Only By Permission #2

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

I'm thinking this might turn out to be a regular feature highlighting the ridiculous inversion of rights and the stupid shit bureaucracies at all levels come up with to justify their existence and the decimation of our unalienable rights.

Where standing on your porch is resisting arrest...

Objectivist Round Up

The Ego Blog is proud to host the 163rd Objectivist Round Up.

Assert yourself, and check it out!

Muslim Terrorists and Moderates in Ottawa

The story broke yesterday with the arrest of two men, carefully unidentified, so carefuly in fact that simple information such as their ethnicity (information routinely given out in other arrests) was withheld - but that is perhaps a point for a future post.

Then today what was suspected by all, was proven to be true. The men accused are all of middle eastern descent and Muslim.

But again, for me, that fact is unimportant.

What is important is that one of the largest and most powerful Muslim organizations in this country the Muslim Canadian Congress is sounding out. However, the protestations of this group have not been in outrage at the RCMP or to claim racism or bigotry as has so often happened before in other places. Instead they have voiced their outrage against the ideology of Jihad. They have called for Muslims in Canada to stem this evil and to address this "serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth".

"Salma Siddiqui, the Muslim Canadian Congress vice-president said in a telephone interview that she was “livid and frustrated” that young Muslim men were still being seduced by the idea of fighting a holy war in the name of Islam.

“It has to stop,” she said."

Raheel Raza, also of the Muslim Canadian Congress went even further in this article when she admitted that...

"This is not something that comes as a total surprise . . . we have a problem,"

To add to the credibility of this group, to show that they are indeed the moderate western face of modern Islam in Canada, Muslim Canadian Congress has condemned the Ground Zero Mosque on the front page of their website saying...

“Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating 'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

For those that claim there are no moderate Muslims the words of Salma Siddiqui, Raheel Raza, and the Muslim Canadian Congress would seem to make a lie of that claim.

I should point out, that I do believe that Islamic fascism is a real and continuing problem. But regardless of that, as a rational individual I know that it is individuals that set their own beliefs, guide their own destinies and run their own lives. That simple knowledge will not allow me reasonably to condemn all Muslims as dangerous terrorists or Islamofascists any more than it is reasonable and proper to believe that every German, alive in the world between 1931 and 1945 was a Nazi.

Objectivist Round Up #162

The Crucible is feeling the heat of this weeks Objectivist Round Up.

Only By Permission

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted."
Ayn Rand, The Virtue Of Selfishness (The Nature of Government)

In a totalitarian state the government monitors and controls all actions. No citizen may do anything unless permission has been granted, unless the action has first been proscribed as legal by the state.

We living in Canada and"the west" are truly and rightfully horrified at the prospect of this kind of control. But are we just evading our own reality?

No, we may not be subject to jack-booted special police or the watchful eye of shadowy men in trench-coats on the street corner, but more and more we are subject to the petty tyrannies of a multitude of bureaucracies.

From the grand machinations of our Federal government which acts more and more like an elected tyranny once the required votes have been secured, to the perfidious tentacles of the Canada Revenue Agency. From Provincial politicians pushing their "father knows best" agenda's at the expense of individual choice and freedom, to municipal councils passing ridiculous by-laws and forcing compliance for compliance sake.

This is what Ayn Rand meant by the ultimate inversion. Freedom isn't a permission granted by "societies" to individuals, when and if they feel like it. It is an unalienable right, possessed only by individuals, and that right extends to absolutes, to the extremes of taste, action, and speech.

The limit to our freedom is force. Our right to do anything is absolute so long as it does involve the initiation of force or fraud against another person.

Just as it is no indication of the right to freedom of speech when the speech itself is banal, it is no indication of property rights when your "rights" are limited to certain "approved" activities on your own property.

More and more in this country and others we, the individuals are restricted. More and more we act only by permission, and as benevolent or humane as that insipid control may be it is still tyranny, it is still evil.


PS
Two examples from this week...
Liberty Seminar Shut down
Toronto Bans Kite Flying

Objectivist Round Up #161

Amy has this weeks enormous Round Up over at The Little Things.

Objectivist Round Up #160

Reepicheep's Coracle is where you will find this week's round up.

Get it while it's hot!

In Other News...

Rain falls, Dogs bark and alcohol is addictive and bad for your liver.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Alcohol should be banned any more than I would suggest dogs be surgically prevented from barking. The point is that the inconsistent and incomprehensible application of prohibitions in law create more problems than they solve.

Let each and every man decide what it is that he wishes to do with his own body and mind. So long as there is no initiation of force or fraud the government ought to have as much say about what I eat, drink, smoke, snort or inject as it does over how often I have a good bowel movement.

Communism

This is it folks. It's not a "good theory" maligned by practise... It's an evil theory that creates evil in practise.

Don't be so naive!

Behind a Veil of Hypocrisy

There has been a lot of noise lately about banning burkas, and it is all wrong.

