"Hey Buddy... Wanna buy a procedure?"

Why is this a surprise to anyone?

Take any good or service, regulate or prohibit it* and you will end up with the "criminal" element providing, for a price, that which the government can not or will not. From alcohol prohibition to prostitution, marijuana and soon MRI's...

When you think of it though, what this woman has done is not so far removed from what has been going on for years. Those with the money have been skirting the system by travelling to other countries for treatment, its the new millennium's version of crossing the border for a drink. Now they have just found an easier way, good old-fashioned bribery.

How perverted and absurd is it that supposedly free people have to resort to breaking the law in order to have the possibility of saving their own lives, or the lives of their loved ones?

What this country needs is free (unregulated) health care.

* In the case of medical services in Canada they have done both - it is regulated in the sense that the government controls nearly all aspects of our actual physical health care and it is prohibited because anyone providing health care outside of the system is breaking the law.

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

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.

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.

Right, For all the Wrong Reasons

Irvin Studin’s idea to increase immigration into Canada is a good one, but although he momentarily catches sight of why it is a good idea when he says, “The Canada of 100 million has a far larger national market and the attendant economies of scale and scope…” this is a mere afterthought for him.

To Mr. Studin, hailed as something of a public policy wonder-kid, the prime reason to open immigration and increase Canada’s population is to “build strong national institutions and structures across the vast territory of Canada -- institutions that, while today are often absent or weak, would eventually serve as a bulwark for international strategic influence. Second, a far larger talent pool to populate the strategic arms of the state -- the military, diplomatic, civil service and political branches of government, as well as business, cultural, educational and scientific sectors.”

If you read the entire article it becomes quite clear that Mr. Studin’s intent is solely focused on increasing the power of the state both within and outside of Canada.

He envisions some sort of superpower which will simultaneously see the Canadian people held from cradle to grave by the “strategic arms of the state” and witness the rise of Canada as an international military and diplomatic force, with emphasis on the force part.

This is exactly the wrong reason to increase immigration and Studin's plan which counts on immigration as a force in and of itself is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

I agree that Canada ought to open up immigration and have it limited only for national security reasons, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases or to keep criminals out. But there is something else that must be done first.

First we should begin to dismantle the so called social safety net. The reason why we should do this ought to be self-evident. We want people to come to Canada to work. We want them to come here for the opportunity to succeed and thrive in a country that offers them more freedom to achieve than the one they just left.

Consider the United States in its early history. Immigrants didn’t flock to America for social services or “strong national institutions”, they came for the opportunity to be free and to make their own way in the world. As a result of that “pioneer spirit” the USA went from upstart colony to world superpower in less time than Mr. Studin could imagine in his wildest public policy wet dream.

Once we have ensured that immigrants won’t be coming to Canada to turn the “social safety net” into a hammock there is another step we must take before we can open the flood gates, and be reasonably assured that those that come will be those that want the freedom that we can offer, the freedom to prosper.

Now with immigration comes the economic benefit of all those added people. Mr. Studin continues to apply all this human power to “applied research institutions; to aid the generation of policy ideas; to create bona fide national institutions of higher culture in the musical, visual and theatrical arts; to justify national sports leagues” but he seemingly ignores the very thing that makes all of that possible… Individual economic activity.

To make this immigration plan work you can not just dump a bunch of people onto the land and expect great cities to rise, or… well you could if no one was going to get in their way… but sadly Canada is an over-regulated, politically restrictive pseudo-capitalist, bureaucratic welfare state.

So step two, before immigration can be opened up with any realistic hope of creating the wealth and its serendipitous cousin the power - that Mr. Studin so fervently desires - is to begin dismantling the bureaucracy. We would need to get the government at all levels out of the way of the people who actually make that wealth and power a possibility.

The best way to accomplish this would be to have, as Ayn Rand put it in her brilliant collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness, “a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church..” . Initially, however, I think we could go a long way by eliminating superfluous regulations, business taxes and the sort of nickel and dime, money wasting red tape nightmares that make it so hard to open and run a business today.

Sure it will mean that consumers will have to be more aware of the services and goods they contract and consume, (with lessened regulation I am not so naive to think that some unscrupulous men won’t try to cheat and defraud) but that is part and parcel of being free. Besides we are not talking about eliminating the courts or police services and such frauds should be held to account by the law.

So now with the social safety net severely curtailed if not gone completely, and our bureaucracy restricted to the absolute bare minimum, Irvin Studin’s proposal for increased immigration could be implemented with reasonable chance of success.

