Getting away from it all; why we really need to find Galt's Gulch

The real problem is we are constrained. No matter where you go, you will always be in the reach of others, most of who are determined to make sure you pay your fair share of their entitlements. The siren call of living off the means of others continues to be the number one enemy of freedom, and indeed, there is little that can be done, since it is a rational choice for an individual to attempt to shift their burdens onto someone else.  It is also rational to attempt to dominate others by force if you wish to take their wealth for yourself; Socialism and Warlords are really just different facets of the same thing.

Personal "Galt's Gulches" are quite possible, and I have blogged on this subject in the past. A virtual "New Atlantis" based on Internet connectivity may also be possible, especially if the medium of exchange is something mutually agreed upon by the members (trading useful information and barter may not be as efficient as cash, but is certainly less accessible to the agents of the State).

No, the solution must involve escaping entirely from the clutches of the State, but also in leaving a beacon for like-minded people to follow. In the present day and age, we have a destination: space.

Since the 1980’s, a large and growing body of science and literature has been devoted to the problems of settling in the environment of outer space. Much of this is actually recycled, amazingly, thinkers like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky were writing on the subject as early as 1903. Most of the ideas have simply been refined with the addition of a century of scientific and technological development. Today we are on the threshold of actually achieving inexpensive spaceflight. Private companies like “Virgin Galactic” have working prototypes of commercial spacecraft that can bring people to the edge of space, and developments like IEC Fusion (being developed by EMC2 Energy) will bring cheap energy which can be harnessed for propulsion beyond Earth Orbit.

So, what's the problem? A society with access to cheap energy (which can be generated in theory by low cost devices that determined individuals or small companies can produce) would seem to be the definition of an Earthly paradise. The real problem is that while the powers of the individual could be increased, the power of the State could increase overwhelmingly. As well, vast increases in available luxury and wealth would be used to bribe the "sheeple" and keep them quiet in the face of an ever increasing "soft tyranny". 

New horizons are needed to draw the best out of people, and inspire those who by accident or design are unable to follow. The end of the middle ages in Europe came not when the New World was discovered (for the nth time) but when it was publicized: (Via Instapundit)

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY: Many in the West will demonstrate their fierce originality and intellectual independence today by condemning Christopher Columbus using the same shopworn cliches they used last year. For those of a different bent, I recommend Samuel Eliot Morison’s Admiral of the Ocean Sea : A Life of Christopher Columbus, which takes a somewhat different position. Here’s an excerpt:

At the end of 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. . . .

Yet, even as the chroniclers of Nuremberg were correcting their proofs from Koberger’s press, a Spanish caravel named Nina scudded before a winter gale into Lisbon with news of a discovery that was to give old Europe another chance. In a few years we find the mental picture completely changed. Strong monarchs are stamping out privy conspiracy and rebellion; the Church, purged and chastened by the Protestant Reformation, puts her house in order; new ideas flare up throughout Italy, France, Germany and the northern nations; faith in God revives and the human spirit is renewed. The change is complete and startling: “A new envisagement of the world has begun, and men are no longer sighing after the imaginary golden age that lay in the distant past, but speculating as to the golden age that might possibly lie in the oncoming future.”

Christopher Columbus belonged to an age that was past, yet he became the sign and symbol of this new age of hope, glory and accomplishment. His medieval faith impelled him to a modern solution: Expansion.

A community of people who are fully engaged in bringing new worlds to life will certainly develop a much different view of life and society than indolent masses who are being kept like fattened sheep in a pen. Where every hand at the wheel is important, the habits of hard work, thrift and planning become paramount, much like frontier society during the colonization of North America between the 1500’s and the closing of the frontier in the 1870’s. Even today, much of the difference between cultural conservatives and liberals can be traced to the environment: conservatives tend to live in small towns and rural environments, while liberals tend to live in cities. Far less surplus wealth exists in the countryside to feed populations of moochers, and those who do live that lifestyle often do so at the expense of family and friends who agree to provide support.

