Why Canadians are Sympathetic to Socialism

I want to follow the leads of two other blogs-- Od and Clinton-- in discussing the misconception that Fascism, when placed on the political spectrum, is a far right ideology, a statement which is historically and philosophically untrue and has troublesome implications. Fascism is as far left as totalitarianism and communism.

The error originates in our school system and it is taught, believed and further propagated by Canadians throughout their lives. We remember the spiel. Russia is a far left ideology, a moral fantasy which is failing, due to its practical implication (our texts still teach the cold war as if it is still ongoing--1980), and that fascism is a far right ideology which is racist and nationalist (both true), and capitalist (factually untrue. The rewards of production were state owned and orientated… see Od and Clinton), and finally we end with the middle ground known as Canada being the progressive, just, and moderate country utilizing the best of both worlds (there is no need to try and explain this a pithy sentence as it is the general theme of all my postings).
This philosophical and historical inaccuracy has reaching political consequences for youth. Politically motivated students tend to be interested in extremes (whether this has to do with their naivety or zeal I don’t-- it is unimportant anyway) and when they are faced with the choice between-- very perceptually put-- racism or altruism as a moral code they logically choose the utopian commune as opposed to the chauvinist, violent and racist German example. Thus non-critical thinking people (young ideologues and well meaning citizens alike), mistaking the philosophical premises involved, tend to be more comfortable with left wing values over right wing values in this country.

To say that fascism is as a far right ideology and communism is the alternative on the left is to presume that man is destined to be governed by the arbitrary rule of a tyrant so we should try to choose the best one. That methodology makes government coercion inevitable and a de-facto starting point. It assumes the liberty is non-existent and that man has no right to be free and self determining. It switches the question from freedom vs. dictatorship into which type of dictatorship.

A proper spectrum places collectivism on the far left with liberty and individual rights on the far right. Governments are then placed according to the degree that they are interventionist in policy. States that seek to program their citizens values are leftwing, whether is through social engineering or wealth redistribution, and on the other side of the spectrum are governments that operate under the mandate of protecting the rights of citizens from coercion and arbitrary government rule through legislative checks and objective law.

By this model fascism is a left a left wing ideology. It is statist, chauvinistic, socialist, nationalist and racist with no concern for the rights of the individual citizen. It stems from a tribalism viewpoint in every respect. Citizens in fascist state have no right to their own lives and instead are sminions who are used to satisfy the aims of an unprincipled leader.

Hitler only differed from Stalin in the sense of how he got production from his sacrificial slaves. He allowed private companies to operate in theory (he saw that nationalization of business was terribly inefficient), but controlled what was created and who owned each company, and even determining profit margin making business dependent on state benevolence. Hitler sought to destroy the independent nature of citizens and business alike, and this is in no way consistent with the protection of individual rights.

A lesson from Trump

While watching the bastion of highbrow entertainment known as “The Apprentice” another very important aspect of capitalism as opposed to socialism was subtlety demonstrated.

While Trump was visiting one of his new fancy hotels, mugging the whole way he ended up in the bar commenting happily about how pleased he was with its character. “a beautiful bar the people will love”. Now this comment comes from an unabashed teetotaler. Trump has claimed to never have ingested any alcohol in his life so clearly he is principally against its consumption and yet he is very proud of his bar. This is a very important aspect of capitalism. Namely that the “rich capitalist” can only increase his wealth by better serving the public. He is powerless to impose his values onto us. Trump cannot tell us how to live instead he is forced to find out how we want to live and adapt to us; said differently, to serve us.

This is fundamentally different than a socialist regime. In a socialist regime, Trump-- or some other bureaucrat-- would still be in charge of hotels, but this person’s wealth would be guaranteed by the state and he would have no interest in providing the public with what it wants, but in fact the exact opposite. The teetotaler bureaucrat would be free to impose a state edict that declares “consumption of alcohol is detrimental to life and it will not be endorsed by the state and consequently it will be illegal to serve in state hotels.” And the tyrannical bureaucrat will be lauded by other statesmen for his vision and compassion-- as they would always have their own stash of swill. This is the Marxist’s banning religion, this is France banning Muslim headwear and this is Dan McTeague trying to ban 50 cent from performing in Canada.

Similarly the only power Bill Gates has over the general public is to make better computers. This is him serving us. The richest entrepreneur in the world has no ability to tell us how to live, to coerce us into acting a certain way. The only way for him to achieve more wealth is by making better computers that only help the public. Only government can coerce citizens into prescribing to certain value sets.

Collectivists seek to program citizens with their values while capitalists seek to serve the already held values of the public. Collectivists believe that man is a sacrificial animal used to achieve the state’s aim while capitalists claim that man is a free thinking and self determining creature that the state has no right to arbitrarily imprison.

France, the Left Wing, and an Oil Rig

A friend returned from France while taking classes at Slumberger U in Paris (Oil patch U). And this is what he told me-- Rig workers in “progressive” France are all black and underpaid. How could that be when even in reactionary Alberta, the oil patch is ethnically diverse and well paid? Why would anyone want on a rig if you weren’t so well paid?

Well here’s how…

Instead of paying the immigrant workers the high wages for the dynamic and dangerous work they perform. France is able to underpay its African rig workers and immigrant population in general because these are the people ostracized by the trade unions and bureaucratic palaces. Keeping union wages high is contingent on the union’s ability to block entrance into its guild. And remember in France large government contracts are legislated, to be awarded to unions. So this union restriction while having raised wages for their membership-- fewer workers to split the government purse-- also the negative effect of increasing competition amongst unemployed workers for private industry work, thus driving down wages and narrowing offered benefits. This is one reason why the African rig worker is underpaid in France. There is too great of a supply for to small of a demand.

And now let’s discuss why the demand is also artificially low.
French government doesn’t mid oil companies using underpaying foreign workers. Why? Well, because then they are able to charge higher taxes from the oil company. This corporate tax is then redistributed in the form of raises for bureaucrats and union workers, better benefits, shorter workweeks, which further increasing standards of living for the politically well connected (the white French) at the expense of private market workers, who are banned form the se social institution- immigrants.

Who are predominantly hired in these institutions-- family members, friends, well connected people. And who is predominantly blocked form gaining employment from government protected unions-- Outsiders, people who are not as well connected or have no family members in the civil service. This tends to be immigrants as they are newer to the country and consequently less connected to the old social order.

And who can be fired from these position, thus enabling new blood into the firms? Well nobody can be fired. So who has the most interest in protecting these barriers? The French socialists that work in the institutions. These government controlled sectors are the new aristocracy in France. Artificially high wages, artificially short work schedules and generous benefits on the backs of newer citizens, poor and unconnected yearning for opportunity and being forced to competing against an artificially high number of perspective employees in an undefended private markets for so few jobs-- high taxes also the unintended consequence of limiting a company’s growth potential thus their ability to capitally expand.

And combine these racist socialist practices with the French aristocracy having a biased against business pursuits. Stemming from their genetic entitlement and now their cultural entitlement entrepreneurship has become a dying pastime in socialist France. “I am too good to struggle like peasant on an oil rig.” Albertans are different driven by creation, production and expression. We like to create and are proud of our achievements. The French would see the running of a diner as crude and socially beneath them .

And why is Alberta a more ethnically diverse workplace than Color blind France?
We don’t have entitlement and high taxes. Companies come here to make money. Facing lower taxes they can use more revenue for expansion. And because lower taxes cut across all business fields, all markets are increasing in size, and thus competition between employers for employees is fierce, driving wages to be higher and benefits to be broader. And who is barred from these career choices? Nobody. Competency knows no racial barriers. Raises and promotions are based knowledge, accomplishment and integrity instead of cronyism/

The socialism of Art

Near the end of the nineteenth century, when the rest of the western world’s academics first began seeking ways to trade in the responsibility of individual freedom for bigger governments and existential despair, art was desperately struggling to resist the bureaucratic reach. Painter Edouard Manet and the poet Baudelaire resented the arbitrary and oppressive standards of official Paris Salon and started the Salon Des Refusal in protest. The uncensored Salon Des Refusal left the production of art up to the artists, and therefore open to greater innovations and competition. Napoleon III admitted that he could see “little difference between those pieces rejected, and those accepted” for the official Salon.

Traditionally the artist, the free thinker, creator always fought for their right to be the artists they chose to be, to support ideas they chose to support, and to form the types of expression that they were inclined to express, even if it wasn't mainstream or even socially accepted. These noble individualistic tenets to which nobody can form a credible argument against, based on humanity’s natural right to exist as freethinking and self-generating.

However, the artistic community no longer views the oppressive Salon as bad for art. In fact, like everyone else involved in a mixed economy they coo for its affection, believing it to be the only viable path in achieving their aims. And in following this tragic logic, the artistic community mistakenly links the lack of taxpayer support to the “inevitable demise of art”, and to their inability to freely create, even going so far as to claim the lack of funding as an implied censorship.

They’ve clearly deluded themselves into believing that the right to freely express, or more specifically the right to freedom of speech, entitles the means of that expression to be provided for. The artists right to public funding negate other citizens’ right to freedom of choice. Isn’t the negation of one group’s rights for the privilege of another group is immoral? The right to freedom of speech entails one only to the right of that expression without the threat of coercion. It doesn’t guarantee the means of developing that expression or providing the soap box on which to stand. The type of guarantee, and this is important, which provides the means to produce can only come at the expense of someone else’s natural right to exist as a free individual.The irony is that artists throughout history have always defended individualism. They were the first to know that only individuals could create, and the Salon’s approval or disapproval was inconsequential to the process. Instead the Salon was a repressive regime that only stifled art’s advancement. Artists had to be allowed to create unconditionally, but unconditional freedom can only come at the expense of unconditional responsibility.

But now artists, once again, have rejected the responsibility of being individuals, in favor of collectivist propaganda, believing that creation and production can only be achieved at the expense of someone else. It’s a creed that further erodes individual freedoms in all spheres of society, for their individual gains, a mixed economy creed that stagnates artistic development and alienates the art from the people that are forced to support it.Locally, the new Salon is the Alberta Arts Foundation. On its website it brags that “Albertans enjoy an enhanced quality of life through their opportunities to participate in the arts”, largely due to the 19 million dollars of support it receives annually from the provincial government.

It is a claim typical of all bureaucratic institutions, implying that art would not exist without their altruistic support. Whose quality of life is enhanced by the Alberta Arts Foundation? Has the life of the rejected artist that must sell more shoes, fix more engines, or wait more tables to support the government-supported artist been enhanced? Does his having to work longer hours for the purpose of supporting some arbitrarily chosen artist allow him to create unconditionally, or even enhance his chances of becoming a successful artist? Or does his coerced support rob him of the valuable time, energy and financial stability required to develop his own purposeful art? The enhancement of certain artists’ careers comes at the expense of other struggling artists, other working citizens, and art itself. The government forcing citizens to allot some per cent of their earned income towards artists that they haven’t chosen to support is intellectual tyranny.

Intellectual tyranny, or forced artistic support fosters the lethargy, ambivalence, and distrust that dominate the contemporary artistic scene and the general public’s approach to art as a whole. When support for a movie, book or painting is forced, resentment and distrust are far more likely to be the response than appreciation and excitement. Just ask any Soviet playwright.

And I know right now there are many still clinging to their collectivist doctrines crying that it’s society’s duty to expand the intellectual capacities of its citizens. In response to the immorality of altruism I’ll argue with a specific instance. Historically, the arts have mostly been the pursuits of the affluent upper classes. So why should the lower classes who have more immediate concerns, such as food, shelter, and education be required to designate any portion of their income to supporting productions enjoyed primarily by the wealthy? Is the lower income family’s consciousness expanded by their forced support of books they don’t read or by art they don’t appreciate, at the expense of their more basic needs? What type of morality is this?

The Alberta Arts Foundation is comprised of a four member executive branch and an eight member board that is essentially in charge of determining which artists, art institutions, and film productions are worthy of the province’s support, and which are not. Armed with 19 million dollars, this 12 person committee is responsible for determining the cultural path of over 3.5 million people. Is this type of prediction possible? What criteria is used to determine the worthiness of each artist? Is this subjective criteria dependable enough to forgo the rights of the rejected artists, and the province’s other citizens? Is it possible that art, culture, or maybe even all types of social planning are beyond the abilities of a 12 person board? And that the board’s domination of artistic standards, combined with coerced support for these standards only destroy the artist’s credibility?Ultimately it’s art that suffers. Designating portions of our incomes for the state-chosen purchase and production of art doesn’t culturally unite Canadians; rather, it alienates art and its community from everyday citizens who just might prefer the principle of choice.

angryroughneck

Tough questions

The essential difference between an individualist and the leftwing pragmatists is our view of reality.

Individualists-- the objective right wing (excludes social cons.)-- believe reality exists independent of our conceptualizing abilities-- A is A, regardless of what we believe--- to say this simpler... Reality is OBJECTIVE! Because reality is objective this in no way impies that all is known, rather it says that truth is being continually dicovered and learned. Thus attempts to change metaphysical truth through social engineering is naive, oppressive and ultimately leading to misery.

Leftist, collectivists, relativists and Pragmatists on the other hand believe that truth is determined by men and thus we should strive to create the "fairest truths" possible. Rawls asked the ignorant quetion "if you were not born yet, and your place of birth was random-- meaning that is was more likely you ended up in Calcuttata rather than Canada-- what type of world would you want?" Implying that we create truth, so we should create more regulation and restribution-- which has the purpose of nullifying the individual mind--, instead of actual equality, but I digress. The point being here is that the left firmly believes that reality is SUBJECTIVE. Hence their foolish belief in social engineering and regulation.

Now I have had this fight in academic circles many times, and I will tellm you that there is no way to logically convince someone that objective reality exists as they are apt to hide behind Kantian defenses (sensory filters...), so I want to ask every thinker out there, including pragmatists and relativists one simple question about there statement that truth is subjective, that there is no objective reality...

Did you discover the fact that was thought be objective was in fact subjective?

If you to have discovered the truth that reality is subjective, is this not an objective truth? This is a contradiction to the actual claim of subjectivity. You are being illogical.

And if you claim that you created the truth that reality is subjective then you are whimsical and not to be taken seriously.

Possibly, the Objective Roughneck

And why is paris rioting?

So there is rioting in the most “progressive” country in the western world and people want to know why, but once again thinkers have their heads up their proverbial asses. In an era where anyone with the ability to read has a plethora of historical, economic and cultural texts at their finger tips, it's amazing that so few people can correctly explain why the riots are happening.

The leftist intelligentsia are blaming the growing division between haves and haves not and the dogmatic right is pointing to the exceedingly high amount of immigrants in France.

This is amazing that both sides could be so far off the mark. Both are miserably wrong.
I’ll start with the left:

The left are right when the realize the riots are not race motivated (although this may further motivate them), but instead are caused from inequality. But while recognizing inequality as their cause they fail to recognize the cause of class of rigidity, which is a direct and predictable consequence of the rampant socialism France and leftists triumphantly endorse. Ignorantly they blame capitalist exploitation.

Socialism prohibits upward mobility, so if you arrive as a poor immigrant, you are most likely to die as one, as terribly so, so are your children. And how could this evil exist in the most progressive country in the world? France, fighting for the working man, endorses Unions, guilds, occupation licensing, high education requirements-- even for things like being a clerk France endorses educational requirements--, plus massive amounts of civil servants and bureaucrats. Every single one of these institutions has the common tendency to restrict membership in to their club-- for the purpose of increasing their member‘s hourly worth which translates to artificially high wages-- but meaning if you want to be a plumber, better have a dad or uncle that is already in the union.

You see in a free country, if you want to be a plumber, you have to work hard to establish yourself as a competent plumber, but in France instead of knowledge and hard work you need connections. If you want to be a bureaucrats, better be friends with or have family in the civil service. If you are a poor Cambodian immigrant that want to be a beautician, well better have an extra $25,000 required for the licensing fee to become an “approved” beautician. All of these policies-- and there are countless more of them (affirmative action, rent control, easily accessible welfare.. etc.) restrict class movement promote high unemployment (France is always around 15%), plus promoting segregation.

People immigrant for the right of “equal opportunity“, the chance to succeed, or for their children’s chance to succeed. But it is impossible to succeed when class rigidity is mandated and enforced by law. And what do they get in exchange for this indentured racism and slavery… a few scraps of subsidized bread, poor, yet free schooling, a utopian moral smugness.

Tomorrow I’ll do the right…

Why we have rampant corruption in Canadian Politics

Think Adscam could have happened anywhere in the world? That it is just a symptom of politics in general rather than specific to Canada? Well these things can happen anywhere but are they more prone to places like China, France, Russia and North Korea. Yes. Why? Because like Canada they all have massive unchecked governments. Let's examine the difference between a government model designed to check any one individual's power (American model) and the Canadian model, a system without checks on individual power

Presidential System Goals:
1) To provide as many checks on government initiatives as possible. It is a system designed to keep overzealous governments from infringing on the rights of its citizens or more specifically the rights of the individual citizen.

Parliamentary Goals:
To create a system in which the country’s own division is powerless to stagnate and stall the nation. The Parliamentary system de-emphasizes the importance of checks and instead is specifically designed to allow a party leader to be able to efficiently run a country. The importance of a federalist ideology was seen as paramount in Canada, a country so divisively divided that separation or war always seemed imminent. It sought to avoid the potential dangers (civil war) that could evolve (as was witnessed down south) when a split country is allowed too many checks on the others power. Stagnation only increases frustration eventually causing war. This is interesting, although the United States created a freer society it did succumb to war because of the division created through those “rightful” choices. Canada an equally divided nation did not succumb to war, although it was through the art of compromise, appeasement and policies antagonistic to the virtue of choice. 200 years later, still with policies more sensitive to individualism and choice America is a Unified country, whereas Canada, successful at avoiding war, but still disunited, apathetic, subversive and unhappy as a population. (A country defined through the negative values of tolerance, pacifism and metaphysical equality)

Legislative-- House of Commons/ House of representatives:
No free votes in the house of commons (a travesty)
The lack of free votes removes accountability from the elected representatives in the sense that “they were sympathetic to constituents, but had to tow the company line”. And who then is accountable? The unelected Prime Minister?
The carrot of “senate appointment” ensures uniformity amongst house representatives
A majority in the House of Commons allows the ruling party to appoint the Prime Minister, which removes another check on the power of the house.
* Parliamentary powers are destined to be ruled by outside influences (Maurice Strong + Power corp.) due to the inherent nature in which they operate. A local representative is voted into power. The party officials “vote” in a leader. The lack of free votes in the Parliament condemns the local representative to the party’s whims which are decided by the appointed leader (a leader not voted in by the population)
The Senate:
In a Presidential system Senators are elected independent of the congress and President, which provides a check against congress and even a secondary check on the President. Senators are elected in equal numbers per state (2), which acts as a regional check on population based initiatives (banning large trucks… a bill which would be much more detrimental to a rural population that to an urban population)
In Canada…
Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister
An appointed Senator is not a check on the ruling party when the ruling party chooses which senators to appoint.
There is no regional check against population based policies (NEP). As the appointment of Senators is left up to the ruling party who have little interest representing views outside of the “inner circle”.

Executive-- President/ Prime Minister
Americans elect their president independent of their Congressman and Senator, which allows them to have a local and national voice, and which also creates another check on congress and the Senate.
Canadians have their Prime Minister appointed by the party which holds the most seats. Whoever the party brass wishes to have elected is always ran in a secure riding to prevent competition as the title of MP is the only requirement to office.

Judicial-- judges

In the parliamentary system judges to the supreme court are appointed by the Prime Minister without a legislative vote. In the Parliamentary (Canadian) system judges have the ability to make amendments to the constitution and thus change fundamental laws (these are usually “amended” to the benefit of the party that appointed them.

In the presidential system judges are appointed by the President, but must face question periods before a vote is held to decide to whether or not accept the judicial nomination. Once elected a judges role is to interpret the constitution not to amend it “for the better”.

The American Political model was specifically designed to prevent a government from increasing its arbitrary powers over the rights of its citizens, so that government could never become overzealous and over powerful. In contrast the Canadian model was to speed this coerciveness up. Hence the rampant social engineering, scandal, theft, appeasement, side deals and accountability associated with the Canadian way

Chretian was Right!

No surprises from the Gomery report. Chretian and middle management types blamed and Martin all but exonerated. Mr. Strong couldn't of planned it any better. But seriously forget that Martin is a puppet-- groomed to be Prime Minister since he was in his twenties, Shippinggate given to him by Maurice-- and let's just look at government corruption in general.

Chretian said it best today "There is always a chance for abuse in any organization; private or public". Jean came dangerously close to being honest here except for the fact that the size and amount of corruption is directly related to the organization’s size and the ammount of money or powere it weilds. For instance if you are in charge of marketing for a small four man company it is much harder to embezzle a hundred thousand dollars compared to if you did the books for IBM. Likewise it also very hard to embezzle substansial amounts of money if you drive an ice cream truck-- as opposed to a federal government that taxes all created wealth to the tune of 46%

The amount of government corruption is in no way tied to who is, was, or will be Prime Minister, instead the amount of corruption directly correlates to the size of the government and the power it weilds! The bigger the government, the bigger the bureaucracy, the more corruption, scandal, pork barreling, theft you will have. The more that the government is allowed to loot or steal from the citizens, the more there is to steal! There is more government theft in North Korea than there is Finland. Why? Because Korean bureaucrats are inherently more greedy? No. Instead it's because there are more bureaucrats, with their hands in more pies, living with unchecked powers than in Finland.The less checks that are in place the easier it is for bureaucrats to exercise their monopoly of force,primarily by stealing Taxpayer money.

So what is to be done? Well according to the polls, lots of average naive Canadians say elect a nicer Prime Minister, somebody with a better sense of justice, someone faiere, that looks nicer, leading to "The NDP's care about people".(polls show that they have benfitted the most) "I don't think they would steal thye care about us". Wrong! The NDP is an even bigger government that awards itself even more arbitrary powers to tax, regulate, and rule over, and this means there were would be more chances for undetected corruption. You want less corruption elect a smaller government and let them have control of fewer dollars. Less money is easier to track than more money.

Canada elects massive paternalist governments and then funnels half of all privately earned revenue through their hands and we have the gall to be upset and astonished when we find out they are stealing it and using it misappropriate. It time Canadians quit acting like sheep and we seize back our sovereignty!