fighting for a free Canada

Taxation and Beer

2008-12-11T09:22:00.000-08:00

Simple economics about taxes

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, ''I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man.
'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he gotten times more than I!'
''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

The Virtues of the Electric Car

2008-11-07T08:32:00.000-08:00

Everyone has seen the ad where the smart looking lime green car rolls up on to the suburban driveway and the astute owner gets out and plug the moral vehicle into the electrical outlet. The piece finishes with some mention of us all doing our part to clean up the planet. I watch this ad nine to ten times a day always wondering the same thing. Is electricity really a better alternative than gasoline? I mean sure the car doesn’t produce pollution directly, but where do people think electricity comes from? 57% of electricity in the lower 48 is produced by burning coal.

Here is a breakdown of burning coal

What are the environmental issues?
The popularity of coal is largely due to its low cost.
Nevertheless, coal power plants are responsible for 93 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 80 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions generated by the electric utility industry.

These emissions spawn the acid rain that is eating away red spruce forests in the Northeast and Appalachia, and rob previously pristine streams of brook trout and other fish species in the Adirondacks, upper Midwest and Rocky Mountains.
Coal emissions also cause urban smog, which has been linked to respiratory ailments, and coal-fired power plants also contribute to global climate change. Coal plants emit 73 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from electricity generators. By releasing the energy stored in coal, large quantities of carbon dioxide that have been stored in the coal for millions of years are released back into the atmosphere, increasing the threat of global warming. Coal plants are also a major source of airborne emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal.
Federal law requires that air pollution be kept within limits. However, these limits are significantly lower for older coal plants than for newer ones. Even when kept within the air emission limits set by the Clean Air Act, state-of-the-art coal power plants still produce significant damage to human health, public and private property, and ecosystems.

I suppose we could always resort back to damning up all the rivers to produce more electricity. That would sure make less of an environmental impact than a small wellhead sticking a foot out of the ground!

The Difference Between Political and Economic Freedom

2008-10-22T14:52:00.001-07:00

The notion that economic freedom precedes political freedom is a popular myth amongst academic leftists. Perhaps you have heard "Well who cares about ideology when there is starvation" or the bearded close fisted revolutionary yell of "bread precedes liberty" Ironically ivory tower socialists claim philosophy or ideology "is a middle class term throw away" term without any practical implications because men’s needs are primarily economic and not political or said differently physical instead of intellectual. Declaring man’s needs as material and that the mind is of no importance is not original; it’s an essential tenet of Communism and is rehashed in many alternate forms by contemporary leftists. Believing man’s needs may not move beyond the material until his physical needs are met is naïve at best as it is easily seen to be evidentially false in both historical and logical contexts.

Historically the idea is radically false. Never in history has an increase in economic wealth existed prior to political freedom. Liberty preceded wealth in ancient Greece. Rule of law (rule of law awards liberty because it frees people from being ruled by the unpredictable arbitrary whims of a tyrant. Instead there is an open code of laws which all men, regardless of birth, must adhere to) lead to the prosperity in ancient Rome. Free trade—the Corn laws— led to the industrial revolution in Great Britain, The bill of Right led to America being the most prosperous county in the modern world and freedom preceded wealth in 20’th century South Korea, Hong Kong, And Japan. And in contrast evaluate the economic freedom produced in historically politically un-free countries—China, North Korea, Palestine, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and East Germany. This is not a coincidence because individual freedom and limited government are absolutely necessary for obtaining man’s most basic needs and material wealth.

Logically the notion that man can be a slave ruled by force and still be economically prosperous—on any general level— is false and ultimately arbitrary because the assertion refuses to attach itself to any context. It fails to take into account how material wealth is created or how physical requirements are most efficiently met. To claim they both exist separately and independent from one and another is absurd. They are not corollaries but rather they are related causally. Man needs to be free for the very reason of meeting his most basic goals. A moral code that says man has no right to his own life, or to the rewards he produces is antithetical to in every way to economic freedom. To deny man freedom is to condemn him to death for the very reason that on a grand scale he will not be able to meet his physical needs.

Marxists claim that philosophy is a bourgeois pastime of no relevance to the real world yet this philosophical misunderstanding has lead to over 100 million deaths. "Philosophy" and "Freedom" are not unimportant middle class leisure words but rather they are some of the most important concepts man has ever created and without their understanding we doomed to endless misery, slavery, famine and warmongering

Greed

2008-10-21T19:51:00.000-07:00

The other day I was bemoaning the point that Canadians are the second most taxed people in the world, second only to China. Second to China is only good if we are talking gold medals at the summer Olympics—in terms of taxation it is brutal. I was ranting about 30% of my paycheck, 5% on everything I purchase (recently $25,000 on a house), property taxes on that same house I already own, GST on gasoline taxes….etc. Anyway a co-worker overheard me and quipped triumphantly “Oh I guess I’m not as greedy.”
“What do you mean?”
“Oh well I ma not as concerned about money. I don’t mind doing my fare share.” She smiled. I scowled.

My willingness or unwillingness to pay exuberant taxes is not an issue of greed rather it is an issue of passivity. I have no qualm with someone donating their earned wealth to whatever cause or causes them deem necessary. I support freedom of choice. Philanthropy is a choice and a highly dignified one at that. I support certain charitable activities, and I suppose that that is the norm rather than the exception. People that succeed are usually only more than happy to give back to the country and community that helped give them that chance.

My hatred of over taxation is an issue of liberty and freedom. I don’t believe in a large interventionist government redistributing my wealth for causes that it deems necessary. I can make my own choices on whether I want to support PETA, the Heart and Stroke foundation, the arts, or political think tanks... My issue with over taxation has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with liberty. A free man does not work the first six months of every year to support his feudal bureaucratic masters. A free man is not passive about his freedom. It is his highest value. I am a free man

Don't Blame Capitalism

2008-10-16T14:54:00.000-07:00

Don't Blame Capitalism

This article was written by Peter Schiff
Here is a breakdown of the financial crisis that deals with the real perpetrators

Amid the chaos of recent days, as the federal government has taken gargantuan steps to stabilize the financial markets, realigning the U.S. economic system in the process, comes a nearly universal consensus: This crisis resulted from government reluctance to regulate the unbridled greed of Wall Street. Many economists and market participants who were formerly averse to government interference agree that a more robust regulatory framework must be constructed to cage the destructive forces of capitalism.

Absent from such conclusions is the central role the government played in creating the crisis. Yes, many Wall Street leaders were irresponsible, and they should pay. But they were playing the distorted hand dealt them by government policies. Our leaders irrationally promoted home-buying, discouraged savings, and recklessly encouraged borrowing and lending, which together undermined our markets.

Just as prices in a free market are set by supply and demand, financial and real estate markets are governed by the opposing tension between greed and fear. Everyone wants to make money, but everyone is also afraid of losing what he has. Although few would ascribe their desire for prosperity to greed, it is simply a rose by another name. Greed is the elemental motivation for the economic risk-taking and hard work that are essential to a vibrant economy.

But over the past generation, government has removed the necessary counterbalance of fear from the equation. Policies enacted by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which were always government entities in disguise), and others created advantages for home-buying and selling and removed disincentives for lending and borrowing. The result was a credit and real estate bubble that could only grow -- until it could grow no more.

Prominent among these wrongheaded advantages are the mortgage interest tax deduction and the exemption of real estate capital gains from taxable income. These policies create unnatural demand for home purchases and a (tax-free) incentive to speculate in real estate.

Similarly, the FHA, Fannie and Freddie were created to encourage lending by allowing primary lenders to turn their long-term risk over to the government. Absent this implicit guarantee, lenders would probably have been much more conservative in approving borrowers and setting interest terms, and in requiring documentation of incomes and higher down payments. Market forces would have kept out unqualified buyers and prevented home-price appreciation from exceeding the growth in household income.

Interest rates contributed the most to creating the housing boom. After the dot-com crash and the slowdown following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Reserve took extraordinary steps to prevent a shallow recession from deepening. By slashing interest rates to 1 percent and holding them below the rate of inflation for years, the government discouraged savings and practically distributed free money.

Artificially low interest rates invigorated the market for adjustable-rate mortgages and gave birth to the teaser rate, which made overpriced homes appear affordable. Alan Greenspan himself actively encouraged home buyers to avail themselves of these seeming benefits. As monetary policy caused houses to become more expensive, it also temporarily provided buyers with the means to overpay. Cheap money gave rise to subprime mortgages and the resulting securitization wave that made these loans appear safe for investors.

And even today, as market forces deflate the credit bubble, the government is stepping in to re-inflate it. First came the Treasury's $700 billion plan to purchase mortgage assets that no one in the private sector would buy. Now it has recapitalized banks to the tune of $250 billion, guaranteeing loans between banks and fully insuring non-interest-bearing accounts. Policymakers say that absent these steps, banks would not be able to extend loans. But given our already staggering debt burden, perhaps more loans are not the answer. That's what the free market is telling us. But the government cannot abide solutions that ask for consumer sacrifice.

Real credit can be supplied only by savings, so artificial steps to stimulate lending will only produce inflation. By refusing to allow market forces to rein in excess spending, liquidate bad investments, replenish depleted savings, fund capital investment and help workers transition from the service sector to the manufacturing sector, government is resisting the cure while exacerbating the disease.

The United States reached its economic preeminence on the strength of its free markets. So far, the economic disaster exacerbated by government policies is creating opportunities for further government interference, which will lead to bigger catastrophes. Binding the country to a tangle of socialist ideals will seal our fate as a second-rate economic power.

The writer, who was economic adviser for Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, is president of Euro Pacific Capital. He is the author of "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets."

Finally somebody telling the truth

Popular Leftwing Misconceptions about the Right

2008-10-09T16:37:00.000-07:00

After my last post, four Masters Students from Ontario have invited me to critically assess some of their articles they have published on their new blog. They are interested in a counter view point. I can respect that. As Hegel proclaimed higher ideas are born out of the thesis— antithesis=synthesis dialectic. So let’s give it a shot a roughneck against university academics.

The article historically traces ideology in Canada (from Keynes to Neo-conservatism) and offers us the chance to begin to make some conclusions about the consequences of those changes— albeit through a socialist filter. The conclusions are too broad to argue in 500 words, so let’s start with some of the premises. The article is predicated on popular leftwing misconceptions about the movement toward liberal markets and greater freedoms.

“to maximum state involvement of the Keynesian policies and recently back towards a minimalist neo-conservative view.”

Keynsian economics is a monetary policy not a political one. Keynsian monetary policy dictates that the government should inflate the money supply to match the demands of production. In that sense Keynsian economics is still the order of the day. The Austrian economists would never have advised a 700 billion dollar bailout. In fact Austrian economics predicted the financial collapse which we are now witnessing.

Also neo-conservatism is hardly the Stephen Harper Conservative model. Neo-conservatism believes in world building, big military and are hardly opposed to deficit spending—see George Bush.

“and more specifically Ontario, the reigning political ideology favours minimal state involvement in economic life.”

I don’t consider the Canadian government to be anything near “minimalist intervention”. Powerful unions, crown corporations, wealth transfer payments, some of the highest tax rates in the world… the list could go on, but the point being that any interpretations that are to be made about the Canadian standard of living/economy should be made with the understanding that Canada is closer to socialism than it is to truly capitalist world.

This ideology (free market) rests on the theory that everyone will benefit from free market societies as wealth tends to have a trickle down effect.

Not exactly, the higher premise is that a free individual living in a free world will be better suited to produce wealth without the interfering of a distant bureaucrat. People are better left to making their own decisions than being led about by a powerful government. See the difference between Russia and North America.

"The social spending that is under greatest attack in Ontario is income maintenance programs….This program subsequently works to maintain inequalities, not lessen them."

All socialist schemes entrench class rigidity. Since the Paris Union man has been limited in the wealth he can produce he has none to pass onto his children, instead he passes on his title (job status), and his rent controlled apartment. This is all well and good, but what about the immigrants, the youngster with no nepotistic connections? Government control and high taxes have limited the private sphere and the public sphere/ and unions are being blocked by the third and fourth generation workers so what are the options for outsiders?

Circular Reasoning

2008-10-08T14:53:00.000-07:00

At last week’s debate Jack Layton and Elizabeth May were clamouring for a “buy Canadian” policy. Jack said something to the effect that we shouldn’t be cutting down our pine trees and letting someone else build the tables. We should be building the tables too! Forget about the sound economic principle of Comparative Advantage and lets dig a little deeper into the rhetoric.

A few minutes later good ol’Liza remarked that Canada needs to do its part to help the developing world and pledged her support of 0.7 of Canada’s GDP on a yearly basis for this pet project of hers. Never mind the how. And then before the how could be asked Jack nodded in affirmation.

Let me get this straight Jack and Liza don’t want to let countries like Mexico and the Dominican Republic buy our lumber so they can develop their own secondary manufacturing industries, but at the same time supports a plan to extort Canadian money to hand over in the form of massive welfare packages to the very same people. Brilliant? Does anyone else have trouble with this type of circular reasoning?

The real difference lies in the results. Where international welfare encourages idleness, corruption (the emphasis shifts from productivity to creating a perception of neediness), and subordination (most aid money ends up in the hands of tyrants who use it to support their own agendas), while trade on the other hand, encourages technological advance, cooperation, independence, responsibility, and dignity and equality between countries.

Leftism has never been about goodwill, instead it is about power. Sure you may claim that we can all break close to even on wealth redistribution schemes but the point is that the government is now picking who wins and who loses, and it also gives them the ability to reward their friends and punish their enemies, in other words maintain control over their populations—by destroying the independence of the people over which they govern.

The new Amero currency

2008-10-08T09:15:00.000-07:00

Let't take a look at some quotes about the banking system

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."--Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the private International Banking House of Rothschild.

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit."--Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Rothschild Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s, speaking at the University of Texas in 1927.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."--Thomas Jefferson in the debate over his opposition to the Re-charter of the Private Bank Bill (1809).

"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies..."--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International Bankers.--Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)

"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."--The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863, laying the groundwork for the eventual passage of their catastrophic Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913

"... You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, I will rout you out."--President Andrew Jackson, upon evicting a delegation of International Bankers from the Oval Office

"The real truth of the matter is, and you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president."--President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, November 23, 1933 in a letter to Colonel Edward Mandell House

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."--Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."--Henry Ford inventor and founder of the Ford Motor Company.

"Some [most] people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are not ... they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the U.S. for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders. The sack of the United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."--Congressional Record 12595-12603 -- Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."--President James Madison

"... we conclude that the [Federal] Reserve Banks are not federal ... but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations ... without day-to-day direction from the federal government.."--9th Circuit Court in Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 June 24, 1982

"People [private Federal Reserve Corporation stockholders] who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam) nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money [usury] from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill [U.S. Note]. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one [Federal Reserve Notes] fattens the usurer and the other [U.S. Notes] helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men [International Bankers] who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan".--Thomas A. Edison

Still not convinced check out this clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge2J2lNusJs

The Debate and Proportional Representation

2008-10-04T15:55:00.000-07:00

The debate was pretty typical. The minority parties claiming Harper is a wannabe Bush and Harper trying to convince them that he is also in favor of government intervention and wealth redistrobution so they have nothing too worry about. Some things never change. Seriously, Harper wants to shower us with small five and dime tax cuts that amount to squat. You want to help a family stay independent of the proverbial teat then Why not income splitting? Reduce the overspending so we can have some meaningful tax reform. Then there is Layton who, as usual wants to completely regulate the economy-- buy Canadian (see principle of Comparative Advantage). Dion was Dion-- the Liberals only agenda is power, hence fearmongering and an all over the map plan for the country. These guys hate intellectual consistency. And Elizabeth May was a shrill harping thing, not really concerned with things green, but instead political funding. Once again a minority party clamouring for political funding-- proportional representation. I am staunchly against proportional representation.

Here are the top 8 reasons Canada should never have Proportional representation.

1)Minority party votes are constantly sold for funding towards whatever special interest the selling party represents.

2)The proportional representation methodology increases voter apathy as it quickly becomes a system where votes must be bought in order to form a coalition government which has consequences.

3)It validates the public’s sense of government corruption as it’s an electoral system that favors and demands political deals.

4)The ridiculous amount of compromise eradicates ideology and makes long term vision impossible

5)Essentially you move from an electoral system where the majority party determines policy into one in which the party with the fewest votes does.

6)The proportional system is in fact less proportional as it has the uncanny ability to lock old political hacks into their position.
When a party receives 10 percent of the vote they allowed to choose which members of their party will represent their party in legislature, which is good for longtime serving senior party faithful, but is counterproductive to getting new blood and ideas into government.

7)Proportional representation is inherently against principles making it range of the moment pragmatic whim worship. Long range vision requires principle

8)Once Proportional Representation has been legislated further electoral form becomes next to impossible. Picture Canada’s attempt at negotiating a charter between three regionalized interests, and the endless amounts of stalling, compromise and redundancy, and ultimately futility involved that process. Imagine trying to agree on similar monumental reform with over 100 special interest groups being represented. Change would only happen through revolution. Reason would be invalidated as a political tool and thus parties world switch to force when trying to mandate change.

What is Philosophy?

2008-09-30T14:27:00.000-07:00

I spent four years studying philosophy at the University of Alberta. Whenever strangers, acquaintances, or relatives found out I was studying something as superfluous as philosophy I was asked all encompassing questions like “what is philosophy?” or “what is your philosophy?” When I was younger I am sure that I carried away prattling off about the search for higher truths, pure reasoning… mostly stuff that you couldn’t pin me down on. I was a moving target. School provided me with no logical paradigm of what philosophy was on a whole scale. As far as I could critically reach—the more complicated the text was, then the more ephemeral and cryptic truths it contained. This type of model leads to many conceptual mistakes. It was only when I was out of school that I developed the humility to ask my self these daunting, yet amazingly simple questions. Here is a simple version of what is philosophy.

The five branches of philosophy

Metaphysics; the study of what is real

One of man’s first thoughts must have been something like— what is this? What is that? Do I exist? What is real? What is reality? Metaphysics is where everyone’s favourite philosophical question comes from— if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? Two answers are available here. The first claims yes there is a sound, because the tree is real and exists independent of our minds perception of it. The second answer is more sceptical. Since the only way the sound is validated is through sensory perception; thus the sound does not exist independent of the mind. One school says the world exists independent of our minds the other claims the world only exists because of our minds.

Epistemology: where does knowledge come from? Is it possible to gain real knowledge or is all knowledge tainted by the bias of our minds? Aristotle believed man’s mind was his weapon at deciphering the world. Aristotle believed in science, and that our mind could be used to formulate truths and physical laws. Plato thought the mind was more complicated, that it deceived us and that true knowledge was unattainable. All we could hope for were imperfect recreations and representations of perfect ideas and objects that were based on perfect forms. Because Plato’s metaphysics were otherworldly, the mind in its limited physical relations was of little use in learning the highest truths. Here one has to ask themselves— does knowledge come from mystical experiences, sudden intuition, meditation or does it come from sensory information and rational conception?

Ethics: How aught one act, what is right and what is wrong. Once our first thinker has decided what is real and what is not real, and then come to realize how we gain knowledge and what use knowledge has to a human’s survival, the next logical question is— what is right and what is wrong. How aught one act? Ethics is the first of the normative branches of thinking. What ought to be done. Philosophy 101 treats all of these subjects individually—abortion, death penalty…. Etc. Some philosophers think all human constructs are meaningless (nilhism) and that morals are for the weak. Others believe ethics are duty implied (Christians). The main point to remember here is that what you believe metaphysically and epistemologically will have a large impact on your ethical values.

Politics; Once you have decided how the individual ought to act in a moral context the next great normative question is—how should society be organized? Once again we can have a wide arrange of conclusions. They key is now to investigate the premises on which those conclusions rest. For example a man that believes reality exists independent of us (metaphysics), and that our tool for survival is his mind (epistemology), will certainly advocate for a political system in which a man is free to act upon the conclusions that his minds has come. Communism would not be his cup of tea, because a collective political structure invalidates and individual’s right to act upon his conclusions.

Art: Art is the climax of the philosophical paradigm— why does man create? Plato would claim mystical inspiration. Aristotle would probably believe that men create to understand what they have learned? Once again your prior philosophical premises will determine how you view art.

Objectivists helped simplify what philosophy was for me and I hope this breakdown will do the same for someone else.

NFL picks

2008-09-28T09:33:00.000-07:00

Last week we were 2-1. No reason to quit while we are ahead.

Atlanta at Carolina, Carolina -6.5

Sure Matt Ryan made us money last week, but that was at home. Ryan has looked good at home versus bad teams (Detroit, Kansas city), and awful against good teams on the road (Tampa Bay). Carolina, coming off a road loss will aggressively go after Matt Ryan. I think this game is a blow out. The aggressive Carolina Defense will be too much for the young Atalnta Falcons.

