Men, not Law

I was visiting a Conservative Party candidate at her open house when it was crashed by several people "protesting" the deportation of American servicemen who have deserted and fled to Canada.

Now, while I support free speech, I most certainly don't support the position of these people. The servicemen volunteered to serve the United States, expecting to receive pay, benefits and training, but failed to maintain their end of the commitment. The short description of their action is desertion, and is a crime against the American government.

These servicemembers claimed refugee status in Canada, and have made various arguments such as being real refugees (in danger of persecution by their home government), contientious objectors (a legal process which American servicemembers can claim within the American military, but which these servicemembers either did not claim or failed to prove their case) and various other claims. They were provided with access to the Canadian legal system, and went through the legal process and lost.

The people who support the American servicemen and want to stop the deportations are explicitly attempting to overturn the Rule of Law in Canada. Their ideal state was inadvertently revealed in London Ontario on October 10, when several thuggish "War resistor supporters" pushed a women into traffic for disagreeing with them. (Luckily she was not injured). I wonder if these "War resistor supporters" have contemplated what sort of society they are advocating for, or how they will fare against larger and more organized groups that disagree with them in such an anarchistic state?

And What Exactly Is That?

Stephane Dion said...

By taxing non-productive, pollution-heavy activities while at the same time cutting personal and corporate income taxes, Canada will create jobs and stimulate growth, Dion argued.

What activities are those? What is a "non-productive, pollution heavy activity"? Anyone? Anyone? Behuler?

The only two I can think of are Question Period and the CBC...

Non-productive, pollution-heavy activities... that's almost as sketchy as Commie Jack Layton's one liner about "The real economy", which is nothing more than socialist double speak for the miraculous creation of jobs without any corporate involvement (because they've all been taxed into receivership or moved to Mexico, where they have some rights).

Babies, Bathwater and Bail-outs

The current market blowout is being heralded by government and the media as a failure, no, as a direct result of capitalism. Blame for it is being laid at the feet of corporations and banks and business’. This is a lie.

This lie is being told by government and is reinforced by a simpering media who neither understand, nor in any way wish to protect the one and only system of commerce that allows them to function independently and freely. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Capitalism, and when I say capitalism I mean true lassiez faire capitalism could not have created this mess. I want this to be understood, this is not a claim that it wouldn’t happen but a flat statement of fact that it couldn’t happen.

Under laissez faire capitalism there is a complete separation of economics and government. So the initial causal factor that led to this market instability, namely the long line of corporate bail outs would never have happened and this would have fostered an ideal of fiscal prudence in all business sectors. Sure, perhaps the stock market would have risen slower than it did, but it would have risen on actual, hard economic indicators and financial data, not false and whimsical governmental vagaries.

The demand from the US government to that nations banks that a percentage of mortgages be given to people who would otherwise not qualify would never have happened either.

Why? Because any banker in a system of laissez fair capitalism would know two things for sure.

1. That his policies and his lending practices were his responsibility and his responsibility alone. A foolish gamble on persons who would most likely not qualify for a pay-day-loan much less a $200,000.00 mortgage would in all likelihood cost him his job. No ifs, ands or buts.
2. That it would be impossible for government to save him or his bank from the result of stupid lending policies.

Another thing that could not have happened were capitalism to truly reign is that Banks would never have loaned money out at a rate lower than the established interest rate. Sub-prime rates are a government construct, which allowed banks to lend money to unqualified persons at a rate lower than what it cost the bank to borrow that money in the first place. The Bankers initially ordered to make the loans possible and then led to believe they would be bailed out by government saw, a win-win proposition.

Was there greed involved? Certainly, but it was not the cause, it was an all too predictable by-product of a system that had been gamed, designed, manipulated and constructed to appear to be real, solid and safe when in actual fact it was built on the vagaries of governmental policies, divorced from any real economic principal, and the worst self-serving political promises.

Capitalism didn’t fail us, the government did. Laissez Fair economics didn’t fail, they were never a part of the equation in the first place.

NB. Mark the intentions of those who claim this is a failure of capitalism. They are not throwing out the baby/capitalism with the bathwater/the market system. No, they are throwing out the bathwater and attempting to strangle the baby in its crib for good measure.