There are fewer extremes of wealth as well in such environments, allowing people to deal with each other as equals, rather than as masters and servants. While ideas like an “elect” might never die out, the ability to constantly expand to new environments and harvest new resources will provide an endless counterbalance:

Morison’s book is superb, and I recommend it highly as an antidote to the simplistic anti-occidental prejudice of today — which, as Jim Bennett has noted, has roots that might surprise its proponents:

This is primarily an effect of the Calvinist Puritan roots of American progressivism. Just as Calvinists believed in the centrality of the depravity of man, with the exception of a minuscule contingent of the Elect of God, their secularized descendants believe in the depravity and cursedness of Western civilization, with their own enlightened selves in the role of the Elect.

Visualizing $100 million in budget cuts

We need more visual thinkers like this:

A sign for our times

Go Green and Die!

Consider the premise of the nonfiction bestseller titled "The World Without Us," which fantasizes about how the earth would "recover" if all humanity suddenly became extinct.

Indeed

Downfall

Progressia comes home to roost. The most amazing thing to consider is the timeline; the "Great Society" programs which kicked off this destructive spiral were enacted starting in the mid 1960's, so the largest and most productive economy in history was bankrupted in just 40 years. You can read an excellent piece here: Who Will Bail Out Uncle Sam?

And some possible consequences: Four really, really bad scenarios

Of course, since our own economy is also badly indebted (perhaps a trillion dollars worth of debt once the unfunded liabilities like pensions are added in) we have little to brag about, and since our economy and society is attached to the United States like Captain Ahab's longboat to Moby Dick, when they go down they are pulling us straight down as well.

Pulling a Ragnar Danneskjöld

Instapundit recently published a blog post asking if it is time for Americans to pull a "John Gault" and go on strike against a prospective Obama administration and Congressional Democratic supermajority. For the few readers who may not understand the allusion; John Galt withdraws from a socialist society and convinces other thinkers and doers to do the same. The United States is crippled not only because of the redistributive policies followed by the various State and Federal governments, but because the very people who's productivity and effort provides the funds and motive power to the State are no longer there.

Ragnar Danneskjold is one of the strikers, who takes more positive action, rather than passively withdrawing from society, he becomes a pirate and actively destroys "gift ships" that the United States sends to the various People's States around the world (although he makes a point of avoiding confrontations with the United States Navy and Coast Guard, since they are performing their proper roles). This is direct action against the philosophy of "spreading the wealth" by preventing it from being used to subsidize or otherwise support other "looter" regimes. In on of the great scenes of the novel, Ragnar Danneskjold seeks out one of the non strikers; Hank Rearden, and offers him some comfort as the looming forces of the State increase the pressure on him. As partial restitution for the hardship and suffering Rearden has suffered at the hands of the State, Danneskjold offers repayment in gold of Rearden's income taxes.

We can do the same. If governments or the State want to "spread the wealth", it is quite reasonable to ask; "why not to us?" Readers are urged to think of the example of Ragnar Danneskjold and use the various mechanisms the State has or will offer to request your income tax back. If the State offers funds to start a new business or hire employees, plug into that program for the amount of your income tax. Rebates for going green? How green can you go (up to the maximum amount of your taxes). American readers will have somewhat different calculations to make, income taxes might not rise initially under an Obama administration, but withholdings like FICA will go up, and probably by dramatic amounts.

Here is how another correspondent puts it:

A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."

Piracy may be profitable and fun during the Obama administration. With luck, we can strike the "Black Flag" in 2012.

An excellent essay from SDA

I found this essay on SDA to be so good that it was worth cutting and pasting (for the few readers who might not view SDA). It is indeed a sad state of affairs when the choices for your ballot are essentially reduced to answering the question "who will do the least damage to my community, my dreams , my aspirations?"