Philadelphia at Chicago, Philadelphia -3

Assaunte Samuel, Lito Shepard, and Brian Dawkins are good enough to handle the Bear receivers in man coverage, which means Jim Johnson is free to let his front seven blitz and stunt all day. This will be a nightmare for Orton. The Bears defense sometimes has a tendency to over pursue leaving them vulnerable to counters and screen plays. The Eagles offence is especially suited for this type of attack.

Minnesota at Tennessee, Minnesota +3.5

1-2 teams with a positive PPG differential go onto a 144-125 SU (53.5%) and 144-114 ATS (55.8%) record. This means that for the remainder of the season, these clubs have gone 128-93 SU (57.9%) & 120-95 ATS (56%). Watch out for San Diego, Chicago, and Minnesota.

This is a man’s game. Physical, hard hitting and defensive till the end. 3.5 is too much for the Vikings in a field goal game.

Socialism, Art and the Tories

2008-09-26T18:51:00.000-07:00

Artists, actors say Tory arts cuts equal censorship

When I read stuff like this my head nearly explodes...

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.

Through out history artists, thinkers, and creators have fought for their right to expression regardless of cultural norms. The Salon arbitrary standards were viewed as oppressive and were not acceptable. Today the artistic community no longer views the oppressive Salon as bad for art. In fact, like everyone else living in a mixed economy they coo for its affection, believing it to be the only viable path in achieving their aims.

Why is it the duty of society ti support the Artist?

The artistic community continually links a lack of taxpayer support to the “inevitable demise of art”. This is ridiculous-- men have always created. it goes much deeper than monetary reward. man creates to understand. men create out of compulsion. It is how we survive.

The mistake a politically motivated subculture has made:

They’ve 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. A mixed economy philosophy alienates 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 clinging to collectivist cliches crying "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 earner's consciousness expanded by his forced support of books he doesn't read or by art he doesn't appreciate? 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, and culture are beyond the abilities of a 12 person board?

The Moral Banker

2008-09-23T18:17:00.000-07:00

Throughout history man has sought to manipulate currency levels, first with the clipping of coins, then the slightly more sophisticated debasement of coin content to the fiat banking which we have today. This money manipulation raises many moral questions.

At one time banking deposits used to be backed with gold, meaning if the bank accepted your deposits they had to, by law, maintain that amount of gold in their vaults in case you wanted your money back. All dollars were backed with gold. Then fractional reserve banking took over. This meant that banks only had to keep a certain percentage of their deposits accessible (backed by gold). This allowed the banks greater flexibility in making loans, basically allowing them to lend out the money of their customers and earn themselves interest on that money (which was not theirs in the first place).

The next step was fiat banking. Fiat banking does not require banks to hold onto any certain amount of gold to back deposits, and citizens are required by law to accept bank notes as money. Fiat banking has always been the last step to destroying financial stability of a country (see world history). The western world thinks they have overcome this by guaranteeing deposits via a central bank. The way this vulnerability is overcome is by backing all bank deposits with the Central Bank of Canada. The Central Bank has the power to print notes at its discretion. Now if everyone wants their money all at once, the bank of Canada has the power to print notes to cover everyone’s deposits. As well, bad loans are guaranteed by the taxpayer (central banks can back bad loans by printing more money, which essentially means you and I guarantees loans, because we are the one affected by inflation). This is why high risk massive loans to the third world are more advantageous than mortgage loans.

Having said all of this I want to ask why we pay interest on money created out of thin air? Why does my government (me) pay interest on money arbitrarily created? This is the best racket going. A private institution prints money and then has the right to charge interest on that money! Sign me up. In Canada 15 cents of every dollar collected from income tax goes toward debt financing. Worse yet is the fact I have to produce real wealth (earn real money—this means drilling for real oil, mining for real gold, making real sneakers, baling real hay) to pay the interest on imaginary money that was loaned.

As Canadian we debate Conservative vs. Liberal, left vs. right, capitalist vs. socialist, but is this debate not trivial at best when the rulers have already socialized the money supply. No?

Football Bets for Today

2008-09-21T08:31:00.000-07:00

I love philosophy, economics, literature and gambling. Today is about gambling. I love trying to decipher conflicting messages in trying to decide who will win a sporting event. I won a lot of money betting on the NFL last year. Take that with a grain of salt though, because I lost a lot money betting on baseball this summer. Peaks and Valleys, peaks and valleys. My selections for today.

Atlanta falcons -9.5

I got the Falcons earlier in the week at -4.5 points befor KC announced some guy named Tyler Thigpen was playing for them. You can still get this game on proline @ 1.7 which is a bargain. Anyway Atlanta is a power run team(they average over 250ypg)and the Cheifs cant stop the run. Losing Jarred Allen didn't help. Matt Ryan is in a good situan because KC will have to keep 8 or 9 guys in the box which let Matt Ryan be effective enough to blow out KC.

Cle +2.5, +120 on moneyline

I love desperate teams and the Browns are desperate. This game could define their season. Another loss and a playoff prediction team could be in big trouble. Baltimore is a decent defence with a lead footed rookie quarterback. I don't get a good feeling from wattching Flacco, which is a shame because he keeps taking money from me on Sundays.

Vikings -3

Another desperate team. I hated the decision to bench Jackson. the Vikings should be trying to win the superbowl, not finish 9-7. Gus Ferotte leads you teams to 9-7 records. Anyway Carolina is due for a letdown and the Vikings are desperate for a big effort and plus they are at home. Buig day for Petterson and the Vikings

Thanks

Searchers and Planners; and my first Book

2008-09-20T21:19:00.000-07:00

I once read a book by William Easterly Called The White man's Burden. The book dealt with African Poverty and the fact that our well intentioned efforts to relieve it have in fact only enabled and entrenched it. The following passage left a strong impression on me.

Planners announce good intentions but don't motivate anyone to carry them out; searchers find things that work and get some reward. Planners raise expectations but take no responsibility for their actions; searchers must accept responsibiliry for their actions. Planners determine what to supply; searchers find out what is demand. Planners apply global blueprints; searchers adapt to local conditions. planners at the top lack knowledge at the bottom; searchers find out what the reality is at the bottom. planners never hear whether the planned got what it needed; searchers find out if the cutomer is satisfied.....

I like many other freedom lovers have always felt trapped in a world of planners. I spent 5 years working in the remote oilfield sites all over the frozen north. I spent my nights writing fantastic paranoid stories about being trapped in a civilization of planners and a world dominated by planner worship. I have just published five of these stories in my first book called Isonomia. I hope you will check it and maybe buy it. When people ask me to describe the book I have been using the sentence-- Kafka for Libertarians.

Inflation myths

2008-09-18T19:50:00.000-07:00

Myth # 1: "Dependence on Foreign Oil"
This myth basically suggests that the problem with oil prices is due to America's "dependence" on foreign oil. One of the worst economic myths, it plays on economic nationalism and on xenophobic feelings that are sometimes pervasive in the United States.

The high price of oil has nothing to do with its origin; the price of oil is determined in international markets. Even if the United States were to produce 100% of the oil it consumes, the price would be the same if the worldwide supply and demand of oil were to remain the same. Oil is a commodity, so the price of a barrel produced in the United States is basically the same as the price of a barrel of oil produced in any other country, but the costs of labor, land, and regulatory compliance are usually higher in the United States than in third-world countries. Lowering these costs would help increase supply. Increasing supply, whether in the United States or elsewhere, will push prices lower.

Importing a product does not mean you "depend" on it. This is like saying that when we "import" food from our local supermarket we "depend" on that supermarket. The opposite is usually true; exporters depend on us, since we are the customers. Also, importing a product usually means buying at lower prices, whereas producing in the United States often means consuming at higher prices. This point is proven when we see the cheap imports we can purchase from China and the higher prices of many of these same products manufactured in the United States. The amazing thing is that the protectionists claim, on the one hand, that America should be "protected" from cheap imports, but when it comes to oil, they say we should be "protected" from "expensive imported" oil.

Most, if not all, of the higher price of oil can be explained by the expansion of the money supply or the debasement of the dollar. The foreign producers are not at fault; our national central bank is the culprit.

Myth # 2: "Inflation is caused by rising oil prices."
False. If the money supply were to remain constant, then an increase in the price of one good, such as oil, would cause a decrease in the price of other goods. If more money is spent on oil, then less money will be available to spend on other goods. This will in turn cause a drop in the demand for other goods, which will subsequently cause a drop in the prices of these goods. The reality is that inflation is always a monetary matter, caused by the increase in the money supply due to the interest-rate-easing policies of central banks.

Myth # 3: "Current inflation is being caused by the increased demand of millions of new consumers in China and India."
At first this myth might seem true. Millions of new Asian consumers have entered the market, thus, there is higher demand for most goods, which would apparently cause higher prices. What is being overlooked is that these new consumers are also new producers. In general, most people produce far more than they consume, because most workers have to produce more than what they earn in wages (if not, they lose their jobs). While it is true that demand has risen due to these new consumers, supply has increased even more, due to their increased production. This can clearly be seen by the frequent drop in prices of most goods being manufactured in China. On the other hand, the only way these new workers can increase their consumption beyond what they produce is through credit. Thus we return to the real culprit behind inflation: credit expansion due to central banks' intervention in the financial markets.

David Saied

Is Free a Relative Word?

2008-09-07T22:14:00.000-07:00

The other night my wife and I started our prenatal classes at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. During the class a question was asked about the pros and cons of formula feeding versus breast feeding. The registered nurse informed the class that WHO (World Health Organization) has made it illegal for her to talk about formula feeding. There are two problems with this law.

1. Canada is supposed to be a free country.
2. Canada is supposed to be a sovereign nation.

In a free country discourse is encouraged through the elimination of government censorship. Contradictory opinions and theories are the intellectual base of the western world. Certain ideas, however vile, tasteless or absurd are given the right to be heard. Since the process of discovery can’t be plotted no single person or group is allowed to decide what type of expression or ideas should and shouldn’t be permitted. Every fact, theory or law that exists today was in the minority at some point in its existence. It is only from free discourse that ideas are discovered, proved or disproved and then accepted or discredited. It is for this very reason that censorship is so hated in a free society.

Censorship is synonymous with slave cultures like Iran, China, Medieval Europe. The western world fought to break free from this type of arbitrary unaccountable tyrannical rule and now our governments are slowly handing over our autonomy to unelected organizations like the WHO. Organizations that wield the power to censor and coerce.

It would be bad enough if the Canadian government tried to pass this type of draconian law, but the World Health Organization should not be allowed to pass any laws that limit the freedom and choices of Canadians. Canadians do not elect the WHO lawmakers. The World Health Organization is an unelected board of bureaucrats whose headquarters are located in Geneva Switzerland. People complain about an Ottawa disconnect in Canada.

What would we do if the WHO declared a one child policy? Maybe the World Trade Organization tries to enforce a North America Carbon Tax.

Just tell me to how much of my paycheck to send to whom... BAAAA

2008-07-18T19:23:00.000-07:00

So Ontario agrees to join a coalition that pledges to loot Alberta’s and Saskatchewan’s energy revenues. British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba and now Ontario have all agreed to a carbon trading plan. For all those unfamiliar with Socialist doublespeak this simply means Alberta and Saskatchewan have to pay other provinces for their right to produce their own petroleum (does Ontario pay me for the right to produce steel?) Since Ontario will not use up their petroleum quotas they are free to sell their quota rights to Alberta — what did they have to lose? There couldn’t be a finer plan for provinces not heavily involved in the energy game (albeit death knell B.C does have considerable gas in the north east). Why wouldn’t they try to vote for their share of the plunder? Basically, they have pledged their support for a plan that oversees the honestly earned wealth in western Canada transferred to bureaucratic hordes in eastern Canada. Wealth transferred from a free and independent class to a envious, parasitic class of government types.

How could this ever be considered just amongst the civilized? Raskilinov was sentenced to Siberia. So I look for the defences—the Suzuki Foundation claims “We now have 75% of the population agreeing to emission trading.” The Suzuki foundation is an environmental cause. This doesn’t affect them. The same amount of petroleum is being produced so the environment remains unchanged. I am confused. And back to the voting pattern— because this is always a popular justification. The vote is always predictable. Anyone mystified by the fact that a group of people without gold would vote to steal away an individual’s accrued gold if given the chance is predictable. Then if the local authorities told them they would not be persecuted for their theft but in fact applauded the results are even more predictable. Then if further prodded by the offer of a middle man to do the dirty work and perpetrate actual theft of the gold, certainly the results of the vote would be all but guaranteed. I think it was Ol’ Ben Frank that said democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Why do journalists, academics, university groups, activist groups, and governments generally laud democracy as the pinnacle of cultural social development? We should strive for a state in which arbitrary thefts are outlawed. And democracy doesn’t prevent arbitrary persecutions. Democracy provides no model for “what ought to be done”, it is only valuable as means to an end. If it is wrong for another individual to hold a knife to my throat and demand my wallet then how is it alright for the government to put a gun to my head and demand 50 cents every time I earn a dollar? Just because people voted for it? For a society to be just government’s power needs to be limited. If governments are allowed arbitrary powers then nobody’s rights are safe for very long. How ridiculous would it sound if a fish tax was enacted—wherefore, every fish caught in Newfoundland 15 cents was sent to Sakatchewan —a case could be made that the East’s overfishing has prevented my right to earn an income from the ocean. This is the same logic that is applied to energy. I have even heard the claim that everyone has a right to the energy trapped in rock three miles beneath the earth then we all have equal rights to the revenues created from the fishes in the ocean, the trees, the ore… and so on.

Public Education's Political Spectrum

2008-03-02T09:59:00.001-08:00

Last week I watched a fairly sensational documentary on Polish gangs. The facts and footage were fairly straight forward. Most of the gangs were a fancy blend of white supremacy and Polish nationalism. These guys were mean looking and mean acting. Both somewhat predictable, my problem lay in the fact the commentator kept referring to the gangs as right wing, and worse than that the gang’s rise of prominence was linked to a rise of right wing politics. Now I know the Euros don’t like a bush, but does the logic really follow.

Let’s go back to our high school years and go over our indoctrination into political science. We good, for the most part morally superior Canadians remember the mantra…
On the far left we have Communists. These guys seek to control and organize society’s economic and cultural life. In Communists countries all capital and recourses are owned by the government. Then on the far right we have fascists. Fascists also seek to control society from a moral and economic perspective, the difference being (I presume because I find this entire concoction entirely ludicrous) that capital and resources are not exclusively controlled by the state. Both are managed, with the blessing of government, by private entities, free from bureaucratic ineptness. Fascism, a highly nationalist and chauvinistic philosophy is naively portrayed in Canada and Europe as what happens when business becomes too powerful.

Then in the middle, taking the best from the left and the right (the communal morality of Communism and practical necessity of private ownership?) we have Canada. This is the basis of political knowledge from my public school years.

Here is the crux of a rational understanding of Communists and Fascists alike. They are one in the same. They are both spurned by the same collectivist methodology. A methodology that states “I know what is best for society, so this is how everyone shall live, and if they will not they shall live like I see fit, they will be put to death.” Both societies are completely regulated by the elite that are in charge of all aspects of a person’s private life. Both societies are completely dependent on the arbitrary whims of whatever madman is steering the ship. In this vain there is no difference between any dictators (Hitler, the Taliban, Pinochet, Stalin, the crazy from Iran, Chaves, Edi Amin...), regardless of what ideology they purport. People are not free from arbitrary rule in these countries. Does anyone really believe that businessmen were free from Hitler’s influence in Germany? Sure they kept profits, but they produced what he told them to produce (less widgets and more tanks) at the point of the gun. This isn’t freedom. Shouldn’t the opposite of a slave society be a free one?

Societies are not philosophically separated by the whims and actions of whatever dictator is in charge. What separates Canada from Fascism and Communism alike is the fact Canadians are not ruled by any absolute authorities. There are checks and balances that prevent a single madman from being able to prescribe what is best for society (whether it is forbidding religion or genocide). *It was hard for me not insert a Trudeau joke here*

The traditional dialectical understanding is absurd. I always ask people that still espouse this type of thinking: where do libertarians fit in? Where would Ron Paul fit on the spectrum? The spectrum should still be a single line going from left to right, but the standard used to place an ideology on this line, should be based upon the amount of control the government has over society, regardless of their explicit intentions.

So Canada is still in the middle, but for different reasons than the utopian ones we are taught in our public education.

Long live the Convictionless Stelmach

2008-02-05T16:08:00.000-08:00

End homelessness. Sure Ed lets do it. But let’s consider that maybe ending homelessness is more complicated than building a bunch of houses. A voluntary committee says it will only cost 3.2 billion dollars up front. “Only” is a word that you use when it’s not your money that you are spending.

Let’s recap. Ed announces that he is arbitrarily increasing royalty rates on oil and gas resources by up to 50%, and now, 7 months later, with drilling levels at their lowest in a decade, with layoffs happening during Alberta’s busy season Ed wants to open a soup kitchen. How fair. How typical. Socialist puke. Is this soup kitchen mantra supposed to replace the $60,000 annual wage of the 6 or 7 people we had to lay off to stay competitive during the orchestrated oil patch slow down? Well let’s consider some of the propaganda being echoed by the ideological vacant Progressive Conservatives in Alberta

"What we need right now is for the three levels of government to work together to source what works -- and how are we going to fund this, on the basis that we will actually save taxpayers' dollars over a 10-year period," said Steve Snyder, chairman of the Calgary Committee to End Homelessness.

Right Ed why didn’t anyone else think of this. Government helps people. It makes people’s lives better. And logically the bigger the government, the happier and better off the citizens are, right? Or is there a line to be drawn? And how is it drawn? And who draws it? If only we had some case studies….

"Spending the money upfront will save about $3.6 billion in ongoing direct and indirect costs over the first 10 years, Snyder said, while praising the work done by existing shelters and organizations.
It is less expensive to pay for treatment programs that work than allowing the current system to continue, he added."

Is he actually petitioning for a one time payout and then a suspension of the welfare state? Because I would like to know what is exactly being cut to the tune of 3.6 billion if he gets his 3.2 billion up front. And once again if only there were some case studies about government subsidized programs and cost control… subsidization of daycare in Quebec

"The document is asking for just over $2 billion -- $1.4 billion of that from the private sector -- to create more than 11,000 affordable housing units, secondary suites, affordable rentals and rooms for single people."

11,000 homes at $180,000 each. Peanuts, only roughly $1,100 bucks a person, so a measly $4,400 touch to a family of 4, and we are whining. Hell, I know that family struggling to keep their child in minor hockey would love to cough up that much juice to help. Hey what do I care give them the option to work 100 bingos a year. Seems fair

“Decrease the chronic homeless population 85 per cent from current levels within five years, with a complete elimination of chronic homelessness in seven years.”

It's like me with my neighbors, I would like them to mow their grass more often. Well Ed would say that if I buy them a new mower then they would be more apt to cut grass. But what if they already have a mower? What’s if its not a question of need? What if this complex problem has a simple solution? What if I simply place more value upon trim grass than my neighbor does?

Ed Stelmach trying to destroy Alberta

2008-01-26T11:04:00.000-08:00

Well Ed Stelmach you win! You have accomplished what you set out to do as an unelected official. Your government has increased its power and predominance in the Alberta cultural and economical landscape. No longer is the sovereign citizen Alberta’s advantage. No longer are free markets and hardworking individuals Alberta’s most important assets. Instead we have zealous governments, subsidized housing and soup kitchen mantra. Well done. Very progressive. In your effort to extort more money from energy companies you have started the process of crippling Alberta’s conventional oil and gas industry and eventually the means to maintain Alberta’s fierce spirit of independence and self determination.

Since you tore up legal contracts and arbitrarily changed taxation legislation associated with energy recourses, drilling levels have fell from 80% rig utilization to 30%. This low rate lasted from March 07 to Dec 07. Now the winter drilling season has begun— these 3 months are crucial for Alberta companies to earn high amounts of profits, because of the traditionally slow spring break up. March and April are too wet to move equipment in Alberta so capital investments earn next to zero amounts if revenue. High winter profits allow companies to carry staff and debt through this difficult time. Well rig counts have surged to 55% this month. That is possibly enough drilling to break even for a lot of Alberta companies. Layoffs continue to abound. Drilling stays slow. House prices continue to drop. Unemployment is on the rise and investment continues to leave. The worst part of this is that Ed’s Conservative plan doesn’t even take full effect till 2009.

So we have identified Alberta’s loss what about the energy company’s loss? Nope. They just reinvest those dollars elsewhere. For instance Encana moved a billion dollars of investment from Alberta to North Texas overnight. Their earning potential stays unchanged. Encana doesn’t own the equipment needed to drill. They don’t pay to transport it. They contract those services from people in the places where they drill. The equipment and services for drilling are generally owned by Albertans in Alberta. Albertans own the trucks, tools, rigs, pipe, and personnel that are being most affected by pink Eddie. It is Albertans that are losing.

Add to this the fact that government will collect less revenue with higher royalty rates in the first fiscal year since the plan was announced. Less revenue will be collected with higher royalty rates. Brilliant— even for a socialist guise.