With every bail-out and every subsequent market shock, and every bad news story hyped to fever pitch they get closer to their goal. That goal is nothing less than the state ownership of the worlds banks, and that is nothing less than a stranglehold on the wellspring of capitalistic production… our money.

Why fund the Arts?

Watching the BRAVO! "election special on the arts", I was struck by an even greater sense of unreality than usual (and after sitting through a "Woman's Issues" all candidates debate, that is saying a lot...)

Two points in particular struck me:

1. Artists claim that they have "freedom" with State funding but not with private funding. Why does producing art approved by bureaucrats provide more freedom than producing art approved by any other patron? Apparently these "Artists" have no knowledge of the history of "Socialist Realist" art.

2. The mantra of "investing in the arts because it is an $8 billion dollar a year industry is totally nonsensical. If an industry is as mature and as profitable as the Canadian "artistic" community claims, then they clearly have no need of further State funding, from ANY level of government.

If any Conservative party supporters are reading this, feel free to use these points. For that matter, if any Liberal, NDP or Green supporters are reading this, please enlighten me as to why artists who's works we never have heard of or who's names we don't know are entitled to our hard earned money?

The Progressive "Surge"

Progressives of all stripes are discovering that insurgencies can be waged with ideas as well as guns and IED's. Progressives have taken effective control of the MSM, educational institutions, government bureaucracies and even a large portion of the market, but those nasty Classical Liberals (who often go by names like the Conservatives or Republicans, depending on where you live) still seem to be ahead of the game.

In Canada, Classical Liberals have become the governing party (and may possibly win a majority government mandate on Oct 14, 2008). Classical Liberals are also in charge of Alberta and Saskatchewan, two of the wealthiest and fastest growing provinces in Canada, and seem to be making inroads elsewhere.

In the United States, Senator Barack Obama is either tied or only marginally ahead of his Republican rival, despite the adulation of the press and a finance machine that can raise and spend cash at an astronomical rate, far beyond any rivals. Indeed, Senator Obama only defeated Senator Clinton by a small margin, despite having much the same advantage over her.

The reaction of the Progressives is quite illuminating. Consider how open the bias of the MSM has become against any manifestation of Classical Liberalism, its proponents or works. War reporting is astonishingly one sided. Victories are never reported, either spectacular events like the retaking of Anabar province in Iraq, or the small, incrimental gains that the Canadians make every day in Afghanistan. Political reporting is similarly hypocritical; think of the cone of silence which surrounds scandals like John Edward's illicit affair (while his wife is dying of cancer, to boot), the relationships between Democratic party congressmen and senators and "Freddie and Fannie", the two GSE's implicate in the current financial crisis, Elizabeth May's participation in a pro Hezbollah, anti Isreal rally or the almost open collusion between the Canadian Green and Liberal parties; then look at how political figures on the Classical Liberal side of the political spectrum are treated. Govenor Sarah Palin is constantly smeared or belittled in the MSM; a reader is much more likely to find her characterized as a "porn star" rather than the only candidate among the Presidential contenders to have executive experience (and in a large, wealthy and demanding state at that). Prime Minister Stephan Harper is compared to political figures like Hitler or George W Bush (although perhaps the Bush comparison can be seen as a compliment by the Classical Liberal side) and all manner of "Gotcha" journalistic tricks are brought into play rather than examining issues (although to be fair, the Conservative Party of Canada does this as well against their opponents).

Progressives see the ground being cut out from under their feet, and are mounting a surge from their commanding heights to block or limit the Classical Liberals from gaining or retaining power. All manner of dirty tricks are in play: In Canada, "Human Rights Comissions" target Bloggers and journalists who support Classical Liberal principles. In the United States, members of the Obama campaign threaten to prosecute people or organizations who present any contrary view of fact about Senator Obama, possibly fearing a "Swiftboating" of the Senator through revelations about his unsavoury mentors, his connections with the financiers involved in the financial crisis or even just the totally ineffectual nature of his "community organizing". Selective and manipulative press coverage is a given. Discussions in institutions of higher learning or even elementary and high schools are blatent indoctrination (and in many Universities, Orwellian "Speech codes" are employed to silence students and facilty).