Although this would no doubt lead to more economic, political and international clout for Canada I doubt that with the reduced scope of “strong national institutions” and the reduction or elimination of “strategic arms of the state” that Mr. Studin would recognize or appreciate the change.

Capitalism isn't the Problem... Its the Solution

This is the kind of thinking that the majority of people don't do.

The End of The Beginning of the End

"This really is Act V of the fiscal welfare state, in which monetary policy becomes the shameless handmaiden of fiscal policy in order to sustain an unsustainable kind of riskless society with massive benefits for everyone paid for by a few."

Read the whole thing.

So close...

And yet so far.

This article in the National post begins with a precise and correct statement of principle.

"If you have a language, heritage or sexual orientation you would like to celebrate, good for you. This is Canada: Feel free to stage a march, parade or festival in honour of whatever makes you proud. But, please, do it on your own dime."

but then they go and ruin it by adding...

"As Toronto's Pride Parade and several recent Sikh events have demonstrated, public funds should not be used to underwrite controversial gatherings for niche communities."

Do you see the problem?

It's not that these parades "underwrite controversial gatherings for niche communities." it's the theft of public funds to support any such event. Whether it be the Molson Indy or a boy scouts parade, if there isn't enough voluntary or corporate support in the community then there is no damn way that a government, any government ought to be able to use taxes to put on a show.

This is a fine example of the waste in our public finances. We have millions of dollars of debt at the municipal level, tens of billions of debt at the provincial level and hundreds of billions at the federal level and we are throwing parties?

I don't know about you but when I find myself a little short at the end of a month I don't decide to pay for a friend's kegger.

Fighting for Freedom (The new American Revolution)

After months of trickery, bribes, backroom deals and outright lies, the Healthcare bill passed in the Congress yesterday.

American's will now have to fight for their freedoms.

The question is how to do so?

The answer seems so stunningly simple and obvious; massive civil disobedience against government healthcare. Do the ruling elites have the ability to function if two million TEA partiers refuse to pay income tax or buy "mandated" insurance? How about five million or so FOX viewers? How about 20 million Rush Limbaugh listeners? Courts would be paralyzed, all government functions would be shut down and there are not enough ACORN and SEIU brownshirts to enforce obedience (I doubt they are more than fair weather friends who would melt away at the first serious sign of opposition anyway).

As America goes so do we in Canada (and the rest of the world), so we need to see that light of freedom. Keep up the good fight.

Good for the Goose???

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

GM Recall

Meditarianism

When 50% of a province's resources are concentrated on running a single program then you no longer have a government run program, you have a program run government.

This is the situation Ontario finds itself in. According to the Frasier Institute next year the Ontario government will spend more than half its revenue on health care, the year after New Brunswick will follow suit, by 2034 four more provinces will follow suit...

With no alternative available to the citizens, the government is essentially nothing more than a support system for medical totalitarianism.

In Meditarian Canada, health care runs you!

The Charitable State.

Invariably when arguing for complete laissez-faire policies and the dismantling of the welfare state the question that the statist asks is...

"What are we to do with the people who can't fend for themselves as well as others and who need assistance in order to survive in society?"

The Objectivist response is that the individual can do whatever he wishes to do, but that he can not claim the right to force others. That he can not take his personal penchant for charity and with the loaded gun of government force others to be charitable.

There are two man-centric ideologies at work here, represented by the welfare state, and the charitable state.

The welfare state is ruled by conflicting premises.

On one hand is the claim that we men are caring creatures and that we are not "wired" or "evolved" in such a way to act as self-centered, egoists and individualists. The claim is that each and every one of us needs the community, the collective and as a result men overwhelmingly realize that the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. This reasoning is used to indicate that men should help one another, that we ought to be charitable, altruistic toward our fellow men.

The other (and contradictory) premise, which leads the welfare state to use its ill gotten force is that men are nasty, selfish, ignorant brutes who would never stop to help their fellow men and therefore must be forced to support all sorts of initiatives and progams to alleviate the suffering and hardship of those less fortunate.

Yes, the claim is that we are simultaneously "hard wired" to be altruistic and yet need to be forced to think of anyone but ourselves. This is a contradiction of epic proportions.

The Objectivist stance on the less fortunate is simple. Let each and every individual choose whether he is going to be charitable or not, depending on his preference and his ideals, his values and his own situation. There is no need to force charity.

Without government forcing the charitable to pay for every politician's pet project or well connected pressure group's personal agenda the amount of disposable income available for charity would be immense.

The benefits to the contributors would similarly be valuable to them. "Contribute to a home for the homeless? Sure! It might reduce crime, it would certainly make the city look better. Donate to the family down the street in their time of need, but of course..."

