No Tribute for Layton

Since his death yesterday the press and social media sites have been positively swamped with tributes to Jack Layton. So many times I have read in the last two days words to the effect that "although I don't support his politics, I respect his vision/passion/determination/tenacity...", etc.

I won't and can't say that.

Think about it, the act of being tenacious or determined or passionate is not a virtue in and of itself. It is the idea behind the drive that matters more. Would you praise Stalin or Mao for their passion? No, because their ideas were horrible perversions.

I can't even praise Layton's love of Canada, because his socialist vision of Canada would have been an aberration of individualism, a detriment to freedom and would have meant a devolution into nanny statism and a profound increase in the kind of progressive socialism that is an anathema to anyone who loves their personal freedom.

Does cancer suck? Sure, I lost a good friend to Cancer earlier this year. Is it sad when someone dies of a disease? Of course, but just as I wouldn't praise a con man for doggedly trying to deprive me of my money, I won't praise someone who's ideals and principles would mean the sure and steady destruction of my freedoms if they only had a chance.

The Canadian Farce of Rights and Freedoms #2

Rights and Freedoms Permissions in Canada.

If you are a classically liberal thinker like myself you probably believe in the notion of unalienable rights, which is to say Rights as a precondition to living ones life as a man; To me and those like me rights are an intrinsic necessity to living as opposed to merely existing in this world.

Well, the talking heads that wrote and lawyered the Charter don't believe in Rights like that. As a matter of fact I don't think they believe in Rights at all, only the power of the state.

The second sentence of the Charter is called "Rights and Freedoms in Canada" now that is a tall order, or at least you would think it would be a hard thing to cram into a single solitary sentence but the sentence really has nothing to do with Rights and freedoms and everything to do with who will allow you, and when you will be allowed to have rights and freedoms.

It states in full; "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

This is the first of many caveats in the Charter, and like all the others it is strategically placed to nullify any statement that could give the impression that Rights and Freedoms are a part of human nature as opposed to a permission granted to men at the whim of the state/government/some random constitutional lawyer.

Read that sentence. If you do so without mincing words you will immediately recognize its intent. Were you to simplify the sentence , boiling it down to its absolute meaning it would read... The Government has decided exactly what permissions you have to act and live your life and it will also decide when you will be permitted to do so.

In other words... your rights are what we say they are when we say they are.

So much for the "Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms".

The Canadian Farce of Rights and Freedoms

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a document that chains the people of Canada to a contradiction riddled and unapologetically statist perversion of the concepts of individual freedom and liberty.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

This is the first line of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, in a document that claims to innumerate and codify the rights and freedoms of the people of Canada the first sentence contains a statement which, if examined rationally and without compromise, would lead to such a host of contradictions that the whole thing ought to have been thrown out of any 1st year law class.

Principle is defined in part as; a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:

If it is true that Canada recognizes the Supremacy of God then which God?

No, there is no scope here to quibble and claim as many progressively minded people do that the statement is a generalization regarding the spiritual nature of any and all belief in a supernatural deity or notion, because to claim that is to allow a multitude of contradictions.

Remember the word "principles"? Well religions in Canada - which are the earthy manifestation of "God" - who according to our charter is "supreme" - don't recognize or even allow the same principles to be exercised. While some sects of the Christian religion recognize in principle (and action) the right of two men or two women to marry, the Catholic God most certainly does not; and that is one of the more benign contradictions of the notion of "principle" that this fallacious statement incurs.

Who's principle wins?

What sort of principle (fundamental, primary, or general law or truth) if any is upheld?

If you claim that the sentence is merely a recognition of spirituality what principles do we hold as true and which ones are the ones our nation is actually founded upon?

If we as a society get to pick and choose which "principles" we allow our nameless, faceless, secular Deity-thing to actually count as our founding principles why do we bother even trying to shroud the first sentence of this aberration of Rights in a spiritual cloak in the first place?

As for the remainder of the sentence, I have no complaint with the principle of "the rule of Law". That is not to say that I don't have issue with the things that we have been saddled with as "Law" but I'll get into those points as I delve further into this despicable document.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not Neutral... Ambivalent. Not Compassionate... Evil

I will never donate another penny to the Red Cross.

The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.

Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.

That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...

"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.

That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.

I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.

"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"

But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.

The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.

The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.

In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.

There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.

Then comes the next philosophical head fake...

"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "

To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?

For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.

Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.

Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.

It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.

It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*

* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.

So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.

More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.

Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."

Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.

I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.

*H/T Chris

Time to Pay Up

UPDATE: Second Firm Pulls out of Greece , and the Greeks continue to evade reality...

This is the end of the road for socialized medicine.

Medicine just like bread, automobiles and bowling balls cost a certain amount to produce. That is a fact. It is not a construct of a company or a secret cabal of evil capitalists perpetrating a "brutal blackmail".

It is also not "a violation of corporate social responsibility" the company would not exist, there would be no insulin to buy, and no one to produce it if they (the company) were to ignore the realities of what it takes to produce this or any other product.

It is simply a matter of reality, things cost money, and nothing can be produced for free. Nothing can be supplied indefinitely at a loss. Yes, you might be able to supply it for a time at a loss but as less money comes in less product is produced and soon there is nothing and no company to produce it.

The decree by the Greek government that all medicine prices shall be cut by 25% (so that the government can continue to supply those medicines through the health care system) is a command divorced of reality.

There is a simple solution. Return the portion of taxes that each Greek pays into the health care scheme and allow then to pay for their own medicine at the market rate.