It will be difficult to fight against the surge; the Progressives have the power and resources of the State behind them. They still control many of the largest and most important channels of communication, and the mechanisms of the Law are available to be used selectively in favour of the Progressive cause. Still the fight is of critical importance to each and every one of us. Only by standing for our rights can we maintain them. Blogging is perhaps the most notable weapon we have, but even if we are reduced to passing messages by Samisdat we should still make the attempt.

Our ultimate advantage lies in the fact that Progressiveism is a parisitical concept; if they are denied access to State power, they begin to wither on the vine. As usual, Ayn Rand has provided the template; Ellsworth Toohey may have been a "power" with his newspaper column, but once the newspaper chain folded, Toohey's power was gone; he did not create, but was only a parisite upon the creators.

In a Mental Gulag

The thing Jack Layton has forgotten as he continues to mumble his socialist mantra is that in spite of their importance, in spite of their overwhelming numerical superiority it is not the middle class or ‘workers’ who create wealth and prosperity. That is the bailiwick of the “evil corporations”. It is a result of the ideas that spring from the boardroom table, not the kitchen table.

One single CEO creates more wealth and more jobs through proper management of his corporation than a thousand socially pampered working stiffs.

The other side of Layton’s disastrous ideal is the relatively new concept of tax competition.

As Nations strive to attract the best and brightest, the best and brightest in turn look for the places where they will be most free, and nothing says freedom like being able to keep more, not less, of your hard earned cash.

On the other hand human nature being what it is, I'm sure that those looking for a handout would look for the best handouts possible.

I forgive Jack’s ignorance of the ideal of tax competition. After all, if all your ideals were realized in all their horrible glory 91 years ago, and had subsequently imploded 19 years ago, you’d want to retreat to your private mental gulag, stick your fingers in your ears and bawl “Nanananana, I can’t hear you!” too, wouldn’t you?

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.....

Danny's ABC's - Abysmal Bellyaching Collectivist

Oh... Danny Boy.

Danny Williams wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Screw him.

I'm glad that the PM has told him, in the interests of all of Canada... NO! Though I doubt any of the others would have had the balls to do it I at least hope that they see that it was the right thing to do... Well maybe not

As a Canadian I am sick and tired of having my taxes sent to Newfoundland so that a bunch of the people living there can continue to live in some perverted ideal of a fisherman's paradise where you only work during the season and the rest of Canada pays for you to live for the rest of the year.

NL now has a real industry that will generate real wealth and thats good for NL, but guess what, that means it's time to WORK for what you get, and for longer than it takes to get your pogey cheque.

So, Danny boy... go piss up a rope.

Trading away your rights

This has me pissed.

You know what I really don’t care who it’s for and who it’s against. All the Parties are wrong on fundamentals, some are just more wrong than others.

The thing that has me angry is that this is a corruption of the democratic process. You, and only YOU can cast your vote. That is why YOU… the individual having reached the age of majority have been given the franchise of a single solitary vote.

It is your vote to cast, where you live and for whom you honestly believe has earned it. It is not a right to a proxy, your parents couldn’t exercise your franchise before you turned 18 and this scheme is a perversion of the process, the ideal and the intent behind the most democratic expression of all, namely One Man One Vote.

I’m not big on calling for things to be illegal but if you aren’t allowed to sell your vote, why should you be permitted to give it away like a useless trading card.

A Tale of Two Links

Read this.

Now read this.

Anyone else noticing a disconnect between what the Band claims about its community to the Government and what it says about it on the web?

Famine? Pestilence? In 1877 maybe, but if there is famine and pestilence then how come Edmonton, Calgary, Wetaskiwin, Leduc and Red Deer aren't suffering?

Oil, Gas, farmland? These freaking people should be buying Alberta, not begging for more money from the Government teat.

Cut them off, now... Freedom in our Time

So Many Names For Evil

Pogey, UI, Employment Insurance, Welfare…

I was talking to a friend of mine today. We’ll call him Lloyd.

Lloyd lives in Nova Scotia and after years of faithful service to the Canadian Forces he has moved on, and moved on in a big way.

He owns land (as much as you can in a country without property rights), trains horses, makes tack & saddles, grows blueberries and is a volunteer firefighter. Lloyd’s somewhat schizophrenic industriousness has led him to the point where he needs help. Hired help…

And in a province with an unemployment rate of 7.2%, 1.1% higher than the Canadian average guess what… he can’t find any.

