Unfair Labour Practices

The Canadian Government's treatment of Postal workers is unfair.

Actually the fact that the Canadian Government has anything to do with these workers is unfair.  That is the only reason I can think of why an unskilled labourer (mail carrier) earns $51,466 dollars a year to deliver mail and is eligible for up to 6 weeks (30 days) of paid vacation a year.  Not to mention the cushy allotment of sick, and family related leave that can be taken.

Show me a single equivalent package of entitlements for an unskilled manual labourer in the private sector...

Yup the Government's treatment of the postal workers is unfair...  and in the interest of fairness they should all be fired and new ones hired at a suitable and sane market rate.

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.

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...

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).

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.

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.

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?

Truth in Politics

This is ridiculous.

The truth is the best policy. This particular tempest in a teapot could be solved with a single, clear, concise statement from the government to the effect that;

Not all Members of Parliament have the necessary security clearance, or could even obtain the necessary security clearance to be privy to these documents, the re...lease of which could adversely affect our soldiers and our allies in the field, and Canada's National Interests at home and abroad.

The solution to this issue is quite simple, the government will establish a Parliamentary Armed Services Committee which will be a non-partisan committee consisting of government and opposition MP's who take the steps to achieve (and are subsequently awarded) the appropriate security clearances.

This committee will not be able to speak of or make public any information so classified but should any impropriety occur they can bring that matter before a similarly qualified and security cleared auditor or judge.

So why won't the government do it? Because if you tell the simple truth people will come to expect it and then this government (and every other government Canada is likely to have) is screwed.

Exactly What We Don't Need

This, from Lawrence Martin, is exactly what we don't need. Note in his praise of the once and future king that it isn't because of anything he has actually done, but more because he is "young, articulate in both languages, dashing, magnetic."

I would rather that Lawrence Martin had come out in favour of principle, diligence, trustworthiness, honour or loyalty... Certainly any one of these things is more important, more telling of the nature of a man and his worth as a politician than good looks, the gift of gab, flamboyance or enamouring qualities.

As long as the people look for the qualities Mr. Martin extols we will lurch from bad government to worse, from one duplicitous self-serving politician to the next.

I don't care about a politicians age, I care about his ideas and ideals and none of the ones we have currently have either in abundant supply or good condition.

Scandal, Evasion and Distraction: A Flow Chart of Modern Government.

What is it that leads governments to believe that they can hide, evade or deny their actions and the scandals they create?

Take this ridiculous example. Everyone, EVERYONE! knows there are people being tortured in Afghanistan, indeed it would be much more newsworthy to have a headline that read; "No Afghan Prisoners Have Been Tortured", and to have it be true.

The level of evasion necessary for the PMO and the government to claim that they "didn't know" is Herculean, but only slightly more so than that required by the opposition parties, the press' talking heads and us dumb voters to act surprised and outraged by it.

But this story is a mere blip on the radar. Much more important is the question why Governments think that they can hide things like this? What are they hoping to do? I believe there is a pattern here... scandal, evade, distract, (repeat if necessary).

Here's my theory...

All governments start off like the Hollywood starlet with the good girl image, and we voters are like smitten fans, happy (for the most part) with the choice we have made in the aftermath of an election.

But this electoral honeymoon is short lived. It doesn't take long before our sweetheart is rumored to be less than pure, and sure enough the sex tape emerges.

Our governments in scandal are just like that starlet. They divorce their actions from any possible repercussions. Then even when they are discovered on all fours taking it like a pro (metaphorically speaking) they deny even the possibility that they have done anything wrong.

We, voters (fans) are left either sputtering in disbelief, or cynically nodding our heads in disgust, but only for so long, only until the next political porn, a fiasco, another boondoggle, some scandal, heaven forbid there be a somethingorother-gate.

Then, not unlike the pathetic guy watching that starlet's home video, we are distracted by the next outrage, more outrageous than the last outrage.

So we go, from scandal to scandal, but rarely do we do anything other than bitch about it over coffee, because...

"did you hear...???"

Right for all the Wrong reasons

Bob Hepburn is right for all the wrong reasons.

Everything "Lord" Moran said about Canadians seems to me to be pretty close to the mark. We tend to overly praise even just the competent members of our society, and should someone reach critical acclaim outside of Canada, well Lord Moran's quip about the Order of Canada is not far from the mark.

Similarly Mr Hepburn is not wrong in asserting that it is high time that Canada cut the umbilical and ended the sham of constitutional monarchy. The Queen and her representative, the Governor General are a waste of time and money. We do not need a royal marionette or even the puppeteer herself to give the actions of our government and its elected officials sanction.