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009562.html

September 17, 2008

An Essay on the Matter of "Least Bad" Democracy

Government is, generally speaking, the political system by which a body of people are administered and regulated. As George Washington noted, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence ~ it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master". Barry Goldwater said that "government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away". Ronald Reagan said that "the most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

Democracy, as George Bernard Shaw noted, "is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few". Oscar Wilde said that "democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people". More exactly, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson said that "democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine".

Perhaps we shouldn't be too harsh, though; Winston Churchill did say that "democracy is the worst form of government we know of except for all the others". (Still, Sir Winston also said that "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter".) Perhaps Voltaire was closest when he said that "an ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination" (probably not ;-)

H. L. Mencken said, "Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." Voltaire said that "in general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another". George Bernard Shaw said that "government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul".

But H. L. Mencken said it best when he said, about democracy, that:

"Government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."

Thomas Jefferson noted the biggest problems with all this, as follows:

• "Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
• "I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
• "Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Simply put: there is too much state redistribution and regulation auctioneering going on. Our government steals too much freedom and pillage to reward panting and pining parasites who are unwilling to be responsible and work, at the expense of the labor of the responsible industrious. That will eventually kill democracy. Is that what we want?

So, as it is not likely that arguing against government or democracy per se are viable political alternatives in Canada for the foreseeable future, and that's probably a good thing, the best available solution to our problems with government in Canada for the foreseeable future can be found by combining Mencken's and Jefferson's results into the following prescription:

In every election, each citizen should vote for the party or candidate that they think will be the least bad auctioneer, in the sense that they will do the least amount of auctioneering.

Unfortunately, too many citizens feel that because they must vote for the least bad alternative, because there is never a most good alternative, they should just skip the whole exercise, or to be extra dashing, make the extra useless effort to spoil their ballot.

Some liberals might say, for example: I'm not going to vote for the liberals because they want to lower income tax and raise consumption tax, and that is not liberal. Or some conservatives might say, for example: I'm not going to vote for the conservatives because they want to raise income tax and lower consumption tax, and that is not conservative. (As were the cases in the last election.)

And for bonus points, nowadays some of those people will run around in blog comments and stamp their little feet and insist that because the party they want to vote for didn't do some particular thing they want or wanted, not only are they not going to vote, but that you are not a valid supporter of that party if you disagree with the little-foot stamper.

People who think like that are being irresponsible citizens; childish at best, evil at worst. In a well-functioning society, and Canada is a well-functioning society, changes happen at the margins. Under these circumstances, the responsible thing to do is to study the data, think carefully, decide who you think is the least bad selection (at the margin), and vote it.

Sure, if you care enough about it, go ahead, form a new party, get on the ballot, win a plurality in the auctioneer contest, and then you can be auctioneer. But you had better be ready to give the people what they want, not what you want, or you won't win a plurality.

Until then, though, it is what it is. Plato said that "the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men". Until your personal political party is in power, it is your civic duty to study the alternatives and to vote for the one you think will do the least amount of auctioneering.

It's the least you can do.

Posted by Vitruvius at September 17, 2008 2:01 AM

Now the other end of the spectrum is not "who will do the least damage to me?" (the Libertarian/Classical Liberal question and view of government) but "who will deliver the loot to me?" (the "Progressive" view of government). For at least 66% of Canadians, that is the key question of the day (the estimated number of voters who support "progressive" parties), which makes this more of an uphill struggle. The desire to live off the effort of someone else taps into two of the most powerful of human emotions; Greed and Envy. The only successful large scale countervailing movement based on Love is Christianity, which of course isn't about political power at all.....

Who pays; who controls?

While some readers might have wondered about my long absence from Uncommon Sense, rest assured that I have been busy at work and on personal matters (like improving my house!). Things should be settled come the fall.

This post is based on the well known but interesting observation that the bulk of tax revenues are paid by a minority of the wealthiest citizens. While the data here is from the United States, similar results should be found in Canadian data.