No, it’s not that there is no one who “needs the work”, just that there are no workers. There are wastrels aplenty sitting in Timmies complaining about the government and a “lack of good jobs”, but mention a good, easy job packing blueberries in an air conditioned building for over minimum wage and heads drop, silence reigns and coffee cups seem to have taken on a deeper meaning.

Lloyd, and I are of like mind as to the reason why. It’s the system. The euphemistically named Employment Insurance system, it makes sloth a profitable condition and work a bad word.

The chronic users of the system are little more than junkies, hooked on our tax money, getting high on a life where they only work sporadically, when they must to get their next EI fix, and laziness is its own reward.

We, the people who do work 5/7 (or more) for whatever wage we can, call them the unemployed or if we are particularly dismayed, welfare bums. Lloyd calls them BFI, which stands for Bone Fucking Idle… Lloyd was never given over to the niceties; he’d rather a name a spade than use verbal potpourri to hide the odour of his displeasure.

So, since Lloyd is one of my kind of people, I’m going to make a campaign like promise here in Anti Politics (cuz that’s what I’ve learned from watching those other people, you promise things to the people you like and hope that there are enough of them at the end of the day to get you THE JOB)… I’m going to scrap the whole messy thing.

No pogey, no EI, no UI, no Dole, no free rides.

***HIJACK*** Hmmm… Government free rides. This is an anti-concept. Free for whom? What about it is free? Why do we have the distinct impression that the Government is giving us something? Are they?

No, of course not. Every time you work, the government takes some of your money for EI and innumerable other things that they think are good for you. The only thing that’s free about any of them is that your money is ‘freed’ from your possession and use of it… Oh goodie! ***/HIJACK***

I’m going to scrap it all. Now the socialists peeking out from under their rocks begin screaming on cue;

“What happens when someone looses their job!!!”

Well, had they been paying attention they would see that I’ve said I’ll scrap it all. That means that none of us would be paying into the elaborate shell/con game of EI, and that means that all the money the government would have taken to ensure EI earnings for the person who had lost his job would have been his and his alone…

I suggest then that if he did not use his money effectively and if he did not save for a rainy day, as my mom used to caution, then quite frankly that problem is (as it always should have been) his. It’s a little thing called self-reliance and just like work, it isn’t a dirty word, and we need people willing to use and do a little more of each in their own best interest these days.

Scrap it all… for freedom in our time!

A Short History of the Future

Not SF, but a series of predictions based on what I am seeing today:

Regardless of who is elected President, the United States will undergo internal turbulence which will cause them to take their eyes off the ball. If Senator Obama wins, expect a "tax whiplash" and a real economic meltdown, while if Senator McCain wins, expect paralysis as an obdurate Congress to obstruct him every step of the way. The looming financial difficulties faced by the United States (particularly Social Security and the runaway growth of "entitlements") cannot be addressed by the platforms advocated by either candidate.

Russia and China will move rapidly to fill the power vacuum. Expect them to use a combination of economic muscle and diplomatic hijacking of international fora like the UN and WTO to impose rules to their liking. (Imagine them coming to collect the bill for "Carbon Credits" from Kyoto, for example). Plundering Western treasuries through the guise of "cost sharing measures" for "International projects" is another possibility. They may also cooperate to a greater or lesser degree against the growth of Radical Islam in Central Asia, although their goals will diverge to a certain extent. The EU may well throw in with Russia in order to secure energy supplies and also to deal with unassimilated Islamic populations within Europe (i.e. by providing diplomatic cover and military muscle while the Europeans throw the immigrants out). China will work to secure energy supplies and resources from Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East. Russia and China will have no qualms about imposing a "Roman" peace if that suits their aims.

Longer term, China will have demographic difficulties due to the one child policy (probably starting @ 2020) as large numbers of single men become the biggest demographic. The Chinese are notorious racists, so the idea of Han men intermarrying with other ethnic groups (even non Han Chinese) could be a big issue internally. Mark Styen points out one possible solution; "China could become the first gay superpower since Sparta". More likely a great deal of social and economic turbulance will occur.