Ed Stelmach must be held accountable for what he did. Ed was not even elected by Albertans and he tore up legal contracts and rewrote our energy policies. Where are the checks and balances we demand in a free country? We never elected Ed Stelmach. It has been over a year since he was awarded by power and he still has not called an election. This is a travesty and should not be supported by any Albertan regardless of political affiliation.

Reminiscing about my Education

2007-11-22T12:32:00.000-08:00

I attended university to gain the theoretical knowledge needed to guide my practical actions that would be crucial for my adult life. But if I hoped to receive this type of training at university I was terribly wrong. Today, universities have no interest in such methodology. Universities are now governed by a faculty concerned with ego driven leftist agendas. Professors now teach the country’s most impressionable minds that it’s impossible to say anything positive about reality (metaphysics) as “true reality” is tainted by our biased mind. And because knowledge is relative to our environments, in essence it becomes equally relevant and thus ultimately irrelevant (epistemology and anthropology). This logically leads the most earnest students to their predictable conclusions: knowledge is subjective and biased towards social-economic background, which makes ethical statements naïve, as they’re the extension of this flawed knowledge. Finally, political science reaffirms that positive assertions are nothing more than the culmination of these subjective whims and simply put “who’s to say what’s right”! A mind trained with this type of foundation characterizes the university’s most inquisitive and conscientious minds. The University activist is only expounding on the doctrines he’s been taught, treatise which eventually produce the expected existential temperaments of fear and depression, conditions which typify the apologists of relativism, collectivism and existentialism.

And we’re surprised that a worldview like this, one in which uncertainty and instability is our usual state, has a tendency to produce citizens filled with neurosis and insecurity? The lessons of the enlightenment-- optimism and reason-- have been choked by skeptical traditions stemming of Kant, Hume, Rousseau, Dewey, Camus and Chomsky, and today professors and students are slavish products of this fatalist philosophy.
Our best Professors lecture under the hip banner of pragmatism staking their rebellious identities on the fact they take no moral stands, are unwilling to express any viewpoints, using the justification that “there’s no such thing as truth”, and “its wrong to judge”. Interested in pushing an anti-philosophical agenda that renders all paradigms of thought as useless, liberal professors intentionally ignore the idea a university’s goal should be to equip its students with the ability to judge and evaluate. Their relativism succeeds only in frustrating and depressing the most eager minds, condemning them to an endless maze of contradiction and hypocrisy with little chance of discovering solutions. It’s worthy of Shakespearean consideration that students are smart enough to understand the outcomes of what they’re taught, but not independent enough to reject the theories.

The mind, man’s mechanism for comprehending his complex reality has been invalidated by his intellectual mentors. The university’s goal should have been to produces confident minds able to discriminate between fact and fiction, valuing self-determination over other imposing, corrupt and inefficient forms of organization such as dictatorship and socialism.

When we teach students fear and uncertainty are people’s natural state, that skepticism is the mark of an intellectual, it’s a predictable outcome that they clamor in protest groups for government intervention and paternalist social engineering.

Proposals to Canadian Government to end Unemployment

2007-11-06T10:34:00.000-08:00

Bridge to Hawaii:
This mandate of a 4800 km suspension bridge from Vancouver to Honolulu would be Canada’s most involved and committed plan to eliminate unemployment in Canada to date. If unemployment is the problem then we can help by creating jobs. Not only would this bridge be a boon for our economy, but it will greatly add to our leisure lifestyle. We would open access to one of the most beautiful resort destinations in the world, and only a 50 hour car ride away.

Moving the Great Lakes to Saskatchewan:
The Great Lakes are losing water—holes in the bed? Well let’s plug the lake bed. I propose moving the Great Lakes to central Saskatchewan in the meantime. Not only is this is another labor intensive endeavor that would have a positive impact on employment levels in the country, but it would also send a strong message to Americans that think they can purchase nearly all of Canada’s oil without repercussions. Early estimates predict a necessary manpower need of over 350,000 people for 40 years. Not only would over 1200 km of shoreline have to be carved out of central Saskatchewan, preferably by shovel to increase work status length, but a zillion cubic meters of water would have to be transported over 2000 km to the new lake bed. And then the process would have to be reversed to get the water back to Toronto.
.

The world’s deepest drilling program:
Canada has always been shortsighted in its drilling industry. The pursuit of energy has left Canada without a comprehensive strategy to lower unemployment levels in other parts of the country. The key is to break drilling strategies from the pursuit of energy. The Canadian government should pay a subsidy based upon meterage successfully drilled, with inclining rates for deeper depths. Capitalists complain that the problem with governments charging Energy providers high royalty tax rates is that the Energy companies do less drilling, which only increases unemployment. Now we can take that extra tax revenue and use it to create incentives to drill duster, albeit deep dusters, which will stimulate employment across the country. We can have the increased wealth from energy revenues as well as the high employment levels associated with record levels of drilling. Prior to this drilling has been mainly segregated to Alberta. This is unfair, and with this new mandated program, drilling can be expanded to all provinces and everyone can enjoy the fruits of high paying roughneck jobs.

THE CREED OF FREEDOM: final

2007-11-04T17:56:00.000-08:00

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

Edward Griffin

The Creed of Freedom: Part Trois

2007-11-04T08:04:00.000-08:00

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

Edward Griffin

THE CREED OF FREEDOM: Part deux

2007-11-03T13:49:00.000-07:00

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

Edward Griffin

The Creed of Freedom

2007-11-03T08:35:00.000-07:00

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS

I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.

I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

I will continue to publish the rest of Edward Griffin's creed throughout the weekend. The world needs more men like Edward.

The Olympics-- and what they stand for

2007-11-02T07:28:00.000-07:00

This is the year China hosts the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games by their own definition "have always brought people together in peace to respect universal moral principles". So in the spirit of this moral decleartion I thought I would post some fun facts about the people’s republic of China for all the moral relativists out there that prefer to demonize the western world instead of facing the real enemies.

Criminal Justice

*Only one in 5 trials in China have eye-witnesses.
*Torture is the most common form of interrogation.
*The conviction rate is 99.7%
*The criminal code names 68 crimes punishable by death.
*In 2005 Amnesty International estimated 1,770 executions.
*In March 2004 the government introduced execution vans.

Forced Labor
*Chinese statistics admit there are 260,000 people being held in “reeducation through labor” camps. These camps are called Laogai. These camps were originally created to reeducate enemies of Communism. Laogai’s are expected to create a profit.
*At least 200 Laogai made products that are exported throughout the world.
*Under the system local police can send anyone to the camp for three years without a trial.

Censorship
*The Chinese Government spent 800 million to create the Jin Dun Project. A method of controlling and policing the internet.
*The system is run by a 50,000 person Internet control department.
*China is the biggest jailer in the world for cyber dissidents. (Albeit the Chinese have been greatly helped by western business partners—Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Sisco. For example Yahoo agreed to filter is search engines so that a Chinese search for “Free Tibet” yielded 0 web pages.)
*China is also the largest jailer in the world of journalists.
*In China there are no privately owned television or radio stations.

Human Freedom
*In 6 of 31 provinces government permission is needed for a married couple to have a child.
*Some provinces practice coerced abortion and sterilization.

Labor
*In 2007 5,986 laborers died in coal mining accidents.

Speaking of the Olympics…
*Over 400,000 people have been evicted from their homes in preparation for the Olympic Games.
*Another 500,000 are still expecting to be evicted.

Still think there is no difference between political and economic freedom.

All fact taken from Tyranny in the 20th century (link not working right will post late)r

Dion the Wise and Benevolent

2007-11-01T11:50:00.000-07:00

So Dion will consider raising the GST back to 7% if he gains power. So with a surplus of money (I hate the word surplus, there is actually no such thing as a government surplus—I prefer over looting or excessive pillaging) in government coffers to the tune of 11.6 billion Dion wants to reinstate the GST tax to 7%. Why? Because the government needs more money— no. We just mentioned the abundant plunder from 08. Maybe, because he needs more money for grandiose socialist plan—no again. Well maybe eventually, but he hasn’t released any plans. (I still prefer the building of a bridge to the moon to guarantee full employment in Canada) Well if not either, then why? Simply put— because the Conservatives cut it. Brilliant policy. Overtly reactionary policy meant to spurn a political opponent. Well this point of separation he is so intent on making hurts the people he expects to vote for him.

The pointy headed Marxist claims income tax cuts would be more effective. Maybe they would be, but if that’s the case, then cut income tax levels too. It isn’t an either/or decision. If Dion believes in tax cuts he should implement both. But he doesn’t, as it is with all Marxist types, rhetoric and propaganda is they key ingredient to securing votes. His policy, his direction consists of nothing more than vilifying his political opponents in order to procure power. His paradigm is intellectually shallow and evidently unsuccessful.

I love a politician that overtly cuts all ties with ideology and plans to rule the country under the direction of arbitrary whims and notions. “Hey vote for me, you never know what I’ll do next.” Sounds compelling. Blessed be the pointy headed arbitrary election platform of a closet Marxist.

Principled Leader are Hard to Find

2007-10-30T09:58:00.000-07:00

Populism tramples principle in Alberta
GWYN MORGAN
From Monday's Globe and Mail

Experience has taught me that populist politics are seldom principled. It's not that populists don't want to do what's right and best; it's just that if a choice has to be made as to which has priority, what is popular wins.
Ralph Klein was very popular, but he was not a populist. When he took on the job of premier, Alberta was suffering the after effects of Trudeau's national energy program followed by a prolonged slump in energy prices. Inheriting a big deficit, he slashed spending on everything from hospitals to schools, an unpopular but necessary move. Investment in the relatively embryonic oil sands was virtually at a standstill. The Klein government implemented a royalty regime that provided for recovery of investment before significant royalties kicked in. Mr. Klein understood a key truth - you can't tax what doesn't happen, and lower tax rates almost always result in more revenue.

If you poll almost any society with questions like "should the rich pay more?" or "should industry pay more?" you can count on a majority of yes answers. If you precede that poll by a government commissioned report alleging that "the people" have not been getting their "fair share," the number of yes responses will be even greater. Then, if the chairman and some members of that review commission actively campaign for full adoption of their report, the populist pressures intensify.
In a choice between polls and principle, the populist's choice is predictable. Enter the populist Premier Ed Stelmach. What principles have been violated by Mr. Stelmach's royalty decision?

The first one is reneging on the terms under which the province sold conventional oil and gas lease rights to industry. Assessing the amount to bid for new leases is a complex matter starting with the reality that the odds of finding commercial resources on any one lease are low.

Once the technical analysis is completed, risk-adjusted forecasts of costs and production are made, using a range of pricing scenarios. The final step is to apply provincial royalty rates to determine the producer's share. During my three decades of working to build what became Alberta's largest natural gas producer, royalty rates were the lone factor that we counted on in our investment analyses.
Royalty terms were vital in determining how much to bid for a resource lease from the province, creating what we believed was a long-term commitment on both sides. An analogy would be buying the right to lease an office for 25 years. The bigger the annual lease payments, the less you're prepared to pay up front. And you would count on the deal not changing even if new lease rates went up.
The second matter of principle Mr. Stelmach's government has violated is reneging on oil sands royalty commitments under which capital has already been invested. Except in the case of Syncrude and Suncor, the money was invested without a contract binding the government to honour the terms.

Nonetheless, investors rightly see this unilateral change as a clear case of doing what is popular rather than what is right. And in terms of doing what is best, the damage to Alberta's reputation certainly illustrates the wrong choice.
Does an owner have both the moral and legal right to unilaterally change the terms under which he is prepared to lease his property? The answer is clearly yes ... for new leases. Industry can then decide whether to buy new leases or develop new projects having consideration for the new royalty rates. Had Alberta raised royalties that would apply to leases not yet sold or for oil sands projects not yet commenced, then the rare combination of what is popular may have aligned with what is right and best.

So what will the fallout be?
Alberta's current annual royalty revenue is about $8.5-billion. Sale of leases added $2.5-billion over the past fiscal year and the province's share of income taxes is about $1.5-billion, for a total take of $12.5-billion. The province calculates that it will receive an additional $1.4-billion by 2010 as a result of the higher royalty rates. But that assumes no change either in what the industry bids for land sales and no reduction in production resulting from reduced drilling. Consistent with the fact that you can't tax what doesn't happen, Alberta's coffers could end up with no gain at all, or even a net reduction.

Industry is still in shock, but the computer models used to compare before and after investment feasibility are grinding away. Companies with investment opportunities outside Alberta will be looking at them a lot closer. The natural gas drilling and development service sector was already suffering, so expect an even worse downturn. New project decisions in the oil sands will have to factor a much higher government take into a business already replete with risk.
Mr. Stelmach states: "I'm confident we've made the right decisions for today and for Alberta's future."

As for me, I continue to believe that populist politics are seldom principled.

Ed and his Pink Hat go Drinking

2007-10-26T16:23:00.000-07:00

A reaction to Ed Stelmach's royalty plan

First off, drilling levels will be fine through this winter. Companies have already bought their land rights, so they are already committed to winter drilling projects. This will be great for Ed and the Progressive Communist party of Alberta. Ed will be able to sit back on his throne, sometime in mid February and point triumphantly to the record drilling levels and say “see, helping Albertans did not deter drilling. We must not be afraid of the big oil companies”. Most people will cheer and then once summer comes, and the election is over, and pink Eddie is re-elected, the industry will come to a grinding halt, but the pubic won’t be interested in the debate anymore. The lack of drilling will be attributed to a downturn in the industry, a bust cycle, possibly blamed on a high dollar or more access to middle east oil.

The big energy companies like Encana, Talisman, Conoco, CNRL… etc will spend their dollars elsewhere (see Saskatchewan) out of principle. They will make a stand because they know who’s next in line (see looting feds) for their profits. People think it is hard to move a giant corporation like Encana. Well its not, Encana is just a bunch of engineers. Pipelines, compressors and pipelines can be rebuilt (cost can be spread out amonst competitors) or in a lot of circumstance already exist on other parts. All the equipment associated with oil production is owned by Albertans— the rigs, wellheads, pipe, welding units, trucks, trailers, tools, and heavy equipment are all owned by Albertans who rent their capital to energy producers. The energy companies have no stake in any of this capital expenditure.

Some other points:

So the Alberta government decides to raise royalty rates on oil 20%— and oh by the way they want to get into the bitumen upgrading game as well. This is a direct transfer of wealth from the people who extract bitumen to the people that upgrade it. As I said in my last post this is the moral landscape of the mixed economy.

The feds created the NEP (the nationalizing of the energy industry) and they crippled the province. The government bought all the foreign owned companies for 10 times their worth and then watched the industry die. Then they got out of the energy game by reselling all the same companies that they had just bought for inflated prices for 10 cents on the dollar. Next the government spends tax payer dollars in order to create incentives for rich oil giants to drill again. Then, predictably energy companies use our money to drill again (sometimes knowingly dusters—very funny to hear these stories). 20 years later, companies are drilling at ultra high levels with their own money and the government steps in raises the royalty taxes on oil to potentially 50%. I wonder what happens nex?

I hate having to hear people say “A slowdown is good for the province” —huh 8.5% unemployment is better than 4%. Investment leaving the province is better than investment coming into the province. Stagnation is never beneficial. Alberta has bought into the Canukistan dream.

The Moral Landscape of a Mixed economy

2007-10-24T08:57:00.000-07:00

Here is a highlight from an earlier conversation…

“Drilling levels are already down to 35% utilization. It’s not going to be good if Ed tries to tax energy companies an extra 20%. They’ll just leave. Big companies are mobile. It’s just a bunch of engineers in a building. How are extra royalties going to pay my mortgage?”

“Well it’s not bad for all people. My sister’s a teacher and they are due to renegotiate their contracts this January, and me thinks when the government is rich the teachers will get their just deserts.”

This is the moral landscape of a mixed economy. The gains experienced by one group of people can only be accommodated by the losses of another individual or group. Where in a free country income levels are raised by a general increase in productivity the opposite is true in a mixed economy. In a mixed economy the only way to get more wealth is to convince the government to loot more from another group. This type of morality tends to divide citizenry rather than uniting it—a morality grounded in the virtues of suspicion and resentment. When teachers or nurses (both are respected essential societal roles) strike or demand more money we are treated to the two opposing view points on the matter. The first says teachers should be paid more and the second says they shouldn’t. Simple enough, but the question arises—why does the second group even exist? In the private sector, there is little resent when there are raises in income levels. Usually the synopsis is—good for them or lucky bastard. There isn't any resentment, because Joe’s raise has no impact on Ted’s ability to get a raise. One person’s gains are the result of his own effort and not the result of someone else’s losses. This is a moral society.

In a just society there shouldn’t be any resentment between groups, when each are contributing to society. In an unjust society where gains are the result of losses, gains are always met with suspicion. It is in this context that we should recognize the negative aspects of government control and strive for a freer country.

Why Ed is Destined to Wear a Pink Hat

2007-10-21T15:40:00.000-07:00

Alberta’s march toward socialism under guise of conservatism looms on. With per capita spending the highest in the country, and the government awash with money and still no tax breaks, Ed is still contemplating how much more to pillage. His fist is mighty with polls demonstrating support to the tune of 88% for the continued looting of the country’s smallest minority. Even though the Alberta Government has watched royalty incomes soar form 6.5 billion to 12.5 in the last 5 years it still wants more. What type of political principle is being followed here? I voted conservative. I thought I was supporting limited government, low taxes and the consistent rule of law. I guess not. Alberta’s conservative government is just as arbitrary and opportunistic as their liberal bedmates. Both parties are equally without principles. Without an adherence to guiding principles they can never be trusted. Some points about conservatism.

Since conservatism has no principles of its own to guide it, it must rely on previous experience to guide its decisions. This is why they typically, or in theory support the free market. It has been proven successful. That was not always the case. The conservative party used to be filled with land owners and aristocratic types and be fearful of the freedom oriented classical liberals. Since they rely on experience for direction Conservatism has become an ideology extremely distrustful of new ideas.

Since conservatism is reactionary it may temporarily succeed in stemming the tide of socialism but it will never change the direction—as it is without its own guiding principles. Unless this changes conservatism is destined to be dragged along a path of not its own choosing.

More On Grade 9 Social Studies

2007-10-18T13:07:00.000-07:00

I’m still on this quote from a grade 9 social studies textbook.

“Individualism is a theory that individual freedom is just as important as the welfare of the community or group as a whole. It often involves the absence of cooperation.” P.35 “Made in USA.” Reidmore books, 1990

Let’s talk about this quote. Individualism involves the absence of cooperation. Huh. This is explicitly false. Instead capitalism is the economic model which stipulates that all contracts are voluntary. When two separate groups choose to work together for a common purpose is the very definition of cooperation. A paradigm where all contracts are voluntary and no individual or group has the right to coerce another man or group is dependent on cooperation to achieve aims.

And the opposite of a free cooperative state is a controlled society. Statists are not dependent on cooperation because the government has the ability to coerce people. They in effect control production, pricing and the law. For example when the government stipulates that X percentage of work done on crown lands must be done by unionized workers they are not promoting cooperation they are promoting coercion. The union rep knows the industry man is bound to law and must work with him, and he exploits this knowledge for his own potential gains—wages, work schedules, and general power. The industry man resents that he must do work with who state has told him to work with and certainly there is little cooperation between the two groups.

When contracts are voluntary they must be good for both sides or the contract will not be signed. This puts an emphasis on cooperation between the two groups.

Grade 9 social studies

2007-10-17T17:31:00.000-07:00

This is an actual quote from a government issued primary social studies textbook issued to grade 9 students.

“Individualism is a theory that individual freedom is just as important as the welfare of the community or group as a whole. It often involves the absence of cooperation.” P.35 “Made in USA.” Reidmore books, 1990

Never mind the absurdity of the quote. I want to talk about education in general.

Canada’s drift toward socialism is not a coincidence. All agencies have an agenda. It is impossible not to—unless you are an entirely thoughtless being. Our government and the bureaucracies that run the country are no different. They have agendas and bias too. Their aim is to increase their power, their impact, and their prominence within society. Thus public education has an agenda as well— to promote socialized education. This is done logically twofold— first, propagate the importance of national programs and the government that administer them IE education, and secondly diminish the role of freedom and the private realm. IE limited government and private education. This quote is not on its own. There are many just like it.

Most people are afraid of private education. They worry radicals will co-opt education. But I ask them if they accept the fact that society is not done evolving and that ideas are still developing, and if you believe education is an important factor in this progression, then you should especially against any one group having a monopoly over the ideas taught to our future generations. It is ludicrous to leave a bureaucratic institution in charge of the intellectual development of our children. They decide what is taught, and how it is phrased. The competition of ideas is an important part of a free society. It is what leads to change and progress. It is how social theories develop—by challenging the status quo. A competition of ideas felled Communism. A competition of ideas is what abolished slavery. This point should not be understated.