Most of the articles cite security concerns, or the fact that the burka is a medieval form of misogynistic discrimination. Or the claim is made that there is nothing in the Islamic religion that demands the burka to be worn, and that is used as a justification for prohibition.

All of these “reasons” are ridiculous, counterproductive and contrary to individual rights.

The security issue as presented is only an issue if the appropriate security agency does not validate that the person under the veil is in fact who they say they are. Most airports have private rooms where a female security agent can take the individual in question so that their identity can be confirmed against their passport photo.

In the event that the person under the burka refuses to be so identified then it is up to the security agent to stand by its reasonable request (and against the inevitable knee-jerk of political correctness and possible threats of violence) and deny that individual the privilege of boarding the aircraft, or gaining access into the country, whichever is the case.

Such a policy applied uniformly to any and all passengers or entrants, would soon become known and accepted by all. It is the unequal application of a weak policy or selective screening that exasperates and perpetuates the problem.

The complaint that the burka is discriminatory is a moot point. Although as a rights respecting society we should watch out for rights violations - the initiation of force or fraud - against anyone it is completely and utterly impossible to make a claim of it without proof.

If a woman in a burka were to complain to a police officer that she was being forced under threat of violence to wear a burka then in that case there would be something that could be done, using existing laws and procedures. With help she could remove herself from that abusive relationship and the person who is threatening her with harm could be charged. But without that sort of proof we must operate on the presumption that her actions are her own, and she has chosen to wear the burka. To do otherwise, and ban the garment, regardless of the good intentions or the misgivings of the majority (or even a vocal minority) would be idiotic, illiberal and heavy handed.

The third complaint is really not a reason at all but a fuzzy headed kind of logic to which predominately religious and conservative opponents cling when all their other arguments have been ignored. It is nothing less than the cry of the closeted racist… “But they don’t have to wear it so why don’t they just dress like normal people… They should have to.”

It isn’t the burka. The burka doesn’t make a woman a terrorist, its not a sign of oppression or abuse, and it doesn’t matter that it is not a necessity of the religion.

If you can not grasp these simple concepts imagine outlawing baggy pants because they made every kid a gang-banger, or jeans and a halter top because they signify abuse and degradation or imagine if crucifixes were prohibited just because there was nothing in the bible that said they aught to be worn…

Religion of Perverts.

Is this religion of misogynistic, paedophiles and perverts the same one people say we shouldn't criticize out of respect for a culture that is "different" than our own?

Why?

Objectivist Round Up #159

Benpercent is this weeks host over at Musing Aloud. Get it while it's hot!!!

Your Body, Their Choice.

Whether Dr. Zamboni is a snake oil salesman or not. Whether his procedure is a real treatment or a fake, tested and proven or unproven and untested, the fact remains that the government ought not to be in the business of prohibiting or condoning what rational people in the maturity of their faculties do with their own bodies.

Being Dog Walked to the Ultimate Inversion

This is disgusting.

We have already determined the legal ages of certain aspects of our society, and this is reasonable. Although one might argue about the arbitrary establishment of a certain age for certain privileges, the need to have an appropriate level of maturity is not in question in most cases.

The reason that we have set 16 as the age limit for driving is because the majority believe that at that age most teens are mature enough to be given the responsibility. McGuinty decided that that was not good enough and instituted the graduated licencing system citing facts which listed young drivers as being more liable to be involved in an accident. Now he's extending the reach of the nanny state even more. Changing the rules again, shifting the goal posts away from personal responsibility. More control for the state, less responsibility for individuals. Death by a thousand cuts along the long road to the ultimate inversion.

Paternal is too timid a term for this school marm turned political hand holder.

Look at this legislation closely and you will see that the driving force behind this, and the graduated licence system is a deep distrust of the ability of individuals to act reasonably and rationally. It also incorporates the deep seated belief that the job of government extends far past protecting the rights of citizens to the belief that government needs to must protect its citizens from themselves.

That kind of forced benevolence is one shackle short of a set of manacles. McGuinty and all those who think like him would have us behave like dogs on a chain, with the great hand of government holding the other end, ready to haul us up short should we happen to stray off their preferred path. Actually, in McGuinty's case it is worse. Having already told us to "heel" he feels the need to constantly pull the chain tighter till we are choking in obedience.

The thing a statist like McGuinty will never understand is that individual liberty and freedom not only means that you can do all that is legal but it also allows that you as an individual have the ability to make a mistake, regardless of the consequences. Indeed, consequences that are understood and known beforehand are a mark of a free society. Not allowing an individual to make a mistake is a sign of totalitarianism.

This guy has to go.

Arguement

If you disagree with me tell me how. Attempt to show me where I have gone wrong. Explain to me your reasoning and your reason.

If you can not convince me don't resort to calling me names. Do not assume that I am "dogmatic", "pig headed", "brainwashed" or "stupid" for I will always use reason and reality to form my opinions. I will not resort to emotion, fiction, fantasy or faith.