Beyond that, Russia will cease to be a "Great Power" in the 2030's, as their demographic crash cuts the population of ethnic Russians in half. The EU will be suffering from the same problem (and so will Canada and Japan, but these are second and third tier powers in the big picture)

So look for a decade of artificially imposed stability by the "Big Two" (or possibly "Big Three" if the EU gets a Mussolini in charge; the set up is a jumbo sized version of the "Fascist Corporate State" and a little ruthless organization might actually make the trains run on time...), followed by turmoil as the demographic rugs get pulled out from under them.

What is less clear is how the United States will fare during this period. It is quite clear they will pull in their horns for part of the time, and the Big Two/Three will certainly see international relations and organizations are tilted to the disadvantage of the Americans. On the other hand, the Americans are very clever and resiliant (from a cultural perspective. The DC Beltway seems to mark a cultural boundary line inside of which the opposite applies), and no doubt the appeal of America will continue as a destination for the clever and ambitious people of the world. As well, the United States does not have either of the demographic issues their competitors have. They also have the unique strength of being an Oceanic power, capable of projecting trade and force on a global scale, something that the other powers lack. India is a potential Oceanic power in the Indian Ocean basin, linkage with the United States should be encouraged and exploited in all areas.

This is hardly the future envisioned by Fukyama in "The End of History", nor the "Road Warrior" future Robert Kaplan portrayed in "The Coming Anarchy".....

I'm not liking this future........

Yes to Politics

Politics, as defined in organizational theory, is a process to allocate limited resources. This definition goes a long way to explaining the huge levels of effort expended by politicians and their lobby groups supporters to gain and maintain hold of the reigns of power; the rewards are the armed power of the State itself to seize, channel and direct wealth and resources towards you and your supporters.

Unless a true revolution like the technological Singularity comes along and relieves us of the need to find or allocate resources, politics will be a part of our lives for the foreseeable future.

Politicians are keen to keep the game under their control, however. The use of electoral "gag laws" to eliminate outside participation or debate in election campaigns comes to mind, as well as the implicit alliance between the MSM and "progressive" political parties to ignore or downplay certain stories.

Given these constraints, it is difficult to imagine that people like you and I can have any influence on events. I would like to suggest otherwise. The first level of government and the one that has the most impact on your day to day lives is the Municipal government, and groups are springing up to take on local politicians and hold them to account. In Ontario, some of the groups include:

The Toronto Party

Eye on Ottawa 

Forest City Institute

Winsdsor Association of Concerned Taxpayers

While most of these groups are small, the fact that we as a people are now able to harness the power of the Internet to find like minded citizens, do research, and spread our message through both old and new media suggests that the rules of the game are indeed changing, and changing to the advantage of the citizen. The true breakthrough will occur when these groups (ant their counterparts across Canada and around the world) achieve enough critical mass to actively influence the debate on issues. (I happen to know this is true, since the Forest City Institute made a submission to the Finance Committee an the Health Tax; a submission reported in the Globe and Mail,(behind firewall) but not the London Free Press, which is the home newspaper of the FCI.

For you, the reader, look for groups like this in your home town (or found one if none exists). Get involved in the political process, since it is your scarce resources that the political class seeks to allocate. Oh, and please let us know about these groups in your area. Send links through the comments section and share with everyone. A political revolution is possible by harnessing the power of the Internet and joining forces against the political class and their status quo. 

Get involved; say "Yes" to politics.

Cake Eaters

Let there be no question what this is all about. The reason this is an open letter is to encourage what I will call the Cake Eaters who wish to “have their cake and eat it too”.

The Cake Eaters are those appeasers who see no conflict between on one hand supporting the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and simultaneously call for us to abandon Afghans to a brutal theocratic dictatorship that executes women for being raped or stones homosexuals to death. Cake eaters are the useful idiots who though honestly saddened by our military losses call to bring the boys home, and blank out the reasons for the deployment and the end state of such a withdrawal, namely an Afghanistan ruled by terror and by terrorists. They are the 5^th columnists, media whores to whom the phrase “If it bleeds, it leads” is a mantra and the so called experts who, armed with a degree and some limited facts use this pedestrian knowledge to maximize their political power and capitalize with media face time.