Education is the one of the most important things in our children’s lives and we should question the fact that we unquestioningly leave text book writing to an unelected bureaucratic group with its own agenda to promote.

Alberta's Unfair Royalty Regime

2007-10-15T17:57:00.000-07:00

I want to start with one of the main issues I have with the report. It failed to take the cost required to harvest energy into its assessment of determining a fair tax share for the government. Even going so far as to state “costs are not an argument for or against a particular finding of a fair royalty level” p.37 What????

Costs are very relevant. It is very indicative of the overall character of the “ivory tower” report when it refers to “costs” so flippantly, and without meaningful regard. “Cost” is the most important aspect of trying to run a business. “Costs” is the money paid to Albertans directly in wages when recouping the energy from the ground. “Costs” is the money paid to Alberta firms for the equipment required to recoup energy. In some of the countries Alberta is compared to, rig workers make less in a month than Albertans do in a day. How can we compare the two regimes? It assumes that the only potential gainers from resources are multinational corporations and governments. Alberta is different. We have shunned this archaic model. Instead Albertans earn the money themselves from exhuming the energy. Albertans are some of the best paid workers in the world (this includes rig workers, engineers, truckers, tradesmen, hotel attendants, nurses, teachers... etc.) This is exactly what is meant by the Alberta advantage. The money flows to the people. We consequently have one of the highest living standards in the world, and this was never taken into account anywhere in the report. In fact it was only referred to disparagingly through its reference to “costs”.

Alberta has some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world. These costs were just glossed over.

Alberta’s deep basin gas is expensive and difficult to harvest. The deep basin pool runs alongside the Rocky Mountains. The drilling is exceptionally complex and expensive. The formations are hard and time consuming to drill. The difficult drilling translates into crooked holes, which adds to completion and production costs. The deep basin is consistently yielding smaller and smaller returns and finds each year. The higher costs and declining productivity puts Alberta at a disadvantage in the conventional oil and gas market. Our marker was compared to other jurisdictions which have lower associated costs and higher productivities.

The biased report also failed to mention that Alberta has increased its revenue from royalty taxes 6.5 billion in 2001/2 to 12.5 billion in 06/07. Less drilling means less tax money, regardless of what the rate.

In the same period of time the personal and corporate taxes collected by the Alberta government have also increased from 4.6 billion to 7.5 billion.

Party politics

2007-10-13T17:22:00.000-07:00

Newspapers and mainstream media love polls which demonstrate the lack of political initiative in Canada. We are constantly being bombarded with studies demonstrating the political apathy of people. Why would that be? Is it that people don’t care if there country is free or not? Well of course they do. People are naturally political. What people are apathetic about is party politics. Why? Because party politics makes liars and hypocrites out of everyone and nobody wants to be either. Party politics lacks intellectual consistency. Intellectual consistency means principle and sometimes principles run contrary to the politically advantageous solutions. All parties being out for their own interests—that is to secure, makes their leadership and decision making impossible to predict..

A free individual can defend limited government, low taxes and liberty or a socialists can defend his principles of nationalization, enforced equality, and high taxes, because their logic makes abstraction easy, thus individual knows what his position is on every day issues. But what party politics does is make the individual defend a party’s stance. A party which disdains principles, thus the individual can never confidently predict their stance on any given subject.

An individual believing in liberty doesn’t want to have to defend limitations in freedom or increased government spending. Harper budget. Amidst party politics, the conservative spent the last year in his social circle proclaiming the need for a limited government and now he has to turn around and say “well in this one instance, higher taxes are good. This destroys his or her credibility as an independent thinker. It clearly paints him as a follower, or worse yet an opportunist that blindly defends the ruling party’s arbitrary whims. How does someone who believes in a limited government defend Harper’s decision to continually award Bombardier more money. How does a conservative defend Stelmach’s decision to abruptly raise royalty taxes on our most important export in Alberta, thereby threatening to bring the province to its knees? How does an exponent of freedom defend George Bush’s patriot act, or a bans on gay marriage. These all run contrary to the principles he most values.

Democracy

2007-07-17T10:30:00.000-07:00

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.

Taxes as an insturment to control wealth?

2007-06-08T19:01:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest misconceptions in this Canadian age of liberal propaganda and socialist spin is that liberals and dippers are the party that supports the working family, the little guy. Well if that’s true why is the tax exemption set at $8000 dollars? This means for every dollar an individual earns over $8000, the liberal begin reaching into his pockets and start by taking nearly a 1/3--not to mention the GST he pay on top of his or her purchases.

Is this fair by Tuedapian standards? Should massive companies, like Bombardier and Air Canada require assistance from somebody only pulling in $12,000 a year? Should someone making minimum wage be required to contribute to a senator’s $80,000 annual pension fund? Should a Wal-Mart greeter be forced to contributing to liberal friendly company’s profit margin?

It is an all out lie to claim liberal policies are friendly to the little guy. You want to help young families and people living near the poverty line, well then raise the exemption. The Taxpayer Federation demonstrates that nearly doubling the exemption to $15,000 (meaning that nobody making under this pays federal or provincial taxes) would exempt 1.8 million people from paying taxes that they cannot afford. The liberal elite in Ottawa collect 2.8 billion in taxes from people that earn under $15,000 per year. Let me state that again: Ottawa collects 2.8 billion from Canadians making under $15,000 a year to spend on social engineering, Governor General wardrobes, slush funds for party faithful, and corrupt business owners. This would be roughly a $160 per month increase in take home pay for people living below the poverty line.

And in comparison if the dippers or corrupt liberal came out with a policy awarding each person earning under $15,000 a year, a $100 grant they would be lauded for their compassion and understanding. So why are conservatives vilified as a robber barons, for a policy that would neatly double an imaginary grant? And now I know $160 a month isn’t much for a liberal elite ivory tower philosopher, but it’s an extra load of groceries for the single mother or a trip to the dentist for the uninsured. Personally I’d like to the see the exemption set a $20,000, but that would cost too many liberal too many Armani suits and I’m a realist!

April Showers Bring May Flowers

2007-04-28T08:27:00.000-07:00

Found this through freedom-force. Bang on and funnnay as hell.

Sick And Tired Of Being Lectured By Global Warming Hypocrites
Private jet flying, CO2 belching, bags made by slaves in China transported thousands of miles buying, bulb banning, Al Gore worshipping morons wagging their finger at me when I don't even drive a car get under my skin

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, April 27, 2007

I've had enough of it.

Ninnying fatuous self-important morons who demand that everyone else make sacrifices in the name of mother earth while they zoom around in CO2 belching private jets and lavish themselves in heated swimming pools are hypocrites but perhaps we should be grateful that their frothing absurdities are causing the man-made global warming cult to lose whatever credibility it has left.

Last week, singer Sheryl Crow demanded that we all use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit to help save the planet. Shortly after these ridiculous comments, the Smoking Gun website uncovered documents showing Crow's touring requirements, which include three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars. I don't even drive a car, so to be lectured about what I can and can't do after I take a shit is a bit rich coming from someone whose "carbon footprint" is bigger than King Kong's treads.

At the British premiere of his movie Wild Hogs, actor John Travolta urged everyone to "do their bit" to fight global warming, warning that "We have to think about alternative methods of fuel."

I fly commercial perhaps once every two years for a brief holiday. Travolta has five private jets parked in his runway, has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions, 100 times more than the average person in the last year, is a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas and named his son Jett as a tribute to his love of flying. So when Travolta lectures me about "doing my bit" forgive me for taking it with a pinch of salt.

Al Gore is the messiah for the climate change fanatics and his error-strewn polemic An Inconvenient Truth, has been dispatched to every British school on orders of the Blair government, so that kids may be forcefully brainwashed into accepting that man-made global warming is as much a reality as the surveillance cameras, metal detectors and biometric scanning for lunches that they have to endure as part of their "education."

Gore's 20 room private mansion uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity, as Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.

Gore is behind the spectacle of the Live-8 style Live Earth concerts that will take place in numerous cities around the world on July 7 to raise awareness about climate change. The performers who will be showcased at these concerts include people like Madonna, who owns at least 6 gas-guzzling cars including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S.

According to a report, last year "Madonna flew as many as 100 technicians, dancers, backing singers, managers and family members on a 56-date world tour in private jets and commercial airliners." The singer's Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in four months of last year.

Other acts, including rock group Red Hot Chili Peppers, all use private jets yet are set to throw their stardom behind an effort to propagandize the notion that we are producing too many carbon emissions.

This will all be eagerly lapped up by the majority of Britons, who are zealously supportive of government programs that punish people who don't jump on the climate bandwagon. Fines for putting rubbish in the wrong colored trash can are now commonplace, as state spies roam around leafy suburbs searching through people's bins for evidence of dastardly "enviro-crimes" while tiny cameras are placed inside bean cans to catch potential villains.

The exact level of idiocy these morons embrace was underscored perfectly yesterday when throngs of them queued up outside a London supermarket from 3am to buy "eco-friendly" bags that have become the latest must-have fashion item and another ego trinket for them to grandstand and revel in the pomp that they are saving Mother Earth.

In reality, the bags were made by slaves in China and transported thousands of miles by CO2 belching jet planes. But let's not concern ourselves about that - as long as we can feel good about ourselves while wagging our finger in judgment at anyone who uses those dirty old plastic bags that's all that matters.

These kind of simpletons are also behind the move to completely criminalize the ownership of incandescent light bulbs, despite the fact that their precious "energy saving light bulbs" are loaded with toxic waste that's already banned under EU regulations. They also contain deadly Mercury which will end up in our land fills and our water supply once use of the new CFL bulbs becomes mandatory.

If you still believe in the notion of man-made global warming, then you should be very concerned about the fact that the leading proponents of the theory are all giant hypocrites espousing outlandish and radical measures to combat climate change while fearmongering about doomsday scenarios that will befall us unless we all drastically reduce our carbon footprints, while their own carbon footprints dwarf the average person's by a hundred times or more.

The result of this will be that the mantra of man-made global warming will begin to look increasingly inane and it will eventually lose steam. People with an ounce of common sense will see through the fact that a natural cycle of warming that occurs every few hundred years does not mean the end of the world, and that hysteria is deliberately being whipped up on behalf of governments in order to grease the skids for draconian taxation and control measures that won't even do anything to combat man-made global warming even if it was real, but will do everything to aid the construction of the prison planet that the elite have planned all along.

Meanwhile, real environmental issues like genetically modified garbage poisoning our very food supply, the disappearance of huge swathes of the bee populations across the world, deforestation and toxic waste dumping, all get buried while global warming monopolizes the attention of the phony environmental movement.

No doubt there'll be several responses to this article accusing me of denying that the planet is heating up and saying I'm on the payroll of the oil companies. For those people, I would like to remind you of the fact that it was none other than Peter Sutherland, the chairman of British Petroleum, who rallied his fellow elitists at the Trilateral Commission meeting last month, to exploit the hysteria of global warming in order to impose a standardized carbon tax, a measure that will create artificial scarcity and, just like peak oil, raise prices, reaping billions in profits for oil industry moguls at the very top of the ladder

Thank you Paul Joseph Watson.

Sunday Bliss

2007-04-22T09:08:00.000-07:00

Censorship, collectivism, and pragmatism all at their finest.

Is freedom in its death knell?

Enviormental hysteria leads to world Government.

2007-03-31T12:55:00.000-07:00

What is the most effective way to kill liberty?

Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam, which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies.>

We are getting closer...

why can't we all get along?

2007-03-29T08:05:00.000-07:00

So you are sitting in a coffee shop or at a dinner with the spouse's friends and some wingnut starts into the leftist blame us campaign. "All the world problems in the world are because of Bush." At first you sit there then the diatribe becomes untolerable. We have heard it all. "All we have to do is reason with them. If we are willing to compromise they will be willing too." Then you can't take it anymore. So you start to ask questions. "Well how do we compromise with terror? How should she have compromised? How do we negotiate with a group of people who are not interested in trade agreements, land settlements, earthly rights, or monetary relations." They want to purge the earth of all infidels? How do negotiations even begin? We can offer money, sovereignty, technology, UN power, and even wealth and still it will not help against this murdering scourge. They are not interested in anything "of this earth".

Freedom and religious autocratic rule can never reach a compromised agreement unless one side is willing to entirely subordinate itself to the other. To take this one step further-- compromise only helps evil. How does negotiation help the free man? You have to pray to Mecca only twice a day and we will not chop your head off. You can remain alive but you will have to pay a 50% tax because you are not Muslim. All we do is beg for our lives while we give away our rights and afford them more rights.This only this only benefitsthe enemy over the long haul because they use western rights to only further trap us.

The constitution says individuals are free to worship how they see fit, while an Islamo-fascist constitution would say "you are free to worship Allah,and if this freedom is not enacted upon, then you are free to be murdered by the State-- or local warlord. logistics is their specialty. freedom and slavery are philosophical opposites and no amount of negotiation will ever change this.

The weak-strong dichotomy

2007-03-28T11:54:00.000-07:00

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse"
Osama Bin laden, November 2001

I wonder which we are?

It has been proven... blah blah

2007-03-24T21:41:00.000-07:00

Another scientiffic denunciation of the Gore-on cult. It is late. People are alone. follow the link. Read the intro. Watch the Video.

Intellectual means

2007-03-23T18:40:00.000-07:00

Alright it seems my last post warranted a death threat in response. How do I follow that up. Christ there are lots of crazies. I came home wanting to talk about the Negative income tax. Oh well. The show must go on. I have already done posts on the evils of its opposite-- the graduated or progressive tax model (see earlier post)

The easiest way to increase the amount of money available to welfare programs is by changing the means in which they are administered, first, simplify the program to protect them from being exploited from loophole abuse, and secondly, reduce the size of the ever growing bureaucracy that does the administering. Current regulations are complicated with deductions, credits, differing allowance rates, and property considerations, which allows them to be easily exploited by individuals, and even worse than that, a massive bureaucracy is required to monitor and administer the complex program, a bureaucracy also equally vulnerable to abuse and unnecessary waste. Fixing both of these problems can be specifically achieved through the introduction of a negative income tax - subsidy program to replace the current, overly complicated, and mottled legislation of the positive income tax system, which drains our welfare revenue base at an ever increasing rate.

The positive income tax system allows people to receive a certain level of income exempted from taxes. The exempt amount is based on rates, which are deemed as a minimal for subsistence. This level is superficially low so that the government can begin taxing income as soon as possible. Any income earned over this level is subject to being taxed. The problem lies in the fact that if the marginal earner makes under this exempt allowance level nothing happens. The unused allowances simply put, goes unused and wasted, plus he is ineligible for welfare benefits, as he is considered employed. This system punishes the low wage earner as he is unable to recover these unused benefits, and this in effect begins to transfer the incentive from working to not working, as welfare, monetarily speaking, is comparable to the artificially low level of exempt allowances.

A negative income tax system would allow for some portion of the unused allowances to be recovered up to the specified exemption level at a set subsidy rate. Milton Friedman, the system creator recommends a rate of 50%. This rewards the low income earner versus the non-worker, instead of punishing him with essentially 100% tax rates, as all earning are essentially deducted from welfare payments in a positive income tax system. A negative tax system with an exemption level of $20,000 for a family of four with subsidy rate of 50% qualifies a family of four with no income to be eligible for $10,000. Any income made on top of this initial amount reduces the subsidy by 50%. If the family of four earned $12,000 in a single year, the subsidy would be reduced by $6000, giving the family an overall income of $16,000, at an expense of $4000 to the taxpayer. Where as with a positive income-tax systems, the family of four would be left with the decision of taking their earned amount of $12,000 or being completely unemployed and still earning $11,500 from the government, with no incentive to earn the $12,000 as it would be only a $500 improvement over not working at all.

Positive income tax guidelines are designed to benefit only those who are completely unemployed. Unused credits from those that are marginally employed are not refunded, which shifts incentive from working to not working for the low-income earner.

Lack of skills is the biggest problem facing recipients. Keeping recipients in the workforce is of optimal importance as it is the only way to build the worker’s skills, and prevent already present skills from further atrophy. Welfare handouts have no way of passing on the virtues of the employed to the unemployed.

Welfare mother’s are penalized, instead of rewarded when they earn extra money, through such pursuits as babysitting or working one day a week in a restaurant, men turn down the opportunity to drive a cab once a week, because it is essentially deducted 100% from their welfare payments. When the tax rate for low wager earners is essentially 100%, there is little incentive to work.

The primary goal of the state whenever dealing with the unemployed should be to keep them working. A penalty of 100% on extra initiative should be reconsidered.

The strength of a country lies in its citizens and their productivity. A government’s role is to nurture this productivity and not to destroy it with insecure legislation.

Raise Some Hell

2007-03-22T17:00:00.000-07:00

Gore returns to Canada on March 22, to receive an honorary doctorate from Montreal's Concordia University. That same day, he will also present An Inconvenient Truth to the Top Employer Summit in Toronto, with an introduction by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. Former prime minister Joe Clark and Toronto Mayor David Miller also plan to attend
.

When I hear something really stupid. I always pause and say "wow" slowly. It drives my wife nuts. She thinks it makes me look like a jerk. Thats what i did when i read this litte tidbit from the CBC.

Wow a doctorate in what-- propogating a message. Please God, nothing to do with science. If I had a degree from Concordia I'd send the fucking thing back. But I don't have a degree to send back to anyone. 120 credits of philosophy, economics and history later and i find out you have to have six credits in french to graduate with a degree. What french. I don't speak french? How the fuck am I going to pass a class in frech?
Admin: Oh it's just introductory.

Me: No I need to graduate now. I've made plans. I didn't know.

Admin: I don't make the rules.

Me: Fuck. Fuck it then. Fucksakes. I'm done here. I don't need a degree. I want to be journailist. I hate this place. A guy like me is going nuts here.

Admin: It's only six credits.

Me: I don't fucking need them. I can't learn french in one year. Whats the point then? i know my limitation-- no work in the government, Quebec newspapers, that sort of thing-- i got my credits. I did a whole class on Sartre.

Onlooker: For a hippie he sure is uptight. (I had shaggy hair, wore a few hemp necklaces and was unshaven-- so what.)

Me:Hippy. Me a fucking hippy. Jesus Christ. I'm no fucking hippy retard.

Admin: Calm down. You have to get six credits in French or no degree. Simple as that.

Me:Fuckaround.

So fuck them and fuck me because I have no degree. So I can't send squat back to anyone. I had a friend who said one night when we were all getting drunk at the local "It's too bad a smart guy like you got stuck working in the oil patch". Fuck him too.

People should be pissed

2007-03-21T17:45:00.000-07:00

I recently lent my father a copy of a Penn and Teller Bullshit DVD I bought. An entire episode was devoted to explaining the myths about recycling. (IE. we are running out of land fill space, recycling paper is a not beneficial—it is a manufacturing process that has nasty chemical by products…etc.)A great watch for anyone interested in one of the great statist tricks of the 20 century. Anyway today I asked him if he had watched the episode on recycling.

He said. “No I can’t get through the episode. I get half way through and my head feels like it going to explode. I can feel the veins popping out. I get so freaking mad I want to smash the TV. I sit there gripping the remote thinking those stupid corrupt rotten thieving cocksuckers. They steal our money. They force us to pay for it. And they made it all up and all anybody says is “oh well”. It reminds me of when I was in college in the early seventies and everyone was saying we were in the beginning of another ice age. I used sit in the bar on campus and listen to some knockneed jackass talk as an expert on something he knew absolutely sweet fuck all about. Things he had only heard mentioned on the radio or in some magazine. They didn’t know themselves. Nobody verified. Fucking sheep. Where are those people now? They just passively listened. I know where they are now. Here we have this Gore guy claiming there’s going to be 30 feet of water in New York in 50 years. Something which he knows squat about. And the best part is that his only solution is to give away all of our money to the fucking Chinese and Russians. Why? What the fuck for? Why would I give my money to them? Those corrupt bastards. Who does that help? What the fuck is going on with the world? You know why they want us to give our money to the fucking Russians and Chinese Right? It’s those fuckers that print money. The world banks, the Federal Reserve. Socialize the world and control the money supply. Drive the world in submission through poverty. Make the rich poor and poor, well keep them poor too. Fuck them. No breaks for anyone. Everybody just shit ass poor. Anyway no I haven’t finished it yet.

My dad could kick your dad’s ass.

Statist Conservatism

2007-03-20T17:09:00.000-07:00

Statist-conservatism

Conservative movements used to be associated with the principles of limited government, fiscal accountability, free markets and the rule of law. In a free society Government’s job was to defend the rights of individual citizens and provide protection for the country. Taxation was kept to a minimum to limit government incessent drive toward interventionism. The lessons were numerous. A rich king was an unimpeded king. The same lesson applies today. The more money a government has access to the more power it has. The more power it has the less accountable it is. The less accountable it has to be the more freedom suffers. As a government’s purse is restricted the less ability it has to define, control and determine society.