If 52% of the electorate can effectively control the wealth of the remaining 48%, what possible incentive will they have to elect responsible representatives or support policies that encourage wealth creation, protect private property or even support the Rule of Law (being able to expropriate private property is a favorite practice of socialist city councils, and the Kelo descision has very far reaching implications)?

It was for a very good reason that Aristotle looked down on Democracy as mob rule, and the Founding Fathers of the United States also had the examples of the "Social Wars" that brought down the Res Publica Roma and the excess of the French revolution to guide them. It should be noted that the franchise in the infant United States was only granted to men of property (Timocacy) to prevent mob rule and protect the property rights of citizens.

How to reverse this situation today is not at all clear. People like the idea of getting something for free, without considering where the "free" came from. For those who do, Socialists of all stripes will invoke class warfare, suggesting the wealth is somehow stolen, and really belongs to the correct class, ethnic group, nationality etc.

The only fact in the article that provides a slim ray of hope is the ratio in the United States is still very close to the 50/50 mark, and a little economic tweaking might push the wealth generating fraction back into the majority. Even in the current situation, the greater powers of organization and initiative displayed by the wealth earning fraction of the population might still be enough to retain control of the machinery of government long enough to do the tweaking on their own.

Of course, the solution of last resort might simply be to go on strike, as eaders of "Atlas Shrugged" know...

The National Post Gets It...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The article is one of those equivocation pieces the main stream media is so fond of, and in true style it paints a picture of modern (Canadian) man as a petty, selfish immoral brute that needs to be told what can and can not be said.

That mentality drags us all back to the darkest Dickinsonian days of the industrial revolution, where abuse, exploitation and racism abounded. But is that the kind of world we live in today? Are the majority of Canadians predisposed to racism and hatred? It’s a basic question, are we moral creatures or are we just animals with utensils?

I can tell you how some would like us to answer those questions, for it has long been the joy of traditional media to cast humanity in the worst light. To twist our society into a caricature where one is either an oppressor or a victim, with a dash of “Yes Veronica there is a Santa Claus” thrown in for stark contrast.

This perversion has been accepted over time by populations and governments. It has led us to the garden path we are on, strewn with fabricated rights like potted plants, for because we are so evil and so predisposed to harm, abuse and degrade other men we must be constrained against ourselves.

We can’t rely on human nature because human nature is weak and evil.

We can’t appeal to compassion because we are only animals incapable of caring.

In truth, it is possible to look at our society and see all of that, but the premise is incorrect.

The reason we see our society in decline is because of these potted plant rights. Because of them we can’t rely on hundreds of years of liberal thought and the few basic and true rights like liberty, equality and property because the fabricated rights we’ve created have weakened those inalienable rights and rendered them impotent.

With every new right, with every caveat included in our national laws we weaken our liberty. And those fabricated rights, incapable of sustaining themselves need to be watered and nurtured by fabricated bureaucracies who’s sole purpose is to ensure that the fabrication is given due consideration. And having precious little to do these bureaucracies seek to ensure their survival by perverting the weakness that they themselves have created in our society. Soon the garden path is a jungle, a jungle in need of a clear cutting.

There is not one, single solitary complaint brought to the CHRC that could not have been resolved with pre-existing law.

Ernst Zundel didn’t need to be tried in a kangaroo court, he needed to have the full weight of existing law rallied against him. Furthermore he needed to face the honest and righteous wrath of ordinary Canadians, he needed to be ostracized, to be loathed, and held up to contempt by every honourable, moral Canadian. And what is more is that we Canadians needed to do it. We needed to stand up as individuals and as a society to be counted, to counter the idea that we don’t care, that we are immoral and that we need to be prodded to act.

We don’t need the CHRC we need freedom of speech, freedom to speak in unvarnished, blunt and forthright language. We need to speak up and out for our society against racism, against intolerance against fanaticism and against all those who would seek to silence such speech.

As Ezra Levant has said time and again “Fire them all”

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

It is obvious to anyone who reads Atlas Shrugged, that throughout it, the policies and programs undertaken by the ubiquitous Thompson government and the so called Peoples States, combined with the altruistic and nihilistic tendencies of anti-heroes like James Taggart and Wesley Mouch are leading to the final destruction of society. Indeed the book culminates in a collectivist apocalypse and the escape of the heroes and heroine to Galt’s Gulch.

Like the canary in the mineshaft I seek to warn you all that we may be looking at the same fate somewhere down the road.

So just to keep tabs on the situation I introduce a recurring theme to Uncommon Sense, a chirp here and there which I will call…

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

My first entry is about the US Treasury and a sweeping power grab by its new Head

The regulatory blueprint proposes eventually vesting new powers in the Federal Reserve as a "market stability regulator" -- effectively formalizing a role the central bank already has adopted recently by expanding the list of financial firms which can borrow directly.

It would give the Fed authority to demand that all financial system participants supply it with full information on their activities and grant the Fed a right to collaborate with other regulators in setting rules for their behavior.

Woosh!!! Super Finance Cop to the rescue!

Hold on a sec... Weren't these the same guys that were at least partially responsible for the sub-prime fiasco? Foxes in Hen houses anyone?

The great Cash and Cars Giveaway

Or How Dalton Made us all Pay

WINDSOR, Ont. - Ford of Canada will use a $17-million investment from the Ontario government as part of a $168-million plan to reopen the Essex engine plant in southwestern Ontario, but the company warned Monday it will not expand the project further without direct participation from the federal government.

Excellent Dalton McSquirmy throwing good money after bad, just to be threatened by the Ford company that it will all be for naught if they don't get more!!!

It's almost like he wants to be the Premier of a have not province...

Breaking the power of the Progressives

The thing that I can't understand is that in the polls both Conservatives and Liebrils are very close to being tied. What could it possibly take for these people to see that party for what it is?

This interesting question was posed on Army.ca, but I'm sure many people on both sides of the fence are asking that very question, and wondering how to change these numbers for their own benefit.

The past strength of the Liberal Party resides in the fact that many powerful groups benefit from the growth and implementation of "Progressive" ideology (i.e. government and quasi government unions, bureaucracies, government companies like the CBC and farmers and businesspeople who have discovered how to milk the system). These interest groups will go to very great lengths to maintain their hold on power. The Liberal Party and their beneficiaries have also discovered how to manipulate the population, using the promise of social programs to bribe the voters, inversion of language to disguise concepts (think about what "progressive taxation" really means, for example), and the use of ad hominem arguments and contrived scandals to suppress or eliminate debate on various topics. Controlling institutions like schools, the media and the courts also ensures things go the way "they" want. Progressives attempt to control the input, the dialogs and the output, just like every other totalitarian ideology throughout history.

For Canadians, the fight against the HRC's may represent the first crack in the Progressive's armour. HRC's operate as "Star Chambers" to enforce the memes of Political correctness, and as currently constituted operate beyond the law. Once this battle is joined fully, it may occur to many people that there are lots of other bureaucracies and government agencies which also infringe upon our rights and freedoms, and action must be taken against them as well. Political parties which have strong ties to these institutions also need to be taken down.

I know this is a battle which will be fought against with all the weapons in the Progressive armoury, and all the more difficult since most of these people and institutions have access to the resources of the State itself. There is a sea change coming as more and more people have finally realized that what is going on outside their houses and inside their lives no longer matches with the picture Progressives (of any political party) try to paint. The rise of the CPC and corresponding small Classical Liberal parties at the provincial level (Wildrose Alliance, Saskatchewan Party, Reform Ontario) suggests to me that enough people are becoming engaged and there is now a real chance this battle can be won in the end.