The Greek Government is not the only one to blame for this though. The Greeks have themselves as individuals to blame. Every time they demanded that their government give them more for less, every time they allowed another government program to supply for them something that they should have bought themselves. Every time they asked for more pay and less work, every demand to feather their social safety net led to this.

Reality can not be ignored forever, you may survive for a time while evading it but sooner or later its time to pay up.

Greece's bill is due.

Why all the Fear?

The more they talk, the more I want to see, the more I think we need to see...

Why all the fear folks?

You know, I don't trust a single one of these people as far as I could spit a wet rat, and the second they begin telling me that I don't need to know what they are spending my taxed money on, well that really piques my interest.

It is our money, they have been entrusted to spend it wisely within agreed upon terms on agreed upon expenses. If they are doing that then they shouldn't mind giving us a peek. An honest man fears nothing, a criminal fears all, so I'll ask again...

Why all the fear?

No Escape Hatch

This kind of forthright honesty ought not to be a rarity in politics. The fact that it is indicates how much more effort modern politicians put into maintaining their place at the government trough than anything else. Their desire to hold on to power wins out over principle, over conscience, over law and even over ideology.



Congratulations to Governor Christie for being in the 1 percentile.

Compromised.

There has been a lot of noise in both politics and the press over the English Coalition. The press and opposition have bent over backwards to try to demonstrate that the British coalition is oh, so much more democratic. "Don't you see..." they say breathlessly "the British know how to compromise... I wish we could learn to."

Ok, enough drivel.

Would someone please tell me in what practical way the Harper Government doesn't have to compromise? Harper is leading a minority parliament which could be brought down on any of a number of issues. The Harperites have to walk a fine line between what they as a party would like to implement and what they as a government will be able to implement. Compromise? Their continued existence as the government relies on their ability to compromise before they can even put a single contentious issue to a vote.

How is the British coalition any more of a compromise? Once the coalition is up and running, once the two parties in this bastardization have decided on a platform they will, have a virtual majority in parliament. Sure they will compromise between themselves but as for the Labour party to use a Brit retort the reply is… “Get stuffed!”

Become an Anti-Fascist (for real)

The Ann Coulter event that was shut down by a legion of Brownshirts at the University of Ottawa on the 23 of March, 2010 at the veiled instigation of the University's Vice-President Academic and Provost.

As Mark Styen so eloquently puts it:

"Alliances between the state’s ideological commissars and street mobs are a familiar feature of certain kinds of societies, and I suppose Canada will soon get used to its membership of this unlovely club."

Do we really want to become part of this unlovely club? should we sit still while Fraud and Force become the ruling imperatives of this society? We are already pretty far along this path already, do we want to finish with our children inheriting a Fascist society?

Fight Fraud by shining the light on government accounting at every level. All parties and politicians are guilty to a greater or lesser extent, basing deficit reduction on rosy predictions of GDP growth is as fraudulent as labelling crony capitalism as "economic stimulus". Putting items off the budget or obscuring public audits and scrutiny are equally bad. Individuals can explore and expose government fraud and waste, we need legions of bloggers to do so at the Municipal, Provincial and Federal level.

Fight Force by doing everything possible to deny funding to Universities which promote Brownshirt behaviour like shutting down free speech or promoting "Israel anti-apartheid week". No money to fundraisers or endowments. Withdraw from these institutions so they don't get your tuition fees. Refuse to hire graduates from these Universities and let the applicant know why.

Ayn Rand laid it out for all of us:

"It is the greatest moral crisis in history, and the last"

Which side of History do you want to be on?

Freedom is a self help project

Iggynoramus and the Clowns of Parliament

This is absolutely hilarious, and sad.

You see, not only do the Liberals not stand for anything but their positions are so inscrutable, unfathomable and so completely devoid of any principle that they themselves don't know how to vote because they can't keep their convoluted positions clear in their own heads.

There is an old Chinese proverb "The man who takes the straight road never gets lost."

Good for the Goose???

I am waiting breathlessly (and sarcastically) for the Congressional hearings.

GM Recall

A true plan to revive the economy

Stockwell Day is now Canada's Treasury Minister, and will have to make cuts to government spending amounting to about 8% to reduce spending by $19 billion over the next five years. To make this palatable to voters and the opposition parties, transfer payments are to be considered "untouchable". There is a lot of fat in terms of programs which are either not delivering what is promised, have outlived their usefulness or are mismanaged and can be reorganized to run more efficiently. Consider that large corporations like Canadian Tire or Wal-Mart typically only have five layers of management, while government departments have convoluted structures with multiple layers of management (reputedly as many as 30, but I'll leave that as anecdotal until I see proof)

I think the emphasis on protecting transfers is wrong headed, but that is because I don't see the idea of the State seizing wealth and property from the productive to give to political rent seekers and the non productive as being a proper role for the State.

However, given political reality, cutting transfers to individuals would be electoral suicide, so about $61 billion is untouchable.

We can still look at other areas like transfers to governments (especially governments with their own sources of revenue like offshore oil or hydro), which gives us another $46 billion to work with.

Subsidies should be cut for another @ $30 billion

Crown corporations should be cut as well, since that provides another $8 billion

Adding that up, we can get $84 billion in cuts. Sustained for six years this would allow the entire national debt to be paid off, and if the program is sustained for 12 years then all unfunded liabilities (CPP, pensions, etc.) are also covered.

Not included in this virtuous circle is the possibility of reductions in operating expenses due to the ending of so many programs, and of course the reduction of the $30 billion/year in debt payments. Real tax cuts can be made from the savings here, energizing the economy and in all likelyhood speeding up the entire process through increased tax revenues.

Here is a real program to get behind: don't leave the debt to our grandchildren but pay it off before our children leave school!