Before it was only outright socialists that fought for big controlling governments but now conservatives also believe in big intervening governments. Yesterday the Conservatives Party of Canada increased spending another 7.9 % for 07. The only difference between the Liberal Party of Canada and big Government Conservative Party of Canada is the interest groups they choose to reward and punish. The pigs may
Change, but the trough is always full.

Differences between the Conservative party and Liberals in Canada at this exact minute--as without principle who know what Harpers' next fancy will be.

They prefer farmers to subsidizing the unemployed
They prefer subsidized manufacturers to the middle class... This goes without linking or saying-- who else pays for all the free rides?
They prefer small business to students
They used to prefer roughnecks to hippies, but now they prefer the eco-righteous to the productive-- once again no link or proof necesarry.
But like Liberals they prefer the French to everyone else

Great thinkers

2007-03-10T08:27:00.000-08:00

Saturday morning and I am reading a book by Thomas Sowell, and I came a cross this quote by Milton Friedman

A society that puts equality-- in the sense of equality of outcome-- ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end in the hands of the people who use it to promote their own interests.

M. Friedman

Simple, precise and absolutely true.

Not Again-- Pragmatism and North Korea

2007-02-13T17:26:00.000-08:00

Well I seem to read this headline on an annual basis “North Korea agree to stall nuclear program for xxx million or billions of dollars” Yay! I wonder if they will ever fire back up. I wrote this essay on North Korea 3 years ago… It still applies

Every now and then philosophy, in spite of itself, has the ability to permeate our modern lexicon and pop culture. Some deep thinker amidst subjective dilemma finds himself spurned on to create words that describe, and are only applicable to, their specific mental angst and pretty soon every trendy intellectual can orate a vague sense of the word. Freud gave the women at the art galleries “Oedipus” and Sartre gave the middle class rebel “existentialism”. Thomas Dewey gave us today’s favorite — pragmatism. The people that can define pragmatism usually do so with one of the following statements “thinking outside of the box” or “using creative and innovative techniques to solve old problems”. It’s a term that is thought of as progressive and intellectual compared to the stagnant “dogma”, a good word that the church probably destroyed with its own type of historical propagandize. The truth is though that pragmatism is a philosophical term coined by American intellectuals William James and Thomas Dewey, and it’s a doctrine that defines truth as “that which works”, meaning to evaluate situations and solve problems without set principles or preconceived notions of what is right.

Harry Sterling, former diplomat and Ottawa based commentator is one of these people. Recently he issued an article proclaiming the virtues of pragmatic thinking compared to the “hard line”, meaning principled approach George Bush assumes when dealing with North Korea. Staying true to the idea that truth is arbitrary and bound to perceptual instances, he demonstrated three cases where pragmatic thinking has succeeded internationally. His first example is Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi offering of humanitarian assistance in exchange for “Pyonyang admit[ing] what it had long denied, that in the 1970’s and 80’s it had kidnapped 11 Japanese citizens”.

The Prime Minister eventually pertained a commitment to let the remaining Japanese leave at some undecided point in the future. Mr. Sterling presumably uses an example like this to point out that a hard line dictum that forbid humanitarian assistance to Communist dictators that kidnap citizens abroad wouldn’t have generated what was needed most in solving the conflict: introductions and the establishment of cordial relations. Even though the admission of guilt was achieved through extortion, the problem was solved, the reader remembering “the truth is that which works”.

Next Mr. Sterling points out that just last May, based on his earlier visit, “Koizumi paid another visit to North Korea and in exchange for the release of five North Korean-born offspring of kidnapped Japanese, Koizumi promised Pyongyang $10 million dollars US, plus 250, 000 tons of food aid.” Typically Mr. Sterling doesn’t exactly say what he has achieved, so I will have to speculate, that the resolution’s aim was to free the kidnapped Japanese and if aid is what was needed to achieve this, then they should do it. Never speculating that the solution legitimizes North Korea’s kidnapping of international citizens’ in the eyes of its own people and the rest of the world. The aid, along with propaganda proclaiming Kim Jong II’s benevolence and western corruption, distributed to the loyal bureaucrats of Pyongyang while the rural population, the real victims of his policies starve to death. And worse yet, based on North Korea’s own pragmatic models of thinking: If money is needed, trade hostages, if hostages run low kidnap more!

Mr. Sterling proceeds to give another example, this time of Australia’s foreign minister promising Pyongyang “substantial benefits of aid and investment if Pyongyang would abandon its nuclear program”. North Korea predictably agreed to “freeze” and “stall” their program for partial aid. And now the author has represented his greatest goal, the stalling of North Korea’s nuclear program in contrast to Bush, who has not achieved anything close to this. Once again never suspecting what North Korea might invest its financial aid in, possibly more weapon proliferation technology, and even worse Mr. Sterling never even begins to presume what will happen when North Korea next needs aid or investment again. Further contemplating his pragmatic solutions is the moral question of whether it is right for governments to loot the earned wealth of its own citizens to support corrupt dictators that starve their populations, who use the transferred wealth for building bigger, and even more dangerous militaries.

The common theme of all Mr. Sterling’s examples is that of compromise. The compromise of the earned wealth of free productive citizens for the sake of friendly relations with an unpredictable, maniacal, kidnapping despot, a despot who’s only contribution is this dangerous compromise is his admission of crimes everyone knew he already committed. What else do we receive for millions of dollars and thousands of tons of food? For his, an admitted liar’s promise of “stalling” an openly hostile nuclear program. How does this method of compromise protect us from the next irrational demand of money? And the answer is that it doesn’t, because pragmatic thinking is only concerned inherently, with the current kidnapping. As a philosophical principle, a statement which in itself is ant-pragmatic, pragmatism isn’t concerned with conceptual long range planning, as its truths are dependant on the immediate and its individual dynamics. And since the future can’t be predicted neither can the principles which will be needed to solve the problems, essentially making principles redundant and worthless.

Some other examples of pragmatic thinking was the funding of a young tyrant named Saddam Hussein to fight the spread of Shiite fundamentalism (the original suicide bombers). Only conceptual, long range, abstract thinking could have predicted that funding one dictator to fight another to a bloody stalemate was only going to create two dictators or said differently twice the problem. But Mr. Sterling would argue that if the goal was to stall Iran, and establish instant stability, then it was achieved. He admittedly wouldn’t be concerned with the fact that they, the Americans were the ones that legitimized Saddam’s power, and gave him credibility in the eyes of Iraqi citizens, all the while undermining America’s own position as an impartial foreigner.

Spain’s agreement to pull its troops out of Iraq after the destruction of a train full of its citizens solved their immediate problem of safety, but only further entrenched the idea that the best way to get results from the west is through extortion, which has endangered countless amounts of people for an immeasurable amount of time in the future.

The opposite of a pragmatic solution is one based on principles. The Canadian Oxford dictionary defines a principle as a “fundamental truth or law decided on the basis of reasoning”. Only long range planning and reasoning would have predicted that compromising with terrorists would only encourage more terrorism and legitimize terrorism in the eyes of the terrorists; exactly what has happened since the pragmatic compromises of Spain and Philippines with Islamic terrorists.

It’s important to have principle because men are fallible. Men may be fooled on a perceptual level some of the time, but most men are not fooled on a perceptual level consistently. Countless bad decisions have been made on the whims and strivings of individuals thus we develop agreed upon principles. We call these agreed on principles the constitution. Constitutions are meant to give our hardest and most conflicting problems paradigms for solution. The American constitution was devised on the principle of protecting individual rights against the intrusion of government or other men. Thus laws were formulated on the predication or guideline of protecting individual rights. Laws devised contrary to the protection of rights were deemed unconstitutional and avoided. Principles take into account what the consequences of various solutions might be, in that giving men philosophical guidelines when making emotionally charged complex decisions, so that they’re not blinded by the immediate and short term. It would be a principle that declares “we do not deal with terrorists”, making hostages useless politically, it’s pragmatic thinking that declares “we deal with terrorist some of the time so try us!”

The worst part about principally based nations using pragmatic means to arrive at solutions is that they undermine their very own philosophical foundations of being a nation that has principles in the first place. Pragmatism, by its very nature makes truth arbitrary. It says that there is no universal truth, that having values is wrong. Using pragmatic solutions to solve some problems logically extends to denouncing the use of principles in all situations. It says the key to solving problems is by dealing with each one problem as an individual entity, ignoring all similar problems, previous models, and possible consequences, as each situation is immensely complicated and dynamic, so generalizations and dogma are useless. Ignoring the fact that the very idea that contemporary problems are so complicated leaves them even more vulnerable to the irresponsible or faulty indiscretion of one person or any small group of peoples faced with conflicting perceptual messages.

Principles can be reached objectively from an emotional distance, decided upon by debate, and judged with reason, so we won’t be dependent on instincts and whims when we’re in desperate and uncertain moral predicaments.

What the hell is a pacifist Communist?

2007-01-12T17:23:00.000-08:00

I want to rehash a little paradoxical nostalgia. A conversation I once had with a friend. He was a good guy—liked to drink, fight, tell wild stories and explore life. We met due to unforeseen circumstances after a night of heavy drinking—we were going to fight. In the end both of us and another friend took a pretty good beating from bouncers. He was tough little son of a bitch. I liked that. I though I was a tough little son of a bitch too. It was an easy understanding to start out with. About a year later things got fucked up and we both wound up in University. There were three us. Two writers and a painter (artist for you academics) walking from one world into another. Four years later and an English degree later the university had killed his brain. He fell under its pseudo rebel spell. It started out with a Noam Chomsky book and ended with a conversation we had. The transformation was gradual. The conversation was not:

Pipeliner writer: Well I’m a pacifist Communist.

Angryroughneck: You can’t be a pacifist Communist. That’s impossible.

:Pipeliner writer: What do you mean? I’m against war and I believe in Communal living. What’s wrong with that?

Angryroughneck: Well what if I say no?

Pipeliner writer: No to what?

Angryroughneck: No to everything. No to you taking my house, my money, my land, no to you telling me where to work, where to live, no to you telling me which books to read and how to educate my children. No to everything!

Pipeliner writer: Well I wouldn’t do those things?

Angryroughneck: How do you think they are decided under Communist rule?

Pipeliner writer: Well if everyone shared--

Angryroughneck: I already told you once, fucking well NO! So what do you do about it? Do you just sit idly by? Because then other people would tell you no, and then the system would crumble. How do you enforce communism if you are against violence? It’s a logical absurdity.

Pipeliner writer: I would reason with you.

Angryroughneck: I told you fucking no. Pretend I’m crazy and it’s impossible to convince me. Pretend. So what do you do then?

Pipeliner writer: You’re impossible to reason with!

He walked away from the table. Most conversations with collectivists end this way. It’s sad when friendships do. It’s a wonder I like to stay home and drink too much beer.

Peace

2007-01-09T13:25:00.000-08:00

Leftism loves to simplify. For the left war is always a choice. To fight or not to fight that is the question. You either want war or you don’t. And by the same intellectual rules of engagement—peace is a choice as well. Thus young idealists make peace their primary principle, believing all other conflicts can be sorted out in a rational matter as long as we make peace a primary principle.

This may be true. If you are unwilling to believe in anything then most likely you would be unwilling to fight for anything as well. Thus, it goes without saying, if the slave owner arrives and demands servitude from you then you can secure your peace by accepting servitude. Simply put— if you are unwilling to fight for liberty then you will not have to. A value is defined as that which you are willing to work for or work to maintain. Conflicts arise when people cannot agree on primary values. Americans agree on the primary values of reason and freedom that is why they can peacefully disagree about the price of a specified commodity without violence— because the buyer respects the seller’s right to choose his own price (freedom to choose being the higher principle). For the pacifist making peace a priority value is in effect the negation of the peace proprietor’s other values. He has relinquished all of his values to maintain peace. These values include freedom, equality, freedom of expression, and the right to own land.

So the academic points out my example of the acceptable negotiation of contracts and claims we need to do the same on a global stage with such matters as occupation, boarders, and nuclear weapons. But how do you negotiate with a gun? How do you reason with a terrorist? How do you compromise freedom—it either is or isn’t? The answer is that you cannot because they do not accept liberty as a value. Primary values cannot be compromised. The terrorist’s primary value is Allah so where is the recourse? Once again you either are or you’re not. The only choice is to fight or surrender.

Peace is a symptom of shared values. The best way to limit war is by repressing government’s power which is done by limiting their taxation abilities, their power to redistribute and create wealth through legislation— a constitution.

No two liberal democracies have ever gone to war with each other and that is not a coincidence.

The Evolution of Socialism

2006-11-12T17:00:00.000-08:00

Collectivism believes in the concentration of power at the expense of individual freedoms and rights. The state is controlled by a ruling elite which determines the law. The source of rights under a collectivist paradigm is the feelings or whims of the controlling group. Under this ideological variant, rights are nothing more than the permissions granted to him by other men. Man must ask for permission to live. Communism, Fascism, Socialism, theocracies, and military Dictatorships are all forms of Collectivism.

Towards the middle of the twentieth collectivism was becoming an obvious perceptual failure. While it secured power for small groups of ruling elites it was manifested practically in different forms of evil to the public— war, poverty, oppression, famine, and social unrest. Its failing were obvious to most people. While it triumphed morally —selfless sacrifice is noble and self interest is evil, it failed practically—massive amounts of unnecessary death. It produced an evidently miserable, poor and oppressive culture in its Communist forms —Germany, China and Russia. It was failing in its theocratic forms, even while being home to the largest oil reserves in the world – the Islamic Democratic Socialism of Iran, Algeria, and Iraq. And to make matters worse it was also performing miserably in its less violent socialist forms— the welfare states of Great Britain, America, France and Canada were mired in stagnation and recession with all the typical consequences of high unemployment, high taxation, and high inflation.

Eastern and Middle Eastern Collectivists responded by typically Authoritarian means—contemporary Islamic Fascism, Chinese pragmatic Communism, and Eastern European Oligarchs are their current forms. All are still violent, prone to war and poverty, and culturally oppressive. And of course power is still confined to a small group who believe they are acting in society’s best interests.

Socialism responded differently. They didn’t panic. Once again they took a more subtle action. They publicly disavowed their own propaganda. They conceded the failure of bureaucratic control, central planning and scientific production. They admitted free markets were more effective in controlling production. This was ingenious compared to the crude methods employed by their inarticulate brethren.

Socialism never was about equality. That’s the propaganda they used to influence the public sentiments. Socialism like all other forms of collectivism is about power and who has it. Power is needed to control, protect and engineer society. Socialism believes in securing power through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Enforced Democratic measures by the western world ensured the need for a gradual secession of power combined with a subtler mechanism used to manipulate wealth compared to the overtly violent Communists means.

Socialism traditionally secured wealth and consequently power through the nationalization of industry. They preached the benefits of scientific planning and altruism. The Canadian Government, like most other western democracies, have owned or still do own monopolies, in the oil, timber, hydroelectric, television, communications, railroad, aviation, mail delivery, and medicine industries. The problem was that the public failure of these controls was too obvious to maintain power for a prolonged period of time in a truly democratic country. The common citizen dealt with the inefficient bureaucratic mechanism every day. He saw how his tax dollars were being spent and wasted every day far too clearly for government to be comfortable. All the moral propaganda in the world couldn’t combat the evident economic failures of social planning.

The seizure of wealth prevents a truly independent class form arising in society. If government controls the wealth then one must act accordingly to obtain it within society. Socialist Collectivists understood this. It was not necessary to own the industry’s production it was only necessary to control its profits. They admitted central planning was a failure. They relinquished their burdensome monopolies and began to sell public assets to private individuals (albeit individuals who were very friendly with the ruling collectivists—Maurice Strong) and immediately began to fervently regulate and outrageously tax every component of business.

This solved multiple problems. It allowed Collectivists to deflect criticism while still controlling power. They were allowed to unload the burden of complex industry production while still maintaining control of its profits. It hid their ineptness from the public and placed the blame on distant corporations. They could tax all production at 48% (second only to China— meaning that 48 cents of every created dollar of worth passes through government coffers before redistribution) which allowed them to maintain financial control of the country.

The entrepreneur is too small of a minority to resist government coercion. Morally, he is condemned by the public— through government controlled influence: education, artistic funding, and academic propaganda. And to further ensure citizen obedience, it is made obvious that his wealth is always closely tied to the arbitrary legislation of the ruling collectivist government. See NEP, Interest Rate fluctuation, and most recently Income Trust legislation.

While Socialism has evolved its collectivist premises remain unchanged—maintain power.

ART

2006-10-16T22:05:00.000-07:00

I read this over at http://www.invisiblehand.ca/

"Help the poor socialitesMost of the candidates seemed to think art subsidies are necessary, because otherwise the Eastern media would look down their noses at us uncultured hicks. Morton was the only exception, saying something to the effect of "when goverment subsidizes art, it ultimately hurts our arts scene, because the artists spend their time sucking up to the government instead of working on their art." He then indicated that he would increase the tax write-off for donations to art groups."

It got me rehashing the same old fire....

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.

Through out history artists, thinkers, and creators have fought for their right to expression regardless of cultural norms. The Salon arbitrary standards were viewed as oppressive and were not acceptable. Today the artistic community no longer views the oppressive Salon as bad for art. In fact, like everyone else living in a mixed economy they coo for its affection, believing it to be the only viable path in achieving their aims.

Why is it the duty of society ti support the Artist?

The artistic community continually links a lack of taxpayer support to the “inevitable demise of art”. This is ridiculous-- men have always created. it goes much deeper than monetary reward. man creates to understand. men create out of compulsion. It is how we survive.

The mistake a politically motivated subculture has made:

They’ve 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. A mixed economy philosophy alienates 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 clinging to collectivist cliches crying "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 earner's consciousness expanded by his forced support of books he doesn't read or by art he doesn't appreciate? 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, and culture are beyond the abilities of a 12 person board?

The Vagueness of Private Property in Canada

2006-09-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

I moved into a cookie cutter home in a new suburb development in west Edmonton two years ago. The home purchase, my first has raised some interesting questions about who really owns the land which I am paying for.

As soon as the neighborhood was city to start moving into the city came around and coercively planted a tree on everyone’s property without seeking permission. The tree forced my neighbor to re-rout his driveway foundation to include the “city” tree. He vehemently fought against the forced planting as he had already planted a tree for aesthetics. The city refused his protest and threatened force (a fine). My neighbor relented and accepted the “city” owned tree.

Two out of every three houses in the entire neighborhood have these “city” trees planted on their front lawns now. Last summer all of the trees started to die—wrong climate for this particular tree. The city spent last summer and this summer aggressively watering the trees. The city paid private contractors to water the “city” trees, which nobody wanted, planted on their private property in the first place, twice a week, with more taxpayer money.

Three weeks ago the city gave up and marked all of the dying trees for removal.

Never mind the obvious and predictable bureaucratic failure to socially engineer a neighborhood’s aesthetics (like people in new neighborhoods have no incentive to decorate their own yards). I want to compare this fact with another property fact that has been raised this summer.

Last week I decided to build a two foot high 10 x 12 foot deck in back yard. I was informed I would need a permit or the deck would be illegal. The permit costs $170.

So in light of these facts I want to summarize Canada’s practical stance on Private property.

1. I purchased the land with a contract. I supposedly own the property.
2. The city plants an arbitrarily chosen tree on my property without ever seeking my permission. In fact the tree was forced on to me. I, like my neighbor, had already chosen which tree I wanted to plant in my front yard. The issue was not up for debate. The city had already mandated where and which trees would be planted.
3. Next when I wanted to build a small deck on my property (a necessity with a raised rear door). I was told I would need the city’s permission or the deck would be illegal and I would be fined.

So why do I need the city’s permission to build a deck on my property when they don’t need my permission to arbitrarily plant trees on my property? Who really owns the property? The logical implication is that the city owns the land and I just use or rent the land.

Slum Landlords

2006-08-23T09:37:00.000-07:00

This makes me laugh. Today on my way to work I have to listen to our idiot mayor— this is somewhat redundant as all city council types fall under this generalization— proclaiming that he is going to crack down on slum landlords through bylaw enforcements.

Okay, go ahead force all landlords to repair basement foundations, replace window treatments, re-do their wall insulations, roofing repairs…. Etc. Well this all sounds well and good until he passes the costs onto the tenants. So now the $350 rent check has to be raised $525 to pay for all of the repairs and now the rental tenants can no longer afford to live there. We can make all homes palaces but those costs are always passed onto the dweller. People do not get into business to lose money.

Low cost rental housing is a niche market used by people who do not have a lot financial options and these are the people directly hurt by Mandel’s imposition. To reduce low rental housing options only hurts those who are dependant on that market.

Everyone loves to belittle “slum” landlords as if this is a lucrative market where fat cats landlords live the high life through their ability to bully and cheat tenants. This is a lie propagated by Hollywood in the 80’s (their attempt to discredit Regan). Slum landlords are businessmen that deal with extremely small profit margins. Do you not think these people if they had the capital would love to deal with high end, expensive properties? Do you think that they prefer dealing with drug dealers, pimps and other unstable clients that make up a large percentage of their clientele? No, like all other people on this messy planet they are doing their best to utilize the resources available to them to make a living, so while painting “slum” landlords as scapegoats may be beneficial politically but it is virtually useless as a strategy to upgrade housing.