This letter (an ultimatum to the weak) is specifically designed to extol the efforts of the cake eaters. With the Taliban facing a troop surge, and becoming less and less effective they have switched tactics like besieged politicians the world over and turned from taking action in war to waging war through the media.

The attack on aid workers was a three pronged attack. It was designed to terrorize the aid workers, to restrict the aid getting to the poor, thus allowing the Taliban to then claim that the West doesn’t care about Afghans and finally it was used to stir the cake eaters into a frenzy of horror, righteous indignation and useless pontification.

I will not go more into the reasons for the attack, the purpose of this post is to expose the Cake Eaters.

By the way, for those that would disagree that the Media cake eaters act as a 5^th column here in Canada I would draw your attention to the last paragraph of the article…

“It happened about two weeks after Canadian troops accidentally shot two children to death in the Panjwaii district of Kandahar, fearing the vehicle they were riding in was going to attack them.”

What does this tragedy have to do with the Taliban ultimatum? Nothing.

What is the parallel the writer wants to draw? That Taliban kill innocents but Canadians do to. (This isn’t a case of tit for tat, the Taliban are too weak and scared to attack soldiers that fight back, every time they do they DIE.)

What is the salient point that we are supposed to forget? That the Taliban TARGET innocents but that Canadians do their best, each and every time to avoid such accidents.

Cake Eaters… Watch out for them.

Freedom In Our Time

This series of posts is a direct response to not only the sad state of politics in Canada but also the sad state of the State of Canada. The sorry excuse for freedom in Canada stems (as all the problems of nations do) from the documents on which it is founded.

Therefore my first, and the most important step on the path to true freedom for all Canadians is the vivisection, destruction and abolition of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First off, let’s look at the premises implicit in the name of that wrong headed document.

The "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"… Were the creators of this document trying to tell us that Rights and Freedoms are separate issues? Is it possible to have one without the other? Can one experience freedom without having rights or only having some rights? Or could rights somehow be respected by a tyrannical state in which freedom is restrained? The answer to each question is of course an emphatic NO.

When, as in the CCRF we talk of freedoms and equate them with rights we are buying into the modern liberal package-deal that says the freedoms we have and enjoy are of equal value to our rights. As a matter of fact if you look up “fundamental rights” you get a list of rights including such things as “the right to marry”, or “the right to procreate”. Obviously we (globally) have lost sight of what true rights are.

There are really only 3 universal human rights. They are the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to property.

You might notice that the right to pursue happiness is not listed, with all deference to the framers of the Constitution of the United States that is really not a right but a condition achievable only through the full and useful exercise of ones rights.

Similarly equality is not among the rights, not because it is not desirable with regard to equality of race and sex, but because these conditions too are implicit within the rights to life, liberty and property, and the elevation of equality to the status of a right leads to tyranny wherein all real rights are lost, for which 90 years of Russian Communism provides an excellent example.

So what do these rights mean…

Life is the unassailable right for each and every man to live, to take all the actions necessary to support, further and fulfil that life. Implicit within this right is the commandment that no man may initiate the use of force against another.

Liberty is the undeniable fact that all men are guaranteed unrestrained action to live their lives as they see fit. Before anyone raises the red herring of the possibility of a sadistic raping, murdering hedonist, I will direct you to reread the preceding paragraph on the right to life…

Property is the acknowledgement that a man owns, lock stock and barrel all the products of his mind, labour and any acquired property achieved through the efforts of his mind and labour.

These three rights make all of our freedoms possible. There can be no freedom to procreate without the right to life, no equality is possible without the right to liberty and no freedom of expression can be exercised without the right to property.

I encourage you to read the CCRF. Read it with the real rights in mind, read it with a puritanical zeal and tell me if any of thee fabricated pseudo-rights contained in the Charter are not implicit within the real rights.

Now look at the high-minded freedoms contained in the document, the question that comes to mind aught to be, well, why do we bother? Why do we bother to list a string of arbitrary freedoms when all freedom is explicitly contained in three small, concise rights.

Food for thought.

On the whole the CCRF is inconsistent, scatter brained and overworked. It has been misled by the progressive political philosophy that made it, but were it only for that, there might be reason and will to rebuild it, but that is not the case, for there are a couple of truly evil inclusions within it, snuck in under the guise of historical acts of contrition.