Funny isn't it that it is the selfish egoist's that are certain that individual, honest, uncoerced charity can function as required, and that the altruistic, collectivist humanists see the need to point a gun at your head and demand your money for their life.

Anti-contextual

"Every day... I can greedily, rightfully, seize every ticking moment, and never give one of them back."




"I don't live to live through anyone, ever."

On the surface these commercials are great. There is no equivocation, the sense of life is individualistic and unapologetic. They are classy and they appeal to the kind of strength of character that accepts such ideals... On the surface.

But context is important and in this case the context includes the fact that this company just received one of the most massive bailouts in history. That this is the second such bailout for this company in the last 30 years.

I don't think that these rather Objectivist appeals to individualism are an accident either. Atlas Shrugged is poised to have its best selling year to date, Tea Parties protesting the largest expansion of the welfare state in the US since the "New Deal" were held across the country.

The company is most definitely trying to appeal to that backlash, and it is just as fervently hoping that you and I and all the rest of the people out there don't notice their hypocrisy. They are counting on their audience being as anti-contextual as they are.

"Shhhhhhhhhhhh," they say... "forget the bailout... Forget the fact that your choices made us unable to survive on our own so we told the government to force you to support us. Forget that this already happened in 1979, forget that to us the ideas in these commercials are just a crass advertising ploy"... Yes, forget all that...

But then maybe that is the point, and part and parcel of their problem. As long as this company, and others like it remain anti-contextual themselves, as long as individualism, self reliance and rational self interest are only marketing gimmicks to them, then they are doomed to be moochers, looters, scavengers and thugs, taking the money they are not worthy of earning by force and denying us our freedom and choice through the barrel of a government gun.

Acting Surprised

Why is this a surprise?

We have built a system where we expect our politicians to hand out money for everything from road construction to health care, where the electorate's call to action sounds more like the old refrain "what have you done for me lately" and then suddenly when our politicians spend the money we give them to buy our votes like we asked them to during their campaigns we claim it is violating some sacred trust?

What hypocrites we are.

This problem is easily solved though, limit government to one task, the protection of inalienable rights; life, liberty and property.

Take away the power of politicians, the ability to engage in influence peddling, to stifle business and to legislate on a whim. Take away the power of the politician to declare illegality for anything other than the initiation of force or fraud and remove their ability to manipulate the market in any way shape of form.

But don't stop there, you can't stop there...

Educate the electorate to the point where it consistently and rightly realizes, that the power to tax is the power to enslave. So that they look to business to provide solutions not the tyrannical hand of government. Where they realize the truth in the old adage that to be free themselves they must allow others to be free, where the only thing rightly viewed as anyones else's business is the initiation of force or fraud upon another human being.

Until this happens, all of you out there bitching about some peoples ability to be more equal than others, the signatures on cheques, the crass politicization of economic panic, the buyouts and bailouts should just stop acting surprised, because the system is working exactly the way you designed it to work.

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.

Pittsburg Police Create Riot At G20

WTF?

Hippocrates Shrugged

In Obama's America, health care manages you...

45 percent of American physicians “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement”

In the event that this 45% of doctors follow through, that would leave the rest not in a profession but in virtual slavery.

EDIT
An excellent post from F.I.R.M. (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) to add fuel to your intellectual fire.

What if Milton Friedman was addressing America's schoolchildren?

Although a President making an address to schoolchildren should not seem controversial, President Barack Obama has managed to arouse a great deal of resistance and opposition to his planned address.

The controversy isn't so much about the remarks of the address (which, being pitched to children, is relatively mild and uncontroversial in of itself), but the larger context of how the administration operates in general and the crude and ill conceived "learning package" that was planned to go with the speech, a package for America's schoolchildren which has all the hallmarks of indoctrination.

Perhaps it would be better if schoolchildren everywhere were to hear from notables like Milton Friedman. I pulled this gem from "Dr Helen":

I would rather think that the words of Milton Friedman from his book Capitalism and Freedom make more sense:

"The paternalistic 'what your country can do for you' implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, 'what you can do for your country' implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors, and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.

Now there is a lesson we can all get behind

Update: Obama's Brownshirts Want Your Information

Seems the Obama administration is going to do a bunch of data mining from popular social networking sites. This initiative has an Orwellian feel to it. As one friend pointed out on FB, it bodes ill for both freedom of speech and freedom of association.

This, coupled with the other recent activities of America's first Socialist Government has some of our rights respecting southern cousins seeing Red, White and Blue.

H/T: Kelly