What do you suppose would be the response by Canada and Canadians if the GG on the recommendation of the Queen, or the Queen herself decided to refuse to sign some piece of legislation into law?

If you guessed the end of the monarchy in Canada you would be right.

This begs the question that if the Queen/GG would never contemplate disallowing a Canadian law or a proclamation from Canada's parliament what use are they anyway?

Was Lord Moran being a pompous arrogant wind-bag when he wrote that letter all those years ago? Most likely, but Mr. Hepburn's pulverized feelings aside, the Stars writer hasn't done a very good job of proving the Brit wrong when his article stands on the premise of digging for hurt feelings from a 25 year old letter.

The Nature of Governments

We’ve heard it all before… “Government is a necessary evil.” Well, that is a lie, and a dangerous lie at that.

By implication the statement seems to say that if we dumb humans could only get it right we could exist in a society free of government. This is the anarchist dream, but even they recognize the need for the protection of rights, for national and personal security. However, their solution is not governmental but private. They say that a society let a man hire a company to protect his rights that he could be safe, that he would be protected.

Of course that all falls disastrously apart when Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith each having hired different security forces both maintain their rights have been violated and each attempts to have the other arrested for the transgression. Protection Company “A” plus Protection Company “B” minus the stability of a single government equals bloodbath.

Alternatively such anarchy panders to the far too human tendency toward the principal that might makes right and gangs, private armies and warlords turn the anarchist utopia into a Hobbesian life, cruel, brutish and short.

On the other side of the coin is the belief that Government, (still as a necessary evil) is what makes a society, that it is an end in itself, that it is more important than any one man. The socialist and communist while promising that someday the state will “whither away” still believe in it indeed they make it the causus beli of their society.

In following the false notion of collective rights, they come to believe that in order to provide what is “good” to “all” it is necessary to destroy the concept and meaning of the individual. “You” as an entity do not exist. You are a cog in the wheel, insignificant when measured against the needs of others. What others? The others. What need? Their need. Who is the “all” that they are working so hard for? Why it’s anyone but you, the individual.

So where does this leave us? Well, to be honest, metaphysically it leaves us way, way back before government and politics and society ever enter into the picture, but that is a subject for another day so let me just make a “simple” assertions here.

The previous two extremes attempted, or claimed to protect mans rights. What essential right is it that the Anarchist and the Socialist seek to protect? Mans right to life.

Life is the right from which all other rights spring, be they true rights like liberty and property or false printing press rights like the right to healthcare or to a job.

Can one sell a right, or hire it out? Certainly not.

Who has a life worthy of the term right? Society, a nation, some group, government or gang? No.

Only an individual can possess rights and no individual can ever hold his rights higher than the rights of another. And it is that principle that brings us to the nature, purpose and necessity of government.

Government is necessary to protect the rights of individuals, to ensure that their rights are held on par with all other individuals. No mans position, strength, wealth, need or wants can ever place his rights above the rights of another man. That assurance is the sole function of government, it is not evil, it is just and proper and rational.

How a government approaches the defence of individual rights defines its nature. The anarchist disallows government as the arbiter of disputes and consequently the protector of rights, so rights are destroyed.

The socialist perverts the concept of rights and applies it to some nameless, faceless undefined collective making slaves of all.

The welfare statist attempts to make rights out of needs consequentially following the socialists path to hell.

And finally religionists of whatever political persuasion subverts mans right to live his own life for the commandments of some supernatural fairy tale and the promise of something better when he is dead..

So the next time you hear someone say that government is a necessary evil ask him to name which evil he prefers more, slavery, servitude or death.

The Government Effect

Health reform in Canada... have none of these people ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?

Unintended consequences are outcomes that are not (or not limited to) the results originally intended in a particular situation. They may be foreseen or unforeseen, but they should be the logical or likely results of the action.

Now what do you think might be the unintended consequence of this:

"He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget.

This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said."

Dr Ouellet is counting on all those positive consequences he's already concluded would be the result. But understanding the nature of bureaucracy isn't his forte apparently.

Bureaucracy's love their budgets, its how they live. When they are given a set budget they will spend it all, every time, in the hopes that;

a) It won't be cut next year because they proved through frugality or efficiency that they did not need all the cash and;

b) That if they spend it all they will have the opportunity to ask for more for next year so that the bureaucracy can expand (as is their wont).

But the good Doctor is proposing an open budget. One that (apparently) rewards the bureaucracy for its efficiency.

But in the land of unintended consequences is quality a necessary part of the equation? No. The only necessary part of the equation would become processing the largest possible volume of patients to receive the largest possible payment.