I draw your attention to the section entitled “Affirmative Action Programs” in regard to Equality rights which states…

“(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

Subsection (1) reads…

“(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

Think about it…

This deals with so called equality rights, which as I have illustrated earlier really pertains to the real right of Liberty. Subsection 2 of our right to equality (liberty) is a perversion of the entire concept of rights. Rights by their definition are not capricious; they can not be taken away, renounced or excepted. The millisecond someone, anyone dismisses a right you no longer have any rights.

There can be no valid reason for the dismissal of inalienable rights. The fact that Natives, the disabled, homosexuals, women, Jews, Japanese or geriatrics in this country were treated unfairly in our history is no excuse for totalitarianism.

My rights, everyone’s rights are permanent, unassailable and can not ever be mortgaged off to buy forgiveness for historical, ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual misdeeds occurring now, in history or in the future.

The abomination of manufactured rights, conflicting premises and illiberal progressive doctrine that is the CCRF must be abolished.

Not being one to just harp on a problem, I offer a solution…

The Canadian Charter of Rights.

Canada affirms the following fundamental rights;

• Right to Life – Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. No government shall deny, set down or offer implicit support to any means, method, or moral code by which any person may live, make or rule his own life.

• Right to Liberty – All men are guaranteed the freedom to take all the actions required for the support, the furtherance, the fulfilment and the enjoyment of his own life. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any person, against his will, is to prevent the initiation of force against others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant for the use of force. Government shall not initiate force against the individual, and shall not use force against the individual except as prescribed by law in order to protect the rights of others against the initiation of force.

• Right to Property - The right of property is among the most important fundamental individual rights and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race. Every man is the owner in deed and action of all the products of his mind and labour. Personal property once acquired can not be appropriated by force by any person or government except when said government seizes it according to law as punishment for violation of rights.

Here’s wishing us all… Freedom In Our Time

Sorry... I'm Not Sorry.

I’m not going to apologize for the ancient actions of long dead politicians or say I’m sorry on behalf of the nation for anything that our national ancestors did or didn’t do. Not now, not in a park, in the House of Commons or ever.

Canada is a country and its actions are a direct product of the beliefs, prejudices and insecurities held by the society and its norms at any single point in time. As times change so does the nation. One could easily draw a correlation between the death of a person and the death of societal ideals and norms. That is the substance of this issue.

The Canada that denied women suffrage, that attempted the cultural destruction of native peoples, that exercised discriminative immigration and naturalization, that imprisoned Japanese Canadians in their own country, that Canada is as dead as the people than approved, instituted, and carried out those chauvinistic, racist and xenophobic programs.

To all of those who for whatever reason want apologies, who want to see weak kneed historical hand wringing... grow up!

Get over your historical self-pity and insecurities and get on with your life in the here and now. Make use of every freedom and opportunity that Canada offers and live the kind of life that you want in this great country of ours.

Anti-politics

Well, I’ve decided to throw my hat into the ring…

I’m entering into politics.

No, I’m not actually going to run for office I’m going to participate in the next best thing as any Canadian can tell you… I’m going to bitch about it from the sidelines.

In the coming months I’m going to develop my platform, the same way as the other politicians do, through keeping a keen eye on the topics du jour, a savvy read of the countries mass media and of course by watching the opposition, namely him and him. After all who really cares about him and her anyway?

If you’re expecting apologies for historic mistakes, cow towing to dubious theories, vacillation on and befuddlement of the issues look elsewhere.

Welcome to Anti-politics.

Ezra Wins A Victory

Of sorts...

This more than anything exposes the Human "Rights" Commissions for the capricious, malicious and malevolent group of petty apparactchik that they really are.

Like a bully that's had his nose bloodied by one of the little guy's he's been picking on the HRC's have run away in fear, but now isn't the time for us "Freespeechers" to pick up our books. Now is the time to chase the bastards down and finish giving them the thrashing they so richly deserve.

Fire. Them. All.

Wisdom condensed to one line

Rather than a long meditation, here is a one liner which explains the mindset of our "progressive" friends and their dictatorial role models world-wide:

Free speech? Next thing you know everyone will want free will.

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...