You want to fix up housing. Get rid of capital gains taxes. People would trip over their feet trying to get into the house refurbishing business. But without economic incentive houses will continue to be run down to the point they are only profitable in the low rental situations.

How Terror is Funded

2006-07-19T14:15:00.000-07:00

How do Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Queada afford to maintain highly advanced weaponry and guerilla forces. Don’t tell me wealthy financiers like Bin Laden can afford to sustain numerous military programs— military programs that have the ability to stockpile 13,000 Hi-Tec Chinese rockets? Montreal charity scams couldn’t build a single gold palace or even feed a single caliphate harem. How do rogue nations gain the capital required for nuclear ambitions? Taxation— no. If technology is purchased in Dollars or Euros then how many unregistered falafel stands does it take to finance a nuclear generator. And these nations supposedly fund Hezbollah, Al Queada and Hamas? So where does the money come from?.

I’ll tell you where. Bank Loans. Bank loans from American and European banks. Sure taxation from a repressed and economically stagnant culture can’t pay for weapon technologies up front but it can pay the interest on the massive bank loans which could fund their purchase and development.
Why would banks do this?

Banks are encouraged to send highly risky loans with high margins—a loan of a billion dollars with only a 3% return is still a 3 million dollar yearly profit. Add to this the fact that the mandrake mechanism virtually allows the banks to create the money out of nothing—which means they are not using their own money. Yes they create the money out of nothing and then profit from the interest charged on the loan. And finally even if the debtors eventually can’t pay (which they fully expect) and have to default. No problem. All loans are backed by the Federal Reserve or the European equivalent meaning that loans are guaranteed through taxation—the hidden tax of inflation. Meaning simply the Federal Reserve has guaranteed it will print the money to cover the loan if it goes bad—see all African loans. This method of guaranteeing loans only succeeds in devaluing already printed and earned dollars. Your dollars and my dollars.

More motives for bank loans from European and American banks.

The funding of terrorist guerilla forces destabilizes other countries (legitimate or not) in those regions. The funding of the Islamic Chechnyan rebels predicated Russia’s need to increase their own military might which necessitates the need for further bank loans to fund the Russian military expansion—remembering that the bank is only expecting to live off the interest payments. Now the bank collects interest from additional loans. Next the funding of terrorist groups, rogue states, and fledging countries alike necessitates an increase in military output in Free states—states such as Israel, England and America. Who profits from all of this instability? Banks whose loans are guaranteed in the first place by either the WTO or Federal Reserve.

The only way to rescue the world from constant war is a return to the gold standard. Returning to the gold standard would destroy the bank’s ability or a country’s ability to print money to fund profit with no risk.

How Government works

2006-07-02T08:52:00.000-07:00

Via the Canadian Taxpayer Federation (print edition)

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Parliament said "someone may steal from it at night" so they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Parliamant said "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write instructions, and one person to write the schedule.

Then Parliament said "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a quality control Department and hired three people. One to create the quality control measures, one to write the reports, and one to measure performance.

Then Parliamant said "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created a payroll department and hired four people: a time keeper, a payroll officer, a payroll clerk, and a chequebook administrator.

Then Parliament said, "who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired five people: an administrative officer, assistant administrative officer, secretary, an accoutant, and an auditor.

Then Parliament said, "we have this scrapyard in operation for only one year and we are already $750,000 over budget, we must cut back overall cost.:

So they laid off the night watchman.

Equalization

2006-06-10T14:29:00.000-07:00

Canadian Premiers met last week and predictably they spent the entire time clamoring for more money. Instead of concentrating on the opening up of inter-provincial trade or reducing Ottawa’s centralist approach the socialist Premiers whined for more money from the nanny state. They want non-renewable resources included in the revenues for the calculation of transfer payments. IE Quebec and the usual suspects want Alberta’s oil money. Alberta responded with the usual intellectually defunct response of “Stay away from our money.”

Why does Alberta cower behind empty threats? Explain yourself Klein. Socialism is a complete failure. Regardless of what our public education has taught us Socialism has failed everywhere in the world it has been tried. It has only caused famines, wars, shortages and stagnation. Transferring money from the oil workers of Alberta to the dairy farmers of Quebec is economically ludicrous in 21 century. Wealth redistribution hurts the average person. Stealing form productive ventures to subsidize failing ones only succeeds in lowering our overall standard of living.

Freedom of association and open boarders make wealth transfers regressive and completely unnecessary. Any individual is free to decide where he lives, where he works and how he provides for his or her life in this country. If the oil runs out I’ll go and mill lumber. Why should some individuals have to subsidize others? For the superficial reason of—they don’t want to move? Because migration is against their rights? An individual has the right to decide where they live but they also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of this choice.

And this is all too predictable. The only way socialism can expand its wealth—which is what Quebec, the Maritimes and Saskatchewan are logically trying to accomplish—is by stealing more. How did Soviet Russia gain more wealth? By conquering more countries and looting their productive recourses. See Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. Certain provinces are trying to loot successful business interests through the peaceful process of legislation to prop up their failing ever redundant bureaucracies. Free states earnestly increase their wealth through increasing their production capacities.

Should we have subsidized horse shoe makers when the automobile was invented? Should the state have supported ice salesmen when the first refrigerator appeared left them without work? It is a shame that many Canadians are duped by this Keynesian nonsense. Public education has created hordes of listless, apathetic and unquestioning drones. Stealing from citizens to support state aims is immoral in age where we have the earned means to increase our liberties and freedoms.

Senate Reform

2006-06-01T10:39:00.000-07:00

So Harper has taken the first tenative steps towards reforming the senate. Not enough but a start. I could fill a book on why reform is morally necessary but instead I want to talk about why the Canadian government model is so susceptible to corruption.

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:

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. 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 while the party officials “vote” in their 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)

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. As well there are zero 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 MinisterAmericans 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 are appointed to the Supreme court by the Prime Minister without a legislative vote. The (Canadian) system allows judges 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

Sports and Canada's lack of culture

2006-05-25T13:23:00.000-07:00

“You can’t worry about hurt feelings when you’re trying to be the best in the world.” Another great quote from Canadian colonialist Dick Pound, a man that wanted Canada to spend 50 million more per year on Olympic funding in lieu of the government awarding a paltry 19.1 million extra to subsidize the ever growing Olympic bureaucratic. Let me remind you that Canada sent more administrators than athletes to the Greek games, and in fact more than any other country in the world.

The media viewed the 19.1 million-dollar increase as disappointing and some even linked the deficiency of government funding to Canada’s lack of culture. The argument was simple to follow: Olympic participation is unifying and nationalist, so if we want Canadians to develop a sense of unity or togetherness, we should subsidize athletes, as they inherently lead us to feeling “Canadian”, through their sporting deeds, exemplary work ethic, and recognized international accomplishments.

An argument like this is often hashed in coffee shops, university bars, and political forums, and much to the working man’s dismay he’s often not present at these gatherings, because he’d be the only one to note that Canada does have a sporting culture and that’s hockey.
Hockey’s played by roughly 12 million Canadians. It’s played everywhere, on small prairie outdoor rinks, in the arctic, on reservations, suburbs, in big Canadian cities, out east as well as in the west. It’s played late at night by men who have to be at work by seven the following morning. When we aren’t playing it we pay to watch it in giant sporting arenas and even more indicting is the fact that a good percentage of us choose our newspapers based on their ability to dissect the left wing lock. Every time the bottle drive or skate-a-thon pledge comes by we eagerly give, which is nothing compared to our mothers who are driving constantly to meet hockey’s time consuming schedule, and when they aren’t driving, or cheering from the stands they work smoky bingos to pay for tournaments. Meanwhile all teams are sponsored by local businesses that are only to proud and happy to pay for jersey’s in exchange for the ability to display the team’s picture. And it’s our dads, uncles and friends that donate the time for coaching and teaching. We voluntarily work hard and coordinate ourselves effectively to raise the money and time required so our kids can play hockey. This kind of comprehensive social activity promotes similarities and consequently culture.

Hockey is an expensive sport due to the price of building, operating and maintaining indoor arenas, and growing children constantly require expensive skates and equipment, and added to this are travel and time costs. Combining these factors hockey is estimated to cost per child roughly $1000 a year to play. And who is it that starts playing hockey each year? It’s young children and naturally it’s their young parents paying. The same young parents that are struggling to support new families, buying their first house, purchase their first new car, and paying off student loans. It is a fact that the tax burden does fall on the middle class in Canada, an income of $40,000 puts you into a 40% tax bracket, while a $200,000 income puts you at 46%. Parents want their children to play hockey, but if the if the professional bureaucrats, media, lobbyists and left wing intelligence had it their way, these are the people who would pay for the 50 million dollar increase to support Olympic sports. These are the people “who’s feeling would be hurt” by Pound’s elitist paternalism.

Consider the fate of a young tradesmen, educated and hardworking with a wife and two children that makes $2500 every two weeks, with the government taking a $1000 to support the never-ending list of subsidized programs. By increasing this man’s taxes to pay for an increase in Olympic funding, you decrease the likelihood that he will be able to afford hockey for his children. An increase in taxed support to subsidize Olympic sports comes at the expense of children playing hockey and somehow this is supposed to increase unity in the community.
Furthermore, let’s consider why certain sports need funding. Generally it’s because there’s no interest in them combined with the unusual necessity of an expensive staging areas required for participation. Thus there’s too few participants to cover the cost needed to sustain the sport. Generally and deservedly these sports would in the past simply die out, except that these sports are generally the pursuits of the upper middle class and wealthy liberal elite. Sports like tressage, equestrian, polo, synchronized swimming, field hockey, ski jumping, fencing, and diving come to mind. If a sport combines the unusual talent of being both unpopular and expensive it will need government interference to survive. So now we can see that a 50 million-dollar increase in taxes to support elitist sports like tressage and bobsledding comes at the expense of less affluent children playing popular but expensive sports like hockey. And this restriction in freedom and obvious class favoritism is supposed to create cultural unity?

And what are the results of this paternal paradigm so far? We have ungrateful athletes claiming the reason they don’t win medals is due to lack of taxpayer funding and poor infrastructure. We have young parents working extra hard that still can’t afford to put their kids into a sport like hockey because of excessive taxation. And we as Canadians think the way to solve this problem is with further regulation? Somehow presuming that increased legislated support for the ungrateful unranked ski jumper is going to supply the average family ample chances for gratitude about the privilege of being Canadian. The same family, which is forced to work an even longer workweek to support the mandated increase, while their own kids are unable to play hockey due to cost restrictions. Culture is arrived only through voluntary participation in activities and anytime support in certain activities becomes mandated, it comes at the expense of other activities, and thus divides those that it was intended to unite.

How leftism destroys the minds of our young

2006-04-26T08:28:00.000-07:00

Young people attend universities to gain the theoretical knowledge needed to guide their practical actions throughout the rest of their lives. But today universities have no interest in such methodology. They in turn teach the countries most impressionable minds that it’s impossible to say anything positive about reality (metaphysics) as “true reality” is distorted by our senses and tainted by our biased mind. And because all knowledge is relative to environments and minds, this serves the purpose of making it all equally relevant and thus ultimately, irrelevant (epistemology). This logically leads earnest students to their predictable conclusions: knowledge is subjective and biased towards social-economic background, which makes ethical (ethics) statements naïve, as they’re the extension of this flawed knowledge. Finally political (politics) statements, are nothing more than the culmination of these individual subjective whims and simply put “whose to say what’s right”! A mind trained with this type of philosophical foundation characterizes the university’s most inquisitive and conscientious minds.The everyday activist is only expounding on the doctrines he’s been taught, treatise which eventually produce the expected existential temperaments of fear and depression, conditions which typify the apologists of relativism, collectivism and existentialism.

It was Kant that first explained so artfully that which is known to us about the world is only known through the filters of our senses, thus leaving us unable to say anything about nature’s true reality. The inability to know or be able to say anything substantial about the real world, amounts to metaphysical nilhism, or said differently existentialism, which, for the sake of its own epistemology, states, that since all knowledge is flawed and relative, the only relevant truth is man's own subjective truth. And we’re surprised that a worldview like this, one in which uncertainty and instability is our usual state, produces citizens filled with neurosis, panic, and insecurity, clinging to collectivist agendas for their dear lives. Reason as a means to fight back has been choked by the philosophical traditions stemming from Kant, Hume, Rousseau, Comte, Dewey, Camus and Chomsky, and today, professors, students, and the left wing in general are all slavish products of this original fatalist philosophy.

Professors lecture under the hip banner of pragmatism. They stake their iconoclastic rebellion on the fact that they take no moral stands, are unwilling to express any viewpoints, and endorse teaching methods that consist of leaderless “group discussions” with the epistemological justification that “there’s no such thing as truth, man”, and “its wrong to judge”.They ignore the idea that a university’s goal should be to equip its students with the ability to judge and evaluate, instead adopting a anti-philosophical base that renders all paradigms of thought as useless. This succeeds only in frustrating and depressing the most eager minds, condemning them to an endless maze of contradiction, hypocrisy and inconsistency, with little chance of discovering any solutions. It’s a tragic situation, worthy of Shakespearean consideration, that students were smart enough to understand the necessary outcomes of what they had been taught, but not independent enough to reject the theories themselves.

These intellectual values have left students without any resources in which to counteract the unknown, for their only resource, the mind was disavowed by their vacuous mentors. Reason is man’s mechanism for comprehending his complex reality. The faculty of reason separates man from common animals and thus is his metaphysical reality: a rational animal, and not one fooled by perceptual knowledge on a consistent basis. Using reason lets man form complex conceptual relationships about reality (perceptual data), allowing him to make objective and abstract conceptual models about reality. Understanding this rationality, man knows his true individuality lay in the fact that he makes his own choices.

This inherent individualism declares he’s a sovereign individual able to make rational choices for himself, which leads to logical respect for other human beings as other rational sovereign individuals, thus affording everyone certain inalienable rights: the right to exist, to be self-sustaining and self-generating. The logical belief in individual rights eventually takes on a political meaning when the question of organization arises. The belief in and respect for individual rights rationally leads to laisser-faire capitalism. Capitalism is the only political system that consistently rewards reason and punishes irrationality. It guarantees freedom and equal opportunity. It bars force from relationships, as all actions are contractual and voluntary. It was capitalism that abolished the aristocracy, eliminated the caste system, and ended slavery. North America is not free by chance, but by choice.

This type of philosophical system produces confident minds able to discriminate between fact and fiction, valuing self-determination over other imposing, corrupt and inefficient forms of organization such as socialism and mixed economies.Instead our intellectuals academics and teachers refute this logic supporting a philosophical base that teaches students, as Ayn Rand once said “existence is an uncharted realm, an unknowable jungle, where fear and uncertainty are man’s permanent state, where skepticism is the mark of maturity, and cynicism is the mark of realism, and above all the hallmark of an intellectual is the denial of the intellect.”

Why Every Proff I ever had was a leftist

2006-04-25T16:04:00.000-07:00

Capitalism tends to provide an objective set of standards for determining "worth". Good products are easily distinguished from bad ones, good ideas in a free society after time defeat bad ones IE nationalizing industry was seen as lucrative from the 40's to the 70's and now it is seen as economically destructive. A free (capitalist) society is built upon the the premis of the"competition of ideas". Good ideas and methods are contantly replacing innefficient practices and beliefs. In a Capitalist society those with the most influance tend to be those that are most productive thus the cliche "money talks." Production is open to everyone and is not dependent on just one single trait (you can make money based on creativity, work ethic, brains, technical understanding, connections... the list is endless as long as you have one of them then you are free to capitalize on this trait in a free society.)

Academic leftism isn't based on the economic evidence of wealth redistrobution, or philosophical truths rather Liberals prefer leftism de-facto because of their hatered of capitalism (their love of Socialism isn't based upon Marx's theories of suplus and capital-- few have even studied marx -- Thanks D'Souza for writing Illiberal education). Liberals believe that the largest share of wealth in a society should be controlled by its most intelligent citizens-- namely proffessors, artists,bureacrats, the over educated, planners and regulators-- themselves!

Liberal Elites cringe to see an unkept redneck Albertan with sagging jeans and a sweat stained T-Shirt pulling out his wallet packed with hundreds. They see it as unjust that someone so uncouth could aquire so much capital. Think about this. The same Socilaist that champions the causes of the worker has disdain for him once he acquires wealth.Leftism exploits the disenfranchised in its conquest for control The unproductive sycophant preaching Marx for $100 000 is trying to acheive power through the only way he has been trained-- by the manipulation of society.

Medicare Quacks

2006-04-21T11:30:00.000-07:00

Friends of Medicare and Socialist tyrants everywhere are trumpeting proudly over the collapse of the Albertan “Third Way”. The Medicare tyrants believe our healthcare system promotes justice benefiting the common Joe when in fact their ignorance of markets and the principles of freedom endanger the very people they claim to protect.

I want to present two actual scenarios and ask the lefties out there to respond. I would like to hear about their subjectively concluded definition of fairness.

I work with a man who has spent 30 years in the oil patch and now needs both of his knees replaced. His knees are destroyed and at the young age of 51 he spends everyday dealing with chronic pain and has to take a shitload of pills to deal with it. Well you say get his knees fixed then. Well the doctors won’t do it because he is too young for the surgery. Our benevolent healthcare system doesn’t want to do the surgery twice. So if they replace them now then he will have to have them replaced again before he dies. So between the still productive of ages of 45 to 57 they have expected him to live in constant pain so that when he is an old man he will have good knees. This is a man that made good wages his whole life, paid taxes his whole life and now he is expected to suffer. How has the Canadian way helped him?

I know another man that was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. He was told further testing would be needed to confirm the initial diagnosis. The tests couldn’t be done for another nine weeks. The doctor told him that was too long and he should go to the States if he could afford it. He re-mortgaged his house to pay for the testing down south. It was lucky he did because the American doctor told him a nine week wait would have probably killed him. He paid for the surgery and was back home within a week. How did free healthcare help this man? Does anybody ever calculate how many people have tied in a waiting line in Canada? Do you think this survivor resents the fact he had to re-mortgage his house in order to save his life? No. He resents a government that makes it illegal to save his own life. It is illegal in Canada to pay for your own medical costs! This is immoral.

How did the friends of Medicare help these men? Should the Friends of Medicare be held responsible for this needless suffering? Why is it illegal to take care of your own health needs?

It still needs to be said...

2006-04-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

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 blame 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.

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 causem of this inequality is not unfair job laws but rather it is class of rigidity--- which is a direct and predictable consequence of the rampant socialism France and leftists triumphantly endorse.

Ignorantly they blame capitalist exploitation and unfair labor law as its cause. It is socialism that prohibits upward mobility, so if you arrive as a poor immigrant, you are most likely to die as one, as terribly 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.

Alberta Venture

2006-03-29T18:47:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-22T18:29:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-21T14:22:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-19T17:14:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-06T17:10:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-05T10:55:00.000-08:00

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

Why Anarchy is Leftist

2006-02-19T09:40:00.000-08:00

I have recieved some well thought out comments on my liberty posting so i shall continue to evovle the definition.

Although it has been acknowledged that liberty is not anarchy the assertion that anarchy is collectivist—statist ideology is being challenged. So I shall explain the logic. What makes anarchy a leftwing ideology is that as it necessarily leads to tribalism. Tribalism is form of governance where the individual’s rights are subordinated to the group’s desires, needs ands wants—legitimate or not. Under a tribal existence men have no moral right to exist for themselves which makes it contradictory the creed of liberty.

Easy enough to say but why does anarchy necessarily mean tribal governance. Because the individual has no way to protect his interests (his property and family) without the backing of a group which leads to him to being dependent on some sort of group affiliation to secure protection from other potential rouge groups. I define anarchy as a lawless state. The individual is inevitably coerced into seeking group protection for the purpose of survival.

Under anarchism the individual has no recourse against potential violence done against him which compels him to join a group. A free state is based on the banning of compulsion and force and a lawless state guarantees the prevalence of both. Without group association the individual must be on constant guard against potential intruders. In no way is this type of citizen free to pursue his values in a rational way as he is dependent on the mercy of thugs for his existence rather than his own production.

One commenter makes the common example of ideal Native American anarchism. But for me Indigenous North America is a perfect example of how a lawless society necessarily leads to a tribal existence. How easy was it for the laymen Aztec to protest the practice of human sacrifice? To protest immoral arbitrary coercion? He would surely be killed or expelled. A native expelled from his tribe lived a dangerous life. He was vulnerable to attacks from any marauding group or tribe he encountered. His was a life that had little in common with liberty as it was entirely dedicated to rudimentary survival.

