside more is better in any marketplace, especially when one is dealing with information.

Gaza 2010 = Sarajevo 1914?

It is ridiculous that the world seems to be standing around watching as this shapes up. To think of a parallel, the Iranians sending an aid ship to Gaza is the equivalent of the Russians sending an “aid ship” to Cuba in October of 1962.

Iran has sworn to “wipe Israel off of the map”. Israel has sworn to defend herself, and that includes the blockade of Gaza.

With Israel standing alone and surrounded by her Muslim enemies, and the rest of the world playing the part of two of three monkeys - seeing and hearing no evil in the intent of those who would break the blockade – does someone really need to point out that Israel is a nuclear capable nation and Iran is pushing toward that goal (while Obama, America’s Nero – fiddles with his foreign policy)?

Israel’s enemies continue to push. They launch rockets, they threaten, they cajole and so far all Israel’s appeasement has done has been to embolden them. Israel’s patience is not infinite however and when push comes to shove they will strike back to save their lives.

This is the point we are going to reach sooner rather than later if the Iranian “aid ships” steam for Gaza. Israel will push back, there will be blood. The Muslim world will condemn. The UN will condemn out of one side of its mouth while calling for an “impartial investigation” out of the other. The new American administration will lower its eyes, kick as the dirt beneath its feet like a shamed child and remain silent.

At that point, abandoned by all her allies implicitly if not explicitly, what option does Israel have?

Surely Israel will launch an attack on Iran to prevent that theocratic totalitarian state from ever achieving nuclear status, and from that act of self-preservation the entire set of dominoes may fall.

This single event, this largely ignored calculated provocation of Israel by her sworn enemies has the possibility of being this millenniums "shot heard round the world"..

And so far all the world has done is scold the victim and praise the assassin.

Not out of Curiosity

Michael Ignatieff is a smart guy. You have to be to teach at Harvard. The thing of it is that all the Liberals in Canada pinned their hope on this guy to be their new leader and not one of them waited to see if he could lead.

What they failed to grasp... probably because the ones making the call were also more academically minded than politically minded and the rest followed their lead... was that smart doesn't necessarily translate into either decisive or savvy. As time has gone on Ignatieff has proven himself to be a slightly more personable version of Stephane Dion.

Truth of the matter is Iggy could probably explain to you the way the country ought to be run (as a Liberal would do it) but he wouldn't be able to convince you and ten of your close friends to try and do it with him.

As a friend of mine once quipped to a particularly inept Troop Commander... "Sir, I wouldn't follow you out of curiosity."

Abbott and Costello Meet the Economy...

Imagine...

"From this distance, it's easy to be sanctimonious about Israel's commando raid on the Turkish flotilla, and costless to be naive about the motives of those onboard.

Read the whole thing...

Socialists Don't Understand The Nature of Work

This article exemplifies the difference between those that do deserve bonuses and those that don’t. Pat Martin’s statement that; “The Bank of Canada is not a private business. It's not tied to performance or productivity outcomes, it's not a profit-making venture where you can measure a good year from a bad year ... What is the merit they are being rewarded for, coming to work on time?" is absurd, ignorant and disrespectful.

The comment is absurd because as long as this country has a public service it should strive to have the best possible public service. That means to have people who work their asses off to do the best possible job. It is common for corporations to give huge bonuses to their top performers if the public service wants to attract any of that sort of talent they must compete, they must show their employees that they are valued and that their work is valued and that productivity and excellence is recognized.

Mr. Martin’s comment demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of the work that goes on in the Bank of Canada. Canada has come out of the global recession far in advance of the rest of its G8 and G20 counterparts due in no small way to the prudent fiscal policies and monetary controls instituted by none other than The Bank of Canada. For Mr. Martin to then lambaste the Bank’s executives (people who work so very hard behind the scenes) as not deserving of bonuses because the crown corporation doesn’t produce profits is to ignore the immense benefit that those policies and controls provide to Canadians and Canadian corporations,,, Talk about the creation of profit! When the rest of the worlds banks are being wiped out not a single Canadian Bank has even come close. When sovereign debts in Europe are being downgraded and nations fear economic collapse Canada is rebounding stronger than any other country on the planet.

Mr. Martin’s words are disrespectful of workers and executives everywhere. They imply that Mr. Martin believes only if a profit is made is a person working hard enough to earn a bonus. Perhaps he, as a public servant, isn’t deserving of a gold plated pension for only working 6 years maybe he ought to work for 20 or 25 years first. After All Mr. Martin has produced even less profit as an MP than the good people at the Bank of Canada.

But the ideological heart of the matter is revealed when “Martin argues the system creates divisiveness among public sector workers -- labelling some as winners and some as losers -- he's most worried about their effect on productivity.”. You see in the socialist world everyone is a winner, which is to say that they all loose equally. There is no such thing as equality among and between people. You can’t create it, enforce it or demand it. There is no way to have a functioning society if you can not even bring yourself to admit that some people are smarter, more industrious and more driven than others. The blind equality that would see no one
praised for effort or productivity is the end result of the failed socialism of the USSR and its satellites.

If you want to negatively effect productivity in a workplace tell everyone that no one will be recognized for their effort. What is the end result of a place like that? Well it isn’t a rush for excellence. It’s a slow and steady decline, a march to the lowest common denominator. As Russians working in state sponsored factories used to quip about that very same sort of system. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

It’s a strange sort of schism that a socialist like Mr. Martin, indeed I would argue all socialists, do not understand the nature of work as being an essential part of the human experience. The benefit in work to the individual is not in the work itself but in the personal satisfaction in and the recognition of the work itself.

Only a complete imbecile would believe that the world will be a better place when everyone from the Doctor to the ditch-digger is equally valued and earns the same wage and praise.

Capitalism isn't the Problem... Its the Solution

This is the kind of thinking that the majority of people don't do.