This system would not be a problem in a free market because if the quality of the service dropped to meet the need of efficiency then the patient would be able to go somewhere else and the offending business would be forced out of business by the companies offering both quality and efficiency.

But since all hospitals in this country are state owned there is no hope for a market correction of that type, and what you would have is hospitals becoming sausage factories. With no reason to offer quality and efficiency, then efficiency (expediency) will win out.

Once that budgetary imperative has taken hold, the other unintended consequence will rear it's head, namely the cost of health care in this country will go through the roof, which means our taxes will go through the roof.

There ought to be a corollary to the Law of Unintended Consequences called "The Government Effect" stating simply that when any government program results in unintended consequences the cost of said unintended consequences is inevitably downloaded onto the individual in the form of some tax levied against him or some sacrifice of his freedom.

It Really Is That Simple...

H/T Kelly

Hypocrites

The OAS has been around since 1948.*

In all that time only two countries have been kicked out of the organization; Cuba, in 1962 for gross violations of human rights, and now Honduras, which according to the OAS's own website has been "suspend immediately the right to participate in the institution of Honduras following the coup d’Etat that expelled President José Manuel Zelaya from power."

So, a coup is all it takes eh?

I guess these were more acceptable coups...

Argentina, 1955, 1966 And 1976...
Ecuador, 1963, 1976, 2000, 2005...
Bolivia, 1969, 1970, 1980...
Guatemala, 1954, 1962...
Paraguay, 1954, 1989...
Argentina, 1955, 1966, 1976...
Venezuela, 1948, 1958, NB* In 1992 current dictator for life Hugo "it's a coup" Chavez tried to overthrow the elected government of his own country.

I could go on of course, south and central America are no strangers to coup's. One has to ask though, why this one is deemed so heinous as to warrant Honduras' removal from the OAS.

If you want to defeat an enemy first isolate him. That has been effectively done to Honduras, by it's socialist enemies with the USA's new president willingly playing the part of useful idiot.

By the way, a coup d'état is defined as;

A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power. Coup d'état is French for “stroke of the state” or “blow to the government.”

Since the government of Honduras is still in power, since the military is not, since the rule of law is in full force and the constitution of Honduras has been upheld, not suspended...

THIS IS NOT A COUP!!!

UPDATE

Newsmax

How long do you think, till Chavez decides it's his right to enforce this veiled threat? What will we do then?

Honduras Falters

Honduras' adherence to its own laws and constitution falters in the face of overwhelming opposition and international pressure. It's a travesty of law and a victory for the kind of politically correct collectivism which erodes real rights the world over.

"U.S. President Barack Obama said from Moscow early Tuesday that the United States backed Zelaya's reinstatement "even though he has strongly opposed American policies."

This statement doesn't surprise me. After all, Obama strongly opposes the ideals America was founded on.

From Honduras Abandoned at least it seems that the people of that country still want their constitution respected. Rallies occurred in cities all across Honduras, one protest organizer commented...

"that this is a pacific demonstration from the Honduran citizens, and that this is not the result of what has occurred in recent events, but has been gaining momentum over the course of two months. Mel Zelaya is a totalitarian and wanted to run a vote on Monday (June 29) that was contradictory to the Constitution. The Honduran Supreme Court had warned his Zelaya that his actions were unconstitutional, and the two political parties united and voted to remove him from office."

When the people of Honduras are chanting "Out with Mel" why are our leaders doing their damnedest to oppose their democratic will?

The Cold War of the Americas

The first shots are fired.

Hunter Smith's blog Honduras Abandoned has the best news. Don't even look at CTV or CBC, the Michael Jackson's memorial train wreck and gong show coupled with a yellow lobster have gained their minuscule and terribly skewed attention.

Socio-economic Mathematics

2 (the most socialized province in Canada)
+
2 (the most restrictive social & business environment in Canada)
4 (economic destruction and apathy)

All of this apparent soul searching and he still isn't able to see the answer.

Your Money is In It…

Because there is no money in it.

The reason why government is so hot and horny to “develop” the green economy, to “build” green jobs and “aid” green business is because there is no way to make a living off of these things.

If there were capitalists of all stripes, of any and all political, environmental and social inclinations would be tripping all over themselves for a piece of this "new market".

Think about it…

In a world where capitalists have us convinced to spend our hard earned dollars on bottled water when the stuff flows out of our taps almost for free, do you not think they would be making money hand over fist off the environmental craze if they could?

Just like Chrysler, your money is going to be put there by force, because no one wants their money to be there by choice.