If you can assure me of the same then perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle of our individual beliefs and we will both be proven wrong by a better argument still to come.

If you can not assure me of the same, then you have no business trying to convince me in the first place.

Judge...

Right and wrong are simple concepts, easily divisible, easily discernible. Applied with the proper principal it is quite simple and quite correct to say…

“I’m right. You’re wrong.”

Applying Equity, Equally

When I read this article, I thought, like most Canadians, that the issue at hand was about equality. With that in mind I indignantly criticized the policy for trying to correct discrimination by discriminating.

But it's not about equality its about equity, a word with a much more, shall we say, fuzzy (and therefore politically useful) definition. The equity in question is specifically Canada's version of affirmative action called employment equity.

To quote from the act itself:

"The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."

Whoa!

Tell me, which of these is true? Is the act designed to achieve equality so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability? Or is it to correct conditions of disadvantage through special measures and the accommodation of differences?

Pick one, have your cake or eat it. You can not do both. The two stated goals are incompatible, they are contradictory and therefore can not and will not be mutually satisfied. You can have equality based on merit or you can ignore merit and satisfy physical, gender or racially based criteria. But you can not consistently claim to do both.

Yes, it may very well be that the best person for the job also happens to be one of the preferred class (a woman, or disabled or a minority or aboriginal) but it will happen only by chance.

Sara Landriault commented;

“I do not wish to take anyone’s job, my only wish was to be allowed to apply based on my qualifications. No government should have the right to ask you your race or gender to see if you are qualified for a job. That is discrimination.”

She is correct. It is discrimination, but what is more is that she is only appealing to the very principle for which this act was apparently created to address, she is only trying to appeal to the equality part of the act, to have an equal chance based on merit to get the job. The response built into this flawed, discriminatory and racist act is predictable. Your merit does not matter, sorry you don't meet the (in this instance) racial criteria.

So I was thinking, since it is clear that the Employment Equity Act is really not about equality of any sort, only equity, and since the population of Canada consists of people, 88.79% of whom are designated as part of the "Non Visible Minority Population" (read the majority); by my calculations in order to apply this equitable policy equally, those identifying as "Visible Minorities" ought only to be permitted to apply for 11.21% of all jobs in Canada.

That is truly an equitable solution. What is more it applies the principle which denied Mrs. Landriault the opportunity to apply for the job to all Canadians as equally as possible. So lets do it that way instead!

I'm joking of course.

The idea is as ridiculous as it is distasteful to any reasonable rational person, we all know it and we all recognize it. So what makes the very same idea reasonable to seemingly rational people when applied unequally based on the same criteria of race, gender, handicap and ethnicity?

Objectivist Round Up #158

LB has this weeks Round Up neatly filed away in her 3 Ring Binder. Check it out!

Peace at any Cost

"Canada is supportive of it because there are no conflicts in the world that have been able to resolve themselves without any reconciliation and reintegration so we have indicated our support for that process."

Minister Canon is correct. but not in the way he believes he is.

Conflicts, or should I say wars, because war is where we are at, don't "resolve themselves". They are won or they are lost. Apartheid, the first "conflict" to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a war that the forces of freedom and equality won. Then they chose to engage the enemy in dialogue.

Just what are our politicians trying to reconcile with the Taliban? Do they so naievely believe that the Taliban and their fellow travellers are going to "renounce violence" when it has already gotten them so much?

The terrorists and Taliban have fought NATO to a virtual standstill. Why? Because NATO is not permitted to wage the kind of war that would see the Taliban defeated. NATO is becoming a UN light, hamstrung by feel good policies where the desire to reduce collateral damage is more important than winning the war. Could you imagine Churchill demanding that the bombing of Dresden be halted because of collateral damage?

What sort of negotiations would take place under this reconciliation commission? What concessions would the Taliban get in return for laying down their arms? Maybe they would only be able to stone adulterers every other day? Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays are kill an infidel day, but Tuesday Thursday and weekends are reserved for religious secularism? Girls schools are fair game for beatings and acid throwing but they promise not to kill homosexuals?

When the South Africans developed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it was because they knew that there was some value, some good in the white South African culture. They knew that their country would be less able, less stable and less prosperous without the whites and their skill, knowledge and experience. So someone please tell me what value is there in anything that comes out of the Taliban's twisted ideology?

Nothing.

Stop this insanity now. Don't offer any deal, no capitulation no reconciliation.

Lets get back to work and fight this war like it really matters, because you know what... it does.

Because for every Taliban scumbag hiding in a cave there are 40 or 50 more psychopathic fascists watching the goings on in Afghanistan on the Internet in Saudi Arabia, Iran Pakistan and Indonesia waiting for us to fail...

There is a cost that must be paid for peace. That cost is nothing short of total war. It's time for us to get our peace at any cost.

Objectivist Round Up #157.

Rachel has the Round Up this week at The Playful Spirit. It's the 3 year anniversary!