The Liberal Party is currently riven by internal divisions and lack of resources, but rest assured the Progressives will continue to prop it up so long as it holds the promise of power and riches. Once it is clear the Liberal Party no longer can carry on as a brokerage party and offer the spoils of the State to its supporters, they will desert it for the NDP, Bloc and Green parties to whatever extent they offer rewards to their supporters.

We'll either die free or we die trying.

Two systems battle for our souls

In Canada, we have an interesting split in our approach to things. The "west" is entrepreneurial and freewheeling, while the "east" is rule bound and bureaucratic. It is the Two Solitudes of Hugh Maclennan and Lord Durham. It is Trudeau with his determination of a single rightness that must be imposed versus a pragmatic acceptable of the possible and the reasonable.

Throughout most of human history, the top down model predominated. This worked fairly well through most of prehistory and history, since it essentially replicates the "authoritarian" leadership style taught to military leaders as being appropriate in emergencies. For most of human existence people lived in a constant state of emergency and there was little time to resolve problems before a large hungry animal or sword stroke resolved it for you.

The development of democratic and free market systems took a long time and is not fully accepted even now. Much of the success of the "Progressive" movement comes from manufacturing or exploiting emergencies then imposing "solutions". Institutions like the Academie Francaise and others attempt to systemically organize and categorize facts to provide the elite with the "best" solutions, but there is a fatal flaw to this in the long term; these organizations are biased to provide solutions pleasing to the rulers while to be truly effective they need to provide empirically correct solutions. If they are pleasing all the time their position is assured until they are swept away in some disaster they failed to avert, while if they strive to be "correct" all the time they run the risk of displeasing their masters and losing their position. The elite is also aware of the problem to some extent; if the solutions they implement "work", they remain on the throne for another season, while if they fail, they will be overtaken by some disaster as well.....

I suspect that societies based on the impersonal nature of the free market and the unfettered nature of individual freedoms gain their strength from the fact they ultimately do not have to answer to anyone, but are measured against an objective and empirical reality. (Ayn Rand’s ghost is sitting on the couch and having a cigarette while I write this). You might say or do something which upsets someone, or propose and implement a plan which no one else agrees with, but if your arguments are better or the results can be replicated and are better than previous results, why then these ideas and processes will filter into the general population and be adopted by almost anyone.

This is ultimately intolerable to the first category of rulers and wannabe dictators, which explains why “Progressives” employ such a wide ranging series of strategies to suppress discussion (Political Correctness, speech codes, HRC’s etc.) and devote so much time and effort to ignore or suppress facts, figures and metrics. Why debate a real climate scientist when the ad hominem attack of shouting "Climate Change Denier" is a so much faster and easier way to stop the debate?

This explanation is a bit different from the more common explanation of top down and hierarchical systems being brittle and inflexible in the face of unexpected problems, but I think it answers the question “why” such systems fail in a more understandable way than the usual appeal to interactions increasing at a geometric rate until they are unmanageable. After all, the Chinese civilization has been around for a long time with few stumbles, they have managed to discover a way of minimizing the damage that pleasing the Emperor can do to the system with a fairly strict system of meritocracy at the bureaucratic level.

Ultimately, there really is a point where complexity overwhelms the system, and equally there are real emergencies that require hands on attention by leaders assuming authoritarian powers. Liberal Democracies are still the best at dealing with these situations, any number of solutions are potentially available and leaders like Churchill, Roosevelt, Thacher or Reagan are waiting in the wings to try to find the best solution. Competing illiberal societies have a shortage of solutions and leaders, and that is why they fail in the end.

Canada had gone far down the illiberal, top down system favored by "Progressives". A look at the eastern half of the nation, where these attitudes have gained the greatest power is also a look at mostly have not Provinces and a greedy and timorous outlook on life. Here is where the demand for handouts and patronage is the loudest, where opposition to Canada taking a role as a "Leading Middle Power" is the strongest and where bureaucracy is most entrenched. The western half of Canada is less imbued with demands for patronage, handouts and bureaucracy, and as a result has become more dynamic in many fields.

Since Canada has been dominated at the federal level by "Progressives", our national decline is in direct proportion to how much Ottawa has been dominated by the imposition of a top down and hierarchical political culture. The current government can make limited gains against the tide, but must content itself with a process of slow starvation of the organs of bureaucratic power for now. Even in a majority situation, I suspect the process of reversing the culture will not be easy, and the cultural attitudes of the eastern provinces will be transmitted for a generation or more via university graduates, businessmen addicted to government handouts and the provincial and municipal governments desperate to cast blame on external factors to hide their own mistakes and maintain their positions of power.

For the reader, we must now work to overturn the top down and hierarchical systems wherever we find them. The current battle against the CHRC and all its clones is an important first step. Similar battles are being fought in other venues, such as the fight for Western grain farmers to sell their own product without State intervention, or Ontario taxpayers to control their own earnings. Its time to roll up our sleeves, and get to work.

Participatory Economics

Some people have no sense of history. I recently came across a post on the London Fog which attributed the idea of Participatory Economics to a Michael Albert. A quick perusal of the post and the related article on Wikipedia (I know, but it is a fast and easy first reference) gave me enough information to know that I had seen this idea before, and to predict the ultimate denouement of any society foolish enough to adopt it.

Participatory Economics, or Parecon as is is sometimes called, is one of the bizzare offshoots of Socialism. It seems most closely related to Communitarianism, or maybe an extension of the Cooperative movement's ideologies. The tangled logic that Michael Albert and his supporters use to explain the theoretical advantages of Parecon is worth reading if only to hone your own skills in debate. Don't let the fact that human nature, economic incentives and historical evidence is completely ignored or discounted by Parecon theorists dissuade you; it is important to know and understand how the other side thinks and frame their arguments. Incidentally, the very premise of Parecon and its socialist cousins is that people are not free agents, and cannot take actions to change their circumstances inside the framework of free market democracies. One only has to listen to the musical stylings ofDavid Allan Coe to undercut that argument.

Now I could go into a long post and describe the various ins and outs of the theory, and rip holes in the flimsy fabric with arguments drawn from classical economics and history, but this has already been done for us, and much better. I knew I had seen the basic premise of Parecon and its ultimate denouement before; Ayn Rand laid it out in her 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" in the story of Starnesville and the destruction of 20th Century Motors . Novelists apparently have a better understanding of history and real life than economists.

Racing to the Bottom

The level of political discourse has been sinking in the last decade or so to the level of schoolyard taunts and bullying, not only in our own House of Commons, but almost anywhere you care to look. From the American administration or Houses of Congress to your local municipality, civil discourse, much less thoughtful discussion of the issues, is a rarity.

My take on this is the stakes are now so high due to the ever expanding reach and influence of government power. To take one example, the Paul Martin government gave a $4 billion dollar ministry to Belinda Stronich for crossing the aisle, and another 4.5 billion in the budget to the NDP party (abruptly canceling long planned business tax cuts). In return, they stayed in power a bit longer, controlling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of spending, vast areas of the economy and maintaining their personal perques as well. Not a bad return for an 8.5 billion dollar "investment".

I don't see any party or person as being immune to this level of temptation. Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) attempts to solve this through strict boundaries and limitations of government power, and alternative measures such as term limits could also be used to reduce the problem, but clever people always find ways to overcome these limitations. The solution on the Left goes all the way back to Plato's Philosopher Kings, with the idea some sort of elite will be able to efficiently control all resources and power due to some sort of innate superiority of thought, ethics or will.

Given human nature, this problem will always be with us. Readers of this blog can take matters into their own hands by becoming politically active and doing all they can to limit the powers and activites of governments at all levels. Speaking up, writing letters, starting petitions, supporting candidates (or opposing them) or even stepping up to the plate yourself to run for political office are all options, and far more effective than sitting around and complaining at home.