A tribal society is ruled by the group dynamic which overrides the interests of the individual. The group always holds the power of force or expulsion over the individual and while ensuring obedience tribalism this coercion has the negative connotation of stagnating free expression and the competition of ideas thus ensuring group misery and limited freedom.
.
Another example used was Russia which also demonstrates the inevitable consequences of a lawless society. Russia is controlled and ruled by the arbitrary whims of various competing Cartels and crime syndicates which are run by strong arming brutes that depend on force—something illegal in capitalism— for results. Lack of law doesn’t mean the citizen is free and in fact means the exact opposite.

"Ask a native about being arrested on 'private' land that is still debated territory. Anybody who doesn't think laws can be arbitrary simply hasn't had the misfortune to be on the other side of the stick."

Defn. of Arbitrary—something that can be neither proven or disproven. For example an arbitrary claim is "if people shared more then there would be world peace." Although ridiculous a statement like this can be either proven or disproven with the application of either logic or evidence. Contrary to arbitrary laws—which have no connection to reality—Objective law can be conceptually proven—although I am not attempting to do that here. The serf ordered to be burned for heresy cannot appeal to logic for his defense because the king is owner of the definition "heresy" While in a free state the compelled serf may appeal to the tenet of free expression and the state is powerless to persecute regardless of their personal interests or definition of heresy.

Objective law can be understood and agreed upon according to its governing principles. For instance in a free society it is arbitrary to persecute the use and sale of marijuana while on the other hand in a free society that protects property rights it is objectively moral to penalize theft. Objective law ensures the freedom to pursue liberty.

Misconceptions about Liberty.

2006-02-17T18:02:00.000-08:00

I received a comment under Intellectual mistakes that is another perfect example of how little people understand liberty. I was attacked for making the obvious association between a free society and the “rule of law”.

"Rule of law' doesn’t 'award liberty', it of course restricts it, that's basic. The more rules there are, the less liberty you have. In a dictatorship the rule of law is absolute, there is only one arbiter, the tyrant. That certainly isn't the opposite of rule of law, a dictatorship is the very definition"

I love that he says “that’s basic”. Oh Is it… Before I point out the false premises that lead to his false conclusion I want to give a brief description of the development of the concept of “liberty”—this is the teaching part.

1) The Greek creation of democracy was far from perfect, but it was the first time in history the citizen was allowed a voting share. Citizen was still an exclusive term but the idea in of itself was fundamentally new and completely opposed the Spartan royal dynasty. The creation of democracy freed citizens from some of the more arbitrary aims of the ruling families, but democracy didn’t guarantees individual rights because the democratic majority can be just as arbitrary as a king. Ideas are paramount once they are discovered they can never be destroyed

2) Rule of law. Romans created the foundation for objective law. Why did everyone want to be a Roman? Because to be a Roman citizen was to be equal before the law. To be equal before the law guaranteed a citizen’s ability to determine his own fate in life. A man can learn the law, but it is next to impossible to predict the moods and bias of a constantly changing ruling elite. For the first time in history man was free from the arbitrary aims and whims of an unpredictable despot or local regulator.

3) The enlightenment—a triumph of reason—bore the American Constitution. The constitution was a declaration of individual rights. It was a ruling charter that guarantted man's freedom from the arbitrary aims of government and democratic mob. It was a document that guaranteed for the first time the citizens freedom to seek his or her happiness.

More on Roman Law….

For the first time in history men were ruled by the concept of objective laws with understood penalties. Previous to this innovation kings, Caliphs, Aristocrats, Sultans, Popes and dukes ruled their citizens arbitrarily—meaning citizens were always in danger of doing something wrong, whether it be not having enough barley on randomly chosen tax day, or spreading heresy, or just looking at the princess wrong. To be ruled arbitrarily and whimsically meant that citizen were unfree to pursue their own liberty as they lived in constant danger of angering some random elite.

Roman law meant men were to be judged equal before the courts irregardless of their race, lineage or class status. Rule of law said “no” to privilege. Roman law effectively guaranteed citizen’s equality. This was a major historical step toward liberty as it freed men from the ever changing unpredictable aims of laws of the ruling thug. Men desired to become Roman because it meant freedom from arbitrary rule. To be roman was far superior than anything else. The freedom from arbitrary governance left men free to pursue their own values and rewards.

"In a dictatorship the rule of law is absolute, there is only one arbiter, the tyrant. That certainly isn't the opposite of rule of law,"

Under a dictatorship law's defining factor isn't that it is “absolute” as all law is logically absolute-- the concept implies absolution-- rather it distinct feature is that it is “arbitrary” .

”You seem a little confused about several items. That 'individual freedom and limited government' forgets the point that other interests can limit your freedom just as easily as government. If a corporation owns all the land in my town, and I want to start a land based business, then my freedom to do that is severely limited.”

The right to your own life doesn’t mean a right to whatever you want. Just because you want some land and can’t have it doesn’t mean your liberty is being denied if the owner doesn’tt give it you. Why would you have the moral right to seize another’s property just because you want to start a business there—that would be arbitrary system of law... a law beacuse someone with power feels like it—the rule of law protects individuals from this type of immoral power.

Liberty isn’t absolute freedom to do whatever you want rather it is the right to exist free from arbitrary coercion. The main flaw made is that the writer presumes liberty is anarchy, which is philosophically and factually untrue. When you associate liberty with lack of laws what you are in fact doing is confusing liberty and anarchy. Anarchy is another form of collectivism and antithetical to individual rights and freedoms.

Political Freedom vs Economic Freedom

2006-02-14T13:48:00.000-08:00

Marxists claim that philosophy is a bourgeois pastime of no relevance to the real world yet this philosophical misunderstanding has lead to over 100 million deaths. "Philosophy" and "Freedom" are not unimportant middle class leisure words but rather they are some of the most important concepts man has ever created and without their understanding we doomed to endless misery, slavery, famine and warmongering.

Intellectual Mistakes

2006-02-10T19:50:00.000-08:00

An interesting comment appeared under Jimmy and the Hamas Gang I like constructive thinking. So I have posted my response.

“Fatah--was corrupt and unaccountable, ciphoning millions of dollars away from the Palestinian people”

When a county’s biggest contributor to GDP is foreign aid you can bet your bottom dollar the government is corrupt. Palestine doesn’t afford it citizen’s religious, political or economic freedom. When the only way to access wealth is through strong arming your way to political power men will inevitably become ruthless in order to gain and maintain power. I acknowledge Fatah is corrupt but this corruption is predictable in an oppressed state which only succeeds in so far as it can procure international welfare.

“Hamas has been building schools and homes and providing clean water for people”.

The soup kitchen is the dictator’s oldest trick. Hitler posed with the elderly. Castro visits the sick. The mob fed the homeless. Nationalism and benevolence are the autocrat’s favorite form of propaganda. Villains always seek to been seen compassionate towards the very misery they are solely responsible for.

“The fact is that "ideology" (at least how you construe the word in your blog) is a throw-away term the leisure classes use.”

Ideology is hardly a “middle class catch word” or a “throw-away term.” It refers to the prevailing moral philosophy of a mind (originating with metaphysics and concluding with politics). It makes resulting actions a predictable result of a mind’s intellectual foundation. Anyone who understands the communist—capitalist dichotomy from either a historical or philosophical perspective realizes the practical implications of opposing ideologies. The difference between slavery and freedom is very real.

But to that point more directly— The way the left, or thinkers sympathetic to socialist aims, discredit concepts (ideology is a concept) is through the collective doctrine of moral equivalence (there are no differences in things. Things are just things. The only difference in things is the words we attach to them—this is how terrorists become freedom fighters and Capitalism and Communism becomes on in the same; two radical ideologies, two interesting words—their actual definitions are obliterated). Moral equivalence is an arbitrary metaphysical and epistemological foundation. Through the virtue of discernment man is able to judge opposing values. Moral equivalence seeks to obliterate the value associated with this productive process.

Individuals and nations governed by principle are less sustebile to whimsical thinking and easily acknowledge that it is immoral to trade with or send aid to a nation whose moral foundation rests upon the destruction of another race.

A first step solution to Iran

2006-02-04T12:00:00.000-08:00

In Bush’s state of the union address he claimed it was imperative to develop alternative forms of energy in order to break the Middle East’s grip on the country—they were in fact funding the very terrorism they were fighting against. American citizen—Gas station—oil company—Ayotollah/kings/dictator/mullah/—radical church/Whabbism—terrorist. We need a plan. So here is one

1) An oil embargo on Iran. Forbid foreign countries from extracting, purchasing or transporting oil or gas from Iran including the United States. This would limit Iran’s potential to generate revenue. Iran is trying to build nuclear weaponry which requires vast amounts of money to create. This is how a country can sit upon one of the largest deposits of one of the most valuable resources in the world and stay dirt poor. Iran nationalized the industry and contracts out the work and spends all of the resulting profits on weaponry.

Ending resource profits will put an even larger strain on an unstable religious dictatorship. Most of Iran’s population is under 30—thanks to the Ayatollah forbidding birth control as soon as he seized power— and presumably they yearn for change from this repressive regime and historically this is the demographic that brings it about. Limiting a dictator’s revenue puts huge strains on his ability to stay in power. Repressive socialist utopias are expensive to fund.

2) This embargo would drive the price of gasoline up in North American, Japan and Europe thus creating a tremendous incentive to invest in technologies relating to alternative energy sources—wind power and hydrogen. As the price of gasoline rises the more one is willing to invest in other more expensive sources of energy. This demand will create greater efficiency in young underdeveloped technologies and eventually leading to less demand for oil and gas.

Next.... Iran and eight cents a liter gasoline.

Jimmy and Hamas Gang

2006-01-31T21:26:00.000-08:00

Last week in Palestine, after overseeing a Hamas victory during federal elections former American President Jimmy Carter once again demonstrated the shallowness of leftwing thinking when he stated "[I believe the electoral victory will have a moderating effect on their ideology]"

Carter believes granting a terrorist group that’s ideology is bent on genocide political powers will be beneficial in the long wrong. He believes pragmatic appeasement is the best process to achieving peace—that appeasing evil is the best way to achieve peace.

So I ask this question—what is the compromise between terror and freedom? Does Carter think the goal is to have Hamas agree to fewer suicide bombers? There can be no compromise with the ideology of genocide. You either believe in the mass murder of Jews or you don’t. You cannot "somewhat" believe in it— you cannot somewhat commit a terrorist attack— you either do or you don’t.

And who does appeasement and endless compromise benefit? It sure isn’t the Jews. In exchange for Arabs temporarily ceasing to blow up their citizens Israel will relinquish more land. What did Israel gain? A brief period of stability before the suicide attacks begin again in pursuit of the next boarder. In fact compromise never benefits the Just. Because the Just is always relinquishing the good (a rightfully gained value—whether it be freedom or property) in exchange for the attacker reducing the amount of evil he will commit. The Just has gained no value. If a mugger demands money it is of no benefit for the victim to affably compromise half of his money.

-Give me your wallet.
-I can only give you half
-Well then you have to agree to not inform the police
-Deal

The victim has relinquished half of his money and the right to persecute his attacker in return the oppressor has gained money which he has no right to and found safety from the law. There can be no compromise between principles. Principles are either/or choices—freedom and slavery—the rational and irrational—honesty and dishonesty.

Carter has once again demonstrated the shallowness of leftwing thinking.

Allan Slater and pacifism

2006-01-22T14:55:00.000-08:00

Last week on a local radio program, Allan Slater of the Christian Coalition for Peace had a chance to explain and promote his upcoming mission. He was about to leave for Iraq in order to promote pacifism to a world wide audience. In his own words he was there to document the plight of the average Iraqi. "War was waged between old men and it was young men that died". His duties included "staying alive and promoting peace" and it was ironic that his actions represented the antithesis to either of these goals unless by peace he meant man acceptance of slavery and genocide and by staying alive he meant saving his own butt through promoting oppression.

You see Allen Slater who does pacifism help? Does pacifism help the oppressed, the victims? No pacifism is only beneficial to the oppressor. Pacifism never helps the victim of a mugging? Pacifism doesn’t ever help victims and in fact it helps the perpetrator, the attacker, dictator, the bully. The victim of an attack receives no benefit fro an onlooker’s "pacifism". He is hoping for no intervention. The oppressors and attackers want people to stay out of the pillaging and genocide. Pacifism is evil’s friend. They are the only ones that receive the benefits of a pacifist creed.

And how does Allan Slater achieve peace? By endlessly compromising values? By being willing to compromise your rational values to whatever whim an attacker, dictator or bully believes. China threatens Taiwan with war and sure death unless they are willing to compromise their values of freedom and democracy. The pacifist would claim well at least being a communist slave is better than fighting and possible injury. This practice of continually compromising your values eventually leads to holding no values. Because really, what’s the point if you are just waiting to compromise them. Imagine the worship of your God being forbidden and having a new religion forced upon you. The pacifist, a glassy eyed pawn would dutifully accept with no intellectual or moral challenge.

Just like only Saddam or Iran benefit from pacifism only individuals and victims are hurt by the apathetic moral creed. Peace cannot logically be a primary value—unless you believe in slavery and oppression— instead peace is a symptom of freedom and the observance of individual rights and limited governments. And when men like Allan Slater, trudge about self righteously claiming to help the victims let it be known they are instead giving moral credibility to evil which is only beneficial to evil.

Next Week: an examination of Allan Slater’s defense; moral equivilance.

Capitalism Critics

2006-01-17T17:28:00.000-08:00

When socialists and welfare state apologists critique capitalism they continually make the same mistake; namely they presume anything said or done by a busisnessman is an example of capitalism. For example slavery is blamed on capaitalism (because the wretched act of selling humans mercantile) yet it clearly conflicts with a capitalist credo of individual rights, and is in affect a consequence of tribal or statist thinking and because Hitler was friendly with the looting morally corrupt business leaders of Germany leftists affilliate fascism with capitalism when nothing could be further from the truth.

Not all businessmen are capitalists...

There are two types of businessmen. The first group seeks profit by production. They seek freedom to produce wealth by their own means. Their produced wealth comes at zero cost and risk to the public and when they are successful the public are the biggest benefactors-- see better medicine, the ability to travel cheaply....

The second group seeks profit through bureaucratic favor-- grants subsidy, favorable legislation-- mandated contracts, trade restriction-- protection from competition. This group of businessmen are not capitalists instead they are statist socialists with political connections-- see Air Canada and Bombardier.

Capitalism is not of that "which capitalists do" rather it a system of individual rights and limited government. Thus business men may be socialists.

More Idiocy

2006-01-10T16:02:00.000-08:00

How Does a looting powerhungry government regain moral credibility with its citizens? Well Paul Martin removes another check from government. As if a lack of checks is Canada's biggest problem. We have to few checks, which enables corruption and state coercion. The Canadian system is designed for governing efficiency which is a foundation for corruption. Removing the Notwithstanding clause from the constitution removes the only check we have over our appointed courts. Being undertood that the clause allows the government to overrule the courts if need be-- a check on their power.

Canada is already without important judicial checks. Beside the fact they have the power to "interpret and amend" the constitution-- very dangerous, Judges should not be appointed, rather they should be elected or in in the very leastaffirmed by parliament. Canada would be further enabling a system where by the appointed Prime Minister (parties are free to appoint their leaders) appoints his judges who are free to pass his mandates (as Supreme court appointee is a reward for judicial servitiude) leaving citizens and parliament alike, powerless to defeat any preposed reforms-- see gay marriage. This is another attempt to allow the ruling liberal elite even more arbitrary power over our lives.

Picture this.

PM-- I want to ban guns and the house won't pass the motion.
Judge-- What are the options?What type of ruling our we looking for?
PM-- It conflicts with the Charter of rights. Find it incompatible with every citizens right to freedom.
Judge-- consider it done.
PM-- You're a good friend
Judge-- you've always been fair to me.
*secret handshake*

Why would citizens that are dealing with such rampant corruption want to remove more checks on the government? it makes zero sense. How about more checks? No much too straighforward.

How to Construct a Ghetto with Good Intentions

2006-01-05T17:53:00.000-08:00

With inner city gun violence being such an important issue of the campaign I have decided to create a post on its origin; the ghettoization of neighborhoods in Canada. Social engineering fails at almost all tasks and government sponsored neighborhoods are no exception to this rule.

When a conscientious, socially active, compassionate individual undertakes the problem of helping the underprivileged, inevitably his mind ends up at some point in agreement with the idea of increasing the amount of social housing that is available. "Creating affordable, subsidized housing is exactly what poorer families need so that they can spend more of their resources on food, clothing and education, which increases their children’s chances of success and ending the poverty cycle" is a usual dogma. The solution is rational only on the most naïve and superficial level, because generally what occurs is the inevitable degradation of a community, the cementing of the poverty cycle within a family, the concentration of a class in the neighborhood, and an isolation from mainstream aspects of society; such as business, acceptable schooling, and eventually medicine, and reliable law enforcement.

Since it is very expensive to build a single house in a different location each time, social housing is usually created in large subdivisions of row or tract housing to minimize property, material and logistic costs, because the goal of these projects tends to be quantity, due to the nature of altruism.

A chief problem of any public endeavor is that when everybody owns something then nobody in particular owns it, which leads eventually to the more important problem; that nobody in particular feels or is obliged to maintain the ownership, or more specifically the property. The responsible maintenance of property is best achieved by utilizing the incentive of ownership (see collective farming vs. private farming, public industry vs. private industry, public schools vs. private schools, and public housing and reservations vs. private property studies). Because of the inherent qualities of public housing—meaning that it is never owned—nobody feels the particular duty to be responsible for the property, in the same way that if family and individual’s income was dependant on the property value. This lack of duty, on a general level, quickly leads to an area becoming unmanaged and rundown.

As the government does not control property values, values cannot be stopped from falling when housing becomes neglected and rundown within the neighborhood. When property values start falling, property-owning individuals seek to sell quickly, instead of standing put for an irrational principle of fairness (irrational in the sense that the moral code is essentially an anti-moral code; if you want welfare don’t do anything— the more that you are rewarded by individuals, the more you are penalized by the collective. The individual’s natural concern is in protecting the value of his modest assets, in order to protect his family from hardship. In reality, no individual wants to martyr his family for a primitive, socially dictated abstract principal.
As property in the neighborhood becomes rundown, and devalued, and usually segregated, community morale begins plummeting, and violence increases reciprocally, due to the many understandable factors of futility that we have socially engineered with our "good intentions". As property owners leave the neighborhood, and violence increases, businesses begin removing their assets from the community. This removal of small businesses from the community only further entrenches the poverty cycle, as now there is nobody left to provide goods and services, employ community members, support community events, sponsor sporting teams, and contribute to school fundraising. Equally worse is that businesses, sadly enough, are not easily recreated in the neighborhood either. Most small businesses are originally funded with their house as collateral, and when housing can only be rented, occupants are unable to borrow against its ownership, severely inhibiting entrepreneurial motives and abilities of a community.

Next to leave are the doctors, nurses, teachers, and law enforcement, which leads to shortages, and at best, a lack of experience in dealing with an exceptionally challenging role. The nation’s overall shortage of doctors, nurses, policemen and teachers gives them the ability to choose where they live, so eventually the roles can only be filled by using young inexperienced staff, which leads to the further erosion of public systems inside the community that needs them the most.

We have now cemented the poverty cycle within the neighborhood. Through the advent of social housing, as we have created rundown, sometimes racially segregated, violent neighborhoods, without local businesses, doctors and teachers; a neighborhood entrenched in a cycle of futility, or in other words a ghetto.

The Relevance of Poverty

2006-01-02T14:58:00.000-08:00

A favorite lie of the left when trying to debunk the factually and philosophically proven merits of freedom and capitalism is too point to wealth discrepancies "the gap between the haves and the have nots is increasing" or "how can a society be considered just when the gap between rich and poor is ever widening?" Both are out of context representations of justice and fairness.

If discrepancies in wages are seen to be a mark of corruption and unfairness then by this measure of justice North Korea is more just than South Korea and China is more progressive than Hong Kong. Is this what the left is really saying? The answer is yes.

Instead a nation’s fairness is objectively measured by its access to opportunity. A nation which bars arbitrary discrimination and coercion is a just nation.

Another mistake of this lie—that fairness is based ending wage discrepancies—is the fact poverty is relative! For instance would you rather be lower middle class in Alberta or lower middle class in New Dehli? The Albertan would have clean water, heat, a bed, an old car, basic cable, regular ground beef—as opposed to extra lean—and generic beer meanwhile in New Dehli poverty means no education, lack of clean drinking water, and possible starvation. With these differences in mind doesn’t it seem juvenile and intellectually shallow to typify lower wage earners as being poor in North America? Or even more so; what does it mean to be poor? Does it mean to live without satellite television or does it mean to live without clean water?

And with this in mind it should be noted that all socialist attempts at limiting earning discrepancies—rent control, unionization, affirmative action…-- in fact only succeed in limiting opportunity and as a consequence reduce the overall living conditions of the masses (see France). More poignantly who benefits more from innovation; the innovator or the masses? Sure Ford was rich beyond anyone’s wildest imagination but because of his abilities mankind was free for the first time to travel cheaply. Who benefited the most from the invention of the forklift? How about the guy who increased his ability to lift pallets ten fold and thus his wage increased ten fold based on his ability to operate a forklift. This is why a Chinese laborer is paid ten cents an hour to dig a hole with a rudimentary pick while the Canadian makes 30 bucks an hour using a bacco to dig holes. The bacco increased his efficiency by a thousand percent! The average man is the biggest recipient of innovation. Sure the innovator is rewarded handsomely for his efforts, but his efforts raise the overall living and earning conditions of society as a whole—something very hard to quantify with money.

A Cheap Loonie

2005-12-28T18:40:00.000-08:00

A common Canadian misconception states that a low valued loonie is good for domestic business. The logic is simple to follow. Since our biggest trading partner is the States having a dollar worth less than theirs encourages them to buy goods from us due to their increased purchasing power — which is good for the expansion of Canadian business interests. Our competitive edge is our cheap dollar interpreted as beneficial to the manufacturing based export industry and politically we have tried to keep our dollar worth less to appease these manufacturing interests.

But this logic is faulty in a couple of ways. First manufacturing industries are now globally competitive. For instance our cheap labor advantage has been completely negated by countries like China who manufacture their goods much cheaper according to the worth of their dollar comparative to Canada’s.

Instead Canada’s competitive edge lies in our technological capabilities and a low valued dollar inhibits Canada’s ability to purchase technology abroad. The best way to negate the advantage of cheap labor is with better technology. Picture eight men pulling a cart filled with 100 bottles of milk compared a single driver transporting 2000 bottles via gas powered van. Sure you got to pay the driver 10 times the wage of the cart puller plus owing $30,000 for a van, but the ability to distribute 20 fold the product more than makes up for the initial capital investment. Canada needs a strong dollar to buy better technological capabilities abroad.

These technologies are usually developed in free counties with strong dollars—United States and Britain—and with a low valued dollar it is increasingly hard to purchase needed technologies so Canadians can compete against cheap labor pools. So in a sense instead of buying a van to deliver the milk Canada has chosen to hire more cart pullers forgoing the chance to be a nation of engineers, scientists, artists and doctors for the servitude of being a wage earning mule.

The worst aspect of this tragic logic is the fact our dollar naturally wants to climb—see dollar climbing 15 cents in the last 18 months. Being a resource nation, oil, gas diamonds, electricity, fish… with an unlimited ceiling, investors are frantically buying Canadian dollars which drives up the dollar’s worth on international markets (no matter how much inflation liberals have tried to create with massive amounts of spending). Instead we should be encouraging this climb and reaping the rewards of the increased purchasing power that a higher dollar provides.

The Wheat Board... ahh socialism

2005-12-22T21:36:00.000-08:00

Harper finally announced that if the Conservatives win power than they will make participation in the Wheat Board voluntary. About time! This archaic policy dictates that farmers are forced to sell their individually produced harvests to the government for a set price regardless of their preferences. This “progressive” policy invalidates the farmers right to freedom and self determination by confiscating the rewards of his labor and then determining their worth. Farmers that have refused to sell their grains to the government and instead chosen to do their own negotiating have been arrested by federal government. In a free country men that produce noble bounties of sustenance through the virtues of hard work and intelligence are not imprisoned for negotiating a price for them.

Besides the moral and philosophical reasons to end the coercive Wheat Board there are also practical economic reasons to end the monopoly. Funding any bureaucratic administration is expensive. Government employees are well paid have generous benefits and little is expected of them so there tends to be a lot of them doing very little. This is cost is burdened by the farmers. The government offered price for harvests will always have to factor in these costs. With these mandated inflated expenses take into consideration that the government has little incentive to search out new markets or expand current ones as their salaries are guaranteed by the public which would be the exact opposite of competing private marketing firms.

Wheat is not just wheat. There is high quality wheat that is used for breads and such and then there are low quality wheat that can only be used as cattle feed. In a free market the higher the quality of the wheat the higher the price it will fetch. Since the government sells the wheat collectively-- for instance to Sudan-- there is little incentive to grow the highest quality grains as the price the farmer receives is not determined by his own particular crop but rather the average of all the crops. So if there are locusts down south and drought out west should you waste your money and time digging an irrigation canal to improve your own harvest? If everyone else is having a poor year why struggle to produce the highest quality of grain when there is no reward for doing so?. There is absolutely no incentive left to produce a better quality crop. Should you invest the time to research a new technology that makes crop resistant to drought when your crops will valued according to your neighbors? No because you will receive the set rate. A set collective rate for all crops penalizes the virtue of diligence, hard work and innovation and rewards the vices of apathy and laziness.

This is also a government that doles out subsidy based on losses. Picture a bunch of farmers consistently trying to demonstrate their farming misfortunes instead of improving their product. It easier to con the government than it is to grow top quality crops in a competitive market.

And perhaps the worst intentionally orchestrated result of this communist program is its discouragement of secondary industry. The Wheat Board is a subsidy to the raw export of grains. An artificial value is added to the export of grain to the government which discourages the development of the grain locally. Where is the thriving food processing industry that should be present in Saskatchewan? There isn’t one because grain can’t be easily purchased by private companies. Rather the farmer is forced to sell his grain to the government and then the government decides where and whom they wheat will be sold. This is why there is a more food processing in Ontario than in Saskatchewan. In a government controlled market the local mill’s advantage of proximity to agricultural markets (proximity ensures any competent businessman can produce milled grain cheaper then the Ontario mill as he will have to factor in export costs) is nullified by government policy. Saskatchewan and Manitoba should both have thriving economies based on their access to agricultural markets and because of interventionist Government policy they do not.

Who's right on Gay Marriage?

2005-12-17T13:01:00.000-08:00

Say the words gay marriage and everybody has an opinion. Liberals and dippers see it is a human rights issue and conservatives model it as democratic problem. But in truth both are wrong as gay marriage, as usual, has been miscategorized by both sides of the political elite.

Liberals claim that the gay marriage is a question of human rights-- that denying gay people access to a sanctioned marriage is in effect denying them their rights to exist as free entities. This is wrong. For being gay to be synonymous with a lack of fundamental rights then there would have to be examples of state coercion against their basic freedoms of which there is not . Gay people are free to associate with, how and who they want and they state is powerless to say otherwise. Gay people are free to live and work and learn where they want without interference. Gay people are free from being censored in this country. They are free to speak, publish, debate and express what they want in this country. Granting marriage to the gay community is not an issue of the limitation of the basic fundamental rights of homosexuals is any way.

Conservatives on the other hand see gay marriage as a democratic issue which is equally naïve. They believe that there should be debate and then a vote held-- whether the vote is held in the House of Commons or it is a national referendum is unimportant. More importantly though just as the individual’s right to his basic freedoms-- association, movement and expression-- should never be limited by the arbitrary whims of government neither should they be limited by the arbitrary whims of the majority. For example if vegetarians constituted the majority-- something which may happen someday-- should they have the right to make meat consumption illegal? Should an underachieving majority have the right confiscate the earned wealth of their most virtuous producers-- see socialism. No to both of these things. The doctrine of individual rights declares that man should be equally free from the arbitrary coercion of government and the public alike.

Now the Liberals are close when they recognize gay marriage as a rights issue, but wrong when they think it is a gay right’s issue. Traditionally marriage is a privilege that is bestowed by the church and the church has the right to grant or deny that privilege to whomever they want. Complicating the issue is the state‘s involvement in a religious or social issue. But the state is only acknowledging the religious foundation not determining it. When they state seeks to alter the definition they are in fact violating the church’s fundamental right to be free and self determining. The state has no legal right to the definition of marriage and any attempt to control or coerce the definition from the church is statist and immoral. Gay marriage is in fact a human right’s issue for the religious community.

The government should recognize gay unions on equal status as married couple (personally I believe there should be no state sponsored advantage to either, but since there is it should equal). Gay communities should be free to call the union whatever they want and essentially marriage would be open to them if the church granted them the right to use the term “marriage” but until that time there should be no such thing as gay marriage.

As a child that my father always told me that if you see a large crowd of people moving one way then it is probably best to start moving in the other direction.

NDP Platform

2005-12-11T17:32:00.000-08:00

Last week I supported the NDP for starting to separate themselves from organized labor in BC. The decision to not support union block voting is a chance to start the party in a new direction I thought. Then Buzz Hargrove climbs into bed with Paul Martin which got me thinking about the party and its direction. Previously NDP’ers have been known for their unabashed support for socialism and over regulation. Since socialism has been proven to be rampant with corruption and is known to be an economic failure demonstrated by immeasurable amounts of historical evidence it may be the party’s chance to break its ties with the economic aspects with which they are identified and begin somewhat anew.

My NDP platform.

As they already are they should be against all corporate welfare. No more taxpayer funding to Bombardier, Air Canada or Nortel. Corporate welfare is counterproductive to efficiency and expansion. It is also unfair to competing private citizens when one business is backed by the government. It is also morally wrong to steal the earned wealth of private citizens to support unproductive businesses.

The NDP should cease to support labor union activities .Unions are counterproductive to productivity, and overall lower the average citizen’s standard of living. They also add to unemployment. Block voting is antagonistic to freedom and is a democratic flaw that should be absolved and the NDP should strive do this.

The NDP should be against excessive and arbitrary licensing. There is no reason is why a Vietnamese beautician should be legally forced out of the trade because she doesn’t have the financial holdings to acquire an arbitrary license to give manicures. These policies are racist, in the sense that lots of licensed industries are filled with new immigrants, and meant to protect the competitive market for the already established businesses—cab drivers, estheticians and truck drivers. Licenses can easily be replaced with certification which is much cheaper and still allows the government to track business.

In breaking all ties with business they should go even further and become a watch dog for illegitimate relationships between the Government and private business. For example they should investigate Powercorp. and the Mo Strong syndicate. They should investigate Paul Martin and Shipping companies and even Chreitien and Shawinigate.

The NDP should be against all deficit spending as that is a financial burden passed on to the next generation. 35% percent of all collected tax revenues are used to pay the interest on our enormous debt. This is in no way compassionate or benevolent and they NDP in their mantra of protecting people should be against all debt accumulation. Imagine the improvement that could be made to healthcare with an extra 30 percent in collected revenues.

The money saved, which would be an enormous amount, could then be diverted to the provide universal access to social programs like healthcare and education. Platforms could focus on regimented adoption of strict environmental standards. The protection of clean water and wildlife habitat are supported by a wide range of the voting public. A voucher method for education and healthcare would give Dippers economic credibility like they have never had before with maintaining universal access at much higher standards than is seen anywhere else in the world.

The Role of Government

2005-12-06T19:26:00.000-08:00

Governments cannot make men smarter, more loving, more industrious, more caring or even better citizens. Governments only power is negative-- in the sense that it can only prevent and coerce. For example Government can steal wealth form productive resources but it cannot make unproductive businesses productive. Government can regulate artists through censorship (the CRTC and the attempted banning of 50 cent) but it cannot make artists better. Governments power rest with its monopoly on the use of force in society-- a necessity-- but forces only power is to destroy and not create.

An institution that only wields negative powers should never be involved in artistic, intellectual or moral matters. These fields of human endeavor are based on the positive-- the power of creation. Creation requires a free mind. A coerced mind is unable to create and is bound for stagnation. A free rational mind is unlimited in its potential.

Governments proper function is to protect freedom so that the mind is free to think, make value choices and produce.

The Nationalization of Daycare is an example of this. The conservatives want a tax break-- should also have income splitting-- that would allow parents to "choose" how to raise their children while LIberals want to nationalize daycare which through further limitation of parents income-- even higher taxes-- would coerce both parents into working and by default force their kids into the Government daycare.

The Mixed economy and Air Canada

2005-12-05T09:38:00.000-08:00

Air Canada has always got my blood boiling and here is a longer post detailing what it means to subsidizes business with coorporate welfare. The NDP should be all over this type of stuff, but they only get upset when businesses are successfull???

Thanks to the lawful court of Canada and their “bankruptcy protection”, the good folks at Ace Aviation Holding were free to take over the failing airline, while wiping out seventy-five per cent of the company’s debt. Business owners everywhere should be thankful that our benevolent government provides such a thing as bankruptcy protection. Oh wait, there is not? There is only something known as “bankruptcy protection” when your board members have political ties you say!

Whenever Air Canada finds itself in financial trouble based on poor decisions and mismanagement, it’s consistently bailed out with favorable legislation, including bankruptcy protection, guaranteed loans, and tax breaks. These breaks come at the expense of smaller, successful companies that make wise and responsible business decisions, but don’t have board members with strong political ties -- companies such as WestJet and Jetsgo. These productive, responsible companies are penalized for the very virtues that made them successful for the sole purpose of paying for the failings of “nationally supported” and “well connected” companies. What standard of fairness is this type of principal based upon? How are these principals of fairness arrived at?

Furthering the corruption is the statist and mixed economy advocate’s (liberal) favorite viewpoint, which uses the insulting argument which describes Air Canada as culturally essential, that there is danger of losing our identity without a national airline. Dubiously implying that Canadians would rather pay twice the amount for a plane ticket to Hamilton as long as the wings are red and the pilot is bilingual. Then, once we’ve been exposed as vacuous and culturally lacking by our benevolent government, we’re treated to the next altruistic message: protection for the workers! They fear monger, claiming that thousands of jobs would be lost forever if Air Canada went out of business, forsaking the facts of competition and reality, in favor of a system dishonesty and immorality.

Let us examine a mixed economy more closely with the dichotomy of West Jet and Air Canada in order to reveal whom policies of altruism favor. The article will do so through the asking of one crucial question: of benefit to whom?
For decades, Air Canada’s favorite competition strategy has been hiring high priced lobbyists to work in Ottawa, for the sole purpose of gaining favorable legislation. How else is it that a company’s outstanding debt gets reduced from twelve billion dollars to 2.8 billion dollars if not for favorable legislation? Favorable legislation is achieved through hiring corrupt attorneys and lobbyists to influence, or more astutely pay off even more corrupt bureaucrats, government officials and politicians. This allows Air Canada to do things like default on creditors, which means you and I, to the tune of nine billion dollars. Compare this to the fact that smaller companies cannot afford to divert millions of dollars for the unproductive purpose of hiring Ottawa lawyers and politicians. Their money is spent on increasing capital, the amount of workers they can afford to hire, and furthering their research and development. An increase in productivity is the sole method of expansion for the small airline. This means achieving more with less. So when the government is allowed to pass legislation granting special rights for some companies at the expense of others under the banner of “for the greater good”, we ask ourselves for “the benefit of whom”? To the benefit of the self made pilots and entrepreneurs that first started, and organize West Jet and Jetsco, that started their companies with their own wealth or to the benefit of the lazy, unproductive managers, corrupt lawyers and bought lobbyist of Air Canada? To the benefit of the taxpayers and investors, which are being paid back ten cents on the dollar owing on Air Canada’s outstanding loans. Loans I am sure at some point were guaranteed. Allowing Government to control competition with the monopolistic use of legislation is morally wrong. A company’s fate shouldn’t be dependent on the arbitrary whim of bureaucrats and politicians. Government interference into the market paves the way for a system that redistributes wealth into the hands of the most corrupt instead of to the most productive, stagnating an entire industry’s growth, and eventually an entire country’s.

What types of business man is attracted to such a system of competition, where his success is dependent on achieving favors instead of increasing production based on his industry knowledge and experience? Possibly, the type of manager that has no way or interest in increasing production or advancing an industry’s technology, but is attracted to free “easy” government money. This type of manager stays in business for three to five years, collecting a generous taxpayer subsidized income at the expense of his “self made” competition and the taxpayer. Eventually this type of business man files for bankruptcy, claiming capitalism too ruthless (a complete misrepresentation of capitalism), then moving onto a new subsidized (statist) industry, and paving the line for the next wave of corruption to begin again, with an even fatter bank account, to buy more lobbyists. Once again we ask ourselves: fair to whom?

The end result of a stagnant, unproductive government protected company without the threat of competition is higher prices for fewer services, which are ultimately passed onto the unsubsidized public for a second time. It is no coincidence, or feat of luck why West Jet and Jetsco flights are cheaper than Air Canada flights, no matter what leftists try to tell you. West Jet and Jetsco are better organized, more efficient and productive than Air Canada, and yet they are penalized for these very virtues in the name of altruism.

The final cliché of altruism is based on the idea that Air Canada has to have “bankruptcy protection” for the benefit of the thousands of workers, whose livelihoods depend on the airline. This is only true for the droves of lawyers and lobbyists, and obsolete management that depend on Air Canada for “illegal” paychecks. Whenever any company goes into actual bankruptcy, the first thing a court does is appoint managers to run the company and recover as many assets as possible, in order to meet as much debt obligation as possible. Even if Air Canada ceased to exist as separate identity, its facilities, planes, manufacturers and workers would be contracted out to smaller companies left competing to fill the void left by Air Canada. And at the very worst, another company buys all of Air Canada’a assets at ten cents on the dollar and begins anew. Not too worry, mechanics, pilots, baggage handlers, traffic controllers, and stewardesses are skilled workers that are not easily replaced and thus will be in high demand from whichever company would replace Air Canada and take over its airports, warehouses, repair and manufacturing facilities. Government would have you believe that they create jobs, but in truth it is people that create jobs, more specifically: entrepreneurs create jobs, through their own means of increased production and expansion. West Jet’s expansion comes at the expense of nobody but the entrepreneurs and investors who were willing to invest, unlike government sponsored expansion, which comes at the expense of everyone but the company doing the expanding.

A system based on and decided by the arbitrary whims of individual bureaucrats instead of the objective laws of capitalism succeeds only in creating an internalized war between lobby groups, each looking to succeed at the expense of another person’s production: the taxpayer and businessman. A system that provides welfare to certain companies at the expense of the others, is a system that punishes the productive, the ambitious, and general public and rewards the corrupt, inefficient, lazy, and well connected. Fair to whom?

Dear-- the once anonymous-- Joe Green

2005-12-04T14:09:00.000-08:00

Dear Joe Green

I view man as naturally happy, sympathetic, curious, productive and innovative creature that seeks to improve and sustain the quality of his or her life.

You believe that man is a poor, greedy, sinning, easily manipulated, power hungry, violent and corrupted creature that cannot be given any freedom for fear of instant evil.

You view God as a wicked, punishing deity that seeks slavery and oppression from people.
I believe God would marvel at man using his highest mental capabilities to discern between competing values, especially when they are liberty and slavery.

Your feelings, just as mine are, a product of the rational premises that govern your mind. Since you view all men as cunning and wicked it is of no great surprise you view the world as unpredictable and scary and that you call for men to oppressed and forever humble.

Since I view man as a curious and cooperative creature it is also of little surprise that I view the world as one filled opportunity and excitement. That since the world is free I am consequently free to associates with who I want to-- to marry who I want, to be friends with those I respect and admire. I am free to voluntarily corporate with who I want-- to pursue endeavors with whomever I choose whether on an entrepreneurial level or contractual.

If a tree’s trunk is rotten it branches will slowly become sicker and paler as life is choked off from the roots. It is in this sense that there is no sense arguing about the branches. The trunk is needs to be chopped down. Your small idiocies are impossible to continually sort out and since you your trunk or intellectual foundation is rotten with evil premises you will continually perpetuate the same conceptual fallacies about ethics, politics and most certainly aesthetics. It is with this I will no longer be answering your vengeful and lusting personal attacks. You have failed to communicate even one rational thought to the conversation and everybody will be free to judge the values you hold and thus represent.

Liberal Debate Strategy

2005-12-03T10:03:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week on CTV I watched a slap fight break out Anne Mclellan and Pete Mackay surrounding the conservative announcement of endorsing the creation of an independent office of the director of public prosecutions. An appointed non-government and non partisan prosecutor that has the ability to prosecute the government without the threat of retaliatory coercion.

In light of recent developments in the Canadian government-- the sense of entitlement, rampant pork barreling, corruption and coercion-- the idea is certainly worthy of intellectual consideration. Rational debate is unheralded in Liberal academia. For example X is an intelligent idea as it provides another check on executive and legislative powers or X is an awful plan because the role is doomed to be political in this divisive country and then government will be at the arbitrary gun point of an ideologue, and then Peter could rebuttal…. This would be intelligent debate, but instead there was Anne’s response. “Peter this sounds like an all out attack on the integrity of the RCMP.” Over and over again all we got was the desperate attempt to invoke emotionalism in to the argument. “Peter I can’t believes you would accuse the fine members of the RCMP of overt corruption and lack of integrity.” She refused to debate the idea and appealed for emotion. Anne is smart enough to know that this is incredibly shallow and manipulative. Peter responded several times and further tried to exasperate on the intended consequences of the idea and she refused to accept anything continually retorting about the Conservative hatred for the RCMP. It sickened me to think of a respected member of Canadian government being so intellectual dishonest.

Some other Liberal Clichés-- