Alberta Venture

Today in the National Post, Michael McCullough, editor of Alberta Venture (ironically a fairly anti-free market magazine—"business is good but it needs regulation and a grant structure to keep it fair for the common man") wrote an editorial titled the "Myth of the Alberta advantage" recounting his move from BC and citing examples of free Vancouver library cards, cheaper dog walkers, no healthcare premiums and higher food prices.

Well I want to respond…

The Alberta advantage does not specifically entail more riches for governmentally subsidized writers working at provincially subsidized magazines.
Rather…

The Alberta advantage entails unlimited opportunity. The "advantage" says nothing of guaranteed riches. It offers people limitless opportunity for people that choose to pursue it. Like the gold rush—treasure is not guaranteed.
Alberta is a place where high school dropouts can up to $140,000 in the dynamic oil patch as skilled labor. Alberta is a place where tradesmen can choose their employer, work as many hours a week they choose. Alberta is a place where workers can earn enough to support their families comfortably and with dignity. Alberta is a place where entrepreneurs come to risk their savings and start their own businesses because of the access to money, skilled labor, and low tax rates. Alberta is a place where immigrants choose to settle starting their own restaurants, hotels, service stores due to high demand and limited bureaucratic red tape. Alberta is a place where unemployed geologists and engineers from Ontario come to operate million dollar forest and gas operations. Alberta is a place where teachers earn the highest wages in the country. The Alberta advantage signifies opportunity to everyone, regardless of race, religion, education or past mistakes that chooses to pursue it not to some specific elite group.

You see your employer is a second tier manager with government ties and thus a centrally controlled subsidized budget (not 100 % but subsidization is there). Where you live will not affect your static pay rate. The pay rate for editors at subsidized magazines is probably the same in Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta. Your wage can only increase with more government intervention which is exactly what would kill the Alberta advantage.

The bureaucratic vision of the Alberta advantage entails even higher wages for regulators, academics, union workers, artists and so forth. But higher earnings for the aforementioned groups come at the expense of those who the Alberta advantage specifically helps— the average working productive citizen.

Alberta's Budget

The Provincial budget was just released. I find it disgusting that spending increased by 8.3 %. Albertans are constantly preaching the importance of not relying on our oil for long term wealth and yet these spending increases makes us dependent on $50 oil. If oil dipped below $50 and gas below $7 we would run a deficit.

The Tories are supposed to defend free market principles. Their actions condemn the limited government and fiscally conservative model on a moral level. It’s almost as if they’re saying “well now that we have money we admit that socialism is better—the only problem was funding—liberty is a fraud.”

Roll back spending 3 lousy years and you could entirely wipe out the 5.8 billion dollars collected in personal income tax. Wouldn’t it help the average Joe to pay zero in provincial taxes.

Compare Alberta to Saskatchewan. The difference is due to taxation. Saskatchewan has as much energy as Alberta, but when they took to socialist means in the 1940’s the oil patch up and left to Alberta. Now the infrastructure is in Alberta—a permanent advantage to developing resources from a cost stand point.

Now I know this is going to attract the criticism… another greedy Albertan.

I want to defend that charge…

People believe oil and gas are gifts fostering the idea that we are a bunch of redneck sheiks waiting on our royalty checks. This is insulting. We are a proud, self reliant, hard working, dedicated, and adventurous culture that refuses to be culled as bureaucratic cattle.

Here is what they say…

“Alberta is lucky to have oil.”

This is my favorite cliché, which implies Alberta’s high wealth is solely because of its oil; an arbitrary condition at best.The implication being that oil guarantees wealth. This is a lie or else Nigeria would be one of the richest centuries in the world followed by socialist powerhouses like Venezuela, Iran and the Soviet Union and the poorest countries on the earth would be the free; Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong, and Japan. Wealth has much more to do with freedom and limited government than it does natural resources.Extracting oil from 3000 meters deep is the exact opposite of luck. It’s as if lefties have an image of oil just sitting in giant barrels on the prairies waiting for someone to turn them on. Developing oil reserves is hard, challenging, intellectual, grueling, demanding, comprehensive and dynamic work especially in a severe climate with many environmental inhibitors. Alberta is the most efficient and productive workforce on the planet, owing to worker dedication, intelligence and drive—things which have nothing to do with luck.
What does it mean to be a lucky “Albertan”?

Today, the rig where I was working, the driller was an Indian from Codotte Lake, the derrickman was from Newfoundland, and one of the roughnecks was from South Africa. The oil patch has a long running joke; if someone is lazy or a welfare recipient, they say “he must be a native Albertan" (meaning born here, not aboriginal, for all of you sic lefties out there waiting to crucify me)” The point of the anecdote being; people choose to come here and now they are being called “lucky” by the people who chose not to come here. The choice was, and still is open to all Canadian citizens.It is no coincidence Alberta’s population has increased 10 fold since Leduc blew in ’47. Nobody’s born in Alberta; just go to a football game when the Roughriders are in town or stroll through downtown FT. Mac. And they didn’t show up just to cash in their lottery checks either. Instead migrants came risking failure (During the NEP it was common to see people walking away from their mortgages), losing their families (distance is hard on relationships, be it friends, children, wives, or extended family), health (oil work is dangerous – last week the industry lost two more men, a derrickman and N2 operator) and they were rewarded with the chance to work back breaking labor, exhaustive hours in a severe climate. Migrants chose to come to the province. Migrants chose to contribute, to be productive, self betterment, and independence. Luck would be to lazily sit at home while a monthly royalty cheque was mailed to you. Alberta’s profits are not locked away in a vault and arbitrarily handed out based on age, gender or race. They are dispersed based on productiveness; an objective scale available to anybody.

Lastly I want to deal with arbitrary claim of fairness that Lefties rely on. Layton and looting cronies appeal to pea brains with “It isn’t fair that only Alberta profits.” To Jack fair would be stealing from one man for the purpose of arbitrarily financing another. Who would do the choosing? The fair and benevolent Jack of course. That type of fairness paradigm is concocted in some ivory tower and manifests itself in the form of famines, war, and the Communist gulag. But in reality fairness has simple and understandable definition; fairness is when compensation matches the work performed. Fairness is equal opportunity. Fairness is open boarders and consequently Alberta is fair.

An Answer to My Friend Peter Jaworski

Peter recently wrote me a long comment under "Rights are not Arbitrary" and had a few questions. I respect Peter and enjoy legitimate discussion so here goes... His questions are in itallics and my answers are in Bold.

”a logical proof begins with some set of premises or things "given." Logic deals strictly with the relationship of arguments and propositions, *not* with their content.”

I slightly disagree. A logical proof traces a conceptual (abstract) statement (Man has a right to his own life) back to perceptual data or philosophical axioms in order to confirm it as true or untrue. Essentially the statement I made concerning Man’s natural rights are verified on a metaphysical level. My metaphysical starting point is, as you probably already know is “existence exists or A is A, (the law of identity states….) And Man is Man.

Logic in the sense you are talking about...

“Logic deals strictly with the relationship of arguments and propositions, *not* with their content. This is because you can literally prove anything and everything "logically,"”

The philosophical school that claims to not require empirical evidence to confirm it conceptual claims is “Rationalism” and is essentially a form of intrinsisim. Rationalism (Hume’s school) is irrelevant as it’s based on false premises “because you can literally prove anything and everything "logically,"”

”This may be an important distinction between what you consider evil, and what I do. I do not consider "beliefs," apart from actions, evil. No belief is evil, per se. All moral appraisal stems from actions, not from beliefs inside of my head. I can believe just anything I'd like and, so long as I only act on those things which are not evil, I am not evil. There are no thought-crimes, only criminal activities.”

I agree all moral appraisals stem from action and not thought. “Evil” is the unlawful initiation use of force. Force is the only thing that can compel a mind to act against its own judgment. But you can still preach or conceive of evil.

And you asked…

1. Why should "survival" be a standard? Why not, say, flourishing? What's so special about brute survival?

Man’s life is the standard for his ethical base. Things which benefit life are “good” and that which is detrimental to life is evil. A proposition that allows life to flourish, say the Industrial revolution, is in the same sense “extremely good”.

2. “It is false that all men require liberty to survive or act. Politicians who restrict liberty do very well, thank you. And many who are under their thumbs survive as well. In fact, some of the most tyrannical and anti-liberty regimes have citizens that meet the standard of brute survival.”

The point being though, that to the extent leaders “regulate” and “restrict” freedom is to the extent that people suffer from this unwarranted control. But all you are rally saying is that it’s better to live in Sweden than China. And because certain people flourish under Communism does not make it moral. These people flourish immorally—by the efforts of other men. The average man does very poorly when man is regarded as a sacrificial animal.

3. “The right to act in accordance with one's own judgment may violate the brute survival requirement. Consider cases of irrational folks who judge that a knife in their throat will help satiate their hunger. Or infants. Or those who want to kill themselves (something that I'm sure Objectivists don't disagree with).

Objectivism is based on the premise of a “rational” man. No model suits the mad, irrational or unpredictable.

Then I said

"Since a proper philosophy is an intergrated system, each right rests not merely on a single ethical or metaphysical principle, but on all the principles just mentioned."
And you questioned…”I disagree with the premise. Why should a proper philosophy be an integrated one? Why not be pluralist about it?”

If a philosophy contradicts itself it is not a proper model for thinking. This is why most philosophical models fail.

Then you say…

Therefore it is false that men need liberty to survive. They need food, shelter, and defense against animals or humans that would kill them.”
And…Why shouldn't we say that man ought to have rights to life, from which it follows that man ought to have a right to sufficient calories, housing, and defence to meet the requirement of brute survival?

And I respond…

Man needs liberty (the right to act by his own judgment) to achieve food shelter, and defense. Compelling people to act a certain way does not allow them to achieve the values necessary for survival.

And…

These rights are not rights because they imply that it’s somebody’s duty to provide the shelter and food—and what about the producer’s rights? Rights are not contradictory. They are based upon the perception that man can live together without violating each other’s right to exist.

Thank You Mr Jaworski.

Why Rights are not Arbitrary

I've had critisism over of my adherance to the "Rule of Law" The cliche goes that all laws are arbitrary and that I just have preferences for certain arbitrary forms of structure over others. This is a moral relativism. By equivicating the right to property to the right to own a slave as both being void of a proven moral base and impossible to prove logically is intellectually shallow and evil. Laws are objective when they are consistantwith reality. The right to property is consitant with the right to life while the ownership of a person is not.

"Man is a certain kind of living organism--which leads to his need of morality and to man's life being the moral standard [of this morality]-- which leads to the right to act by the gudance of this standard, IE, the right to life. Reason is man's basic means of survival-- which leads to rationallity being the primary virtue (a virtue being what is needed to acheive values, a value being something that one works to obtain and maintain whether it is love, family or a SUV) -- which leads to the right to act in accordance with one's own judgement, IE, the right to liberty. Unlike animals, man does not survive by adjusting the given--which leads peoductiveness being a cardinal virtue-- which leads to the right to keep, use, and dispose of the things one has produced,IE, the right to property.

Since a proper philosophy is an intergrated system, each right rests not merely on a single ethical or metaphysical principle, but on all the principles just mentioned.

All rights rest on the fact that man's life is the moral standard. rights are the rights to the kind of actions necessary for the preservation of human life.

L. Peikoff

Beatiffic Thinking

The right to life means the right to sustain and protect one's life. It means the right to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the preservation of his life. To sustain his life, man needs a method of survival-- he must use his rational faculty to gain knowledge and choose values, then act to acheive his values. The right to liberty is the right to this method; it is the right to choose, then act in accordance with ones judgement. To sustain his life, man needs to create the material means of his survival. The right to proerty is the right to this process; In Ayn Rands defenition, it "the right to gain, to keep, to dispose of material values." To sustain his life, man needs to be governed by a caertain motive-- his purpose must be his own welfare. The right to the pursuit of happiness is the right to this motive; it is the right to live for one's own sake and fulfillment."

-- L. Peikoff

Democracy and classic Liberalism

Intellectuals from both sides of the political spectrum claim democracy as necessary for a country’s stability. Democracy has come to be considered an end in of itself when discussing political development. Europe has for a longtime proudly claimed the democratic model as the most enlightened and fair form of government. A simple and uncritical approach like this is the reason countries like Iran are such a conundrum to the thinking elite after their democratic revolutions. The problem is that democracy doesn’t ensure liberty and a citizen’s liberty is what needs protection. The majority voted the Ayatollah in. Who could argue with that? Who could cry foul if it was what the people wanted? But the more important question and if not important, at least moral implication involved the rights of the Sunni minority in that country. Could the Shiite simply vote away the rights of their rivals? Yes they could and did, because every tyrannical fascist law they created had popular support and the guise of democracy legitimized it. This is the inevitable end of pragmatic politics, the determining of morality with a vote, a tyranny of the of the majority’s whims over the rights of the minority.

The triumph of democracy over all other forms of political organization is really the triumph of pragmatism over principles. Pragmatism values truth as that which makes the largest amounts of people happy, allowing values and morality certain flexibility to meet changing attitudes. A problem with this whimsical approach to determining values and morals is that there’s no consistency in the decisions reached. Eventually all people have their rights violated when values and ethics are decided with democratic methods, because all individuals are a minority in some aspect of their life. When Baptist conservatives voted away the homosexual’s ability to legally marry, the left defended gay rights on the grounds people should be able to choose whichever lifestyle they want without the threat of penalty, the right ignored these inalienable rights and vehemently claimed the virtues of democracy. But when the same population voted to ban smoking on private property, the right then turned to the constitution and said the law conflicted with citizens’ rights to manage their private property without interference. Then it was the lefts turn to charge the right with being undemocratic.

A pragmatic approach to governance creates philosophic inconsistency, which erodes the population’s intellectual coherence, ultimately dividing it, as rights are rewarded based on popular appeal instead of intellectual legitimacy. Lone individuals don’t have the ability or time to consistently predict the popular assumptions of the voting public over a long period of time, nor should they have to, as constitutions and charters are meant to guarantees everyone’s right to pursue their own liberty and happiness. But an entirely democratic state legitimizes values on the basis of popular support, which makes people concerned with protecting their own rights dependent on the propaganda machine. The fact that a gay man has to hold a public campaign for the right to form a recognized lifelong union is ridiculous and dehumanizing, and is clearly a flaw in our referendum model.

Democratic choices are inherently totalitarian. They are either/or choices. The majority’s value is legislated at the direct expense of the minority’s value choice. In the sense that the non-smoking public’s right to a bar free from smoke violates the smoker’s right to gather with other smokers and drink. And what recourse does the smoker or as in the previous example, does the homosexual have? None, other than public campaign so as Rosseau admitted the freedom based democratic model the citizen is "forced to be free".

Values, social choices and moral decisions are not suited for being decided in a democratic forum. Values are diverse and guided by principle and decided upon through the marketplace. Markets have the uncanny ability to accommodate diversity. For example Vegetarians refuse to eat meat, making their values distinctly different than their carnivorous neighbor. The market allows vegetarians to build the type of supermarket they want and at the same time the market also allows for delis. The market allows both groups to live happily aside each other because neither has the power to invoke his values over his competitors, as each recognizes the principle of individual choice. If we voted today whether it was moral to consume meat, the vote would divide the population, assuming the vote would be close it would create a war between the two groups and divide the society.

Consider how primitive and ridiculous it would sound if Martin Luther King claimed the civil rights of African Americans were justified by popular consent! He appealed to the intellectual premises on which the United States was founded. King believed in and demanded to be recognized by the constitutional principle which guaranteed equality to all races and faiths, extending to certain inalienable rights to all individual beings; the right to be free and self determining without the threat of coercion. Slavery was abolished, because of Lincoln’s regard for the principles of liberty and equality. It was not due to Lincoln’s benevolence or some populist referendum. A referendum would have legitimized the racism and further entrenched it intellectually, as is what happened in post WWI Germany. It is principles that protect the rights of the minority and if principles are to be done away with in favor of pragmatism then so will the rights of the groups that need protecting. Which group is persecuted may change over time but the pattern of persecution will not.

The alternative to a pragmatic democracy is a republic. A republic based on the concept of principle. Through the creation of a charter, certain guiding principles can be chosen in which the country must always adhere to regardless of the political climate or societal situation. A constitution limits the government’s power through diffusion with a system of checks and balances, guaranteeing citizens freedom from a powerful arbitrary ruling elite, weather they are well-meaning socialists, an unstable plundering vassal, a power hungry president, or a biased voting majority. Constitutions can guarantee the right to private property, recognizing an individual’s right to their land, regardless of political leanings, current government attitudes or popular opinion.

Constitutions have the ability to exert themselves even without popular consent as they articulate arguments in their most fundamental and intellectual form even when that isn’t clear amongst the ever-changing perceptual data.
A constitution refuses to bow to the tyranny of referendum recognizing that popular opinion approved of the molestation of adolescent boys in Ancient Greece, that democracy legitimized Hitler’s slaughter of the Jewish population in Germany, that democracy interned thousands of Canadians of Japanese decent to appease populist outcries.

The creation of a constitution is recognition that popular opinion is fallible and constantly changing, but that there are certain fundamental intellectual laws above altering, regardless of referendum. The society may elect different governments and leaders because no matter who is elected they are powerless to impede on the rights that the constitution guarantees. A constitution fosters a government of laws instead of a government of men. A government of laws declares that non-smokers have no ability to coerce business owners into changing their bars into non-smoking establishments. A government of laws recognizes the homosexual’s right to his choose his partner without the threat of penalty, regardless of what another community’s values are. Constitutions protect the rights of minorities through principle. Constitutions prohibit government involvement in legislating values, thereby ensuring everyone’s own ability to choose. Using referendum to decide value forces an either/or choice, when there are multiple approaches to all values system. An either/or choice entrenches a totalitarian moral system, which is never the answer when the goal is to ensure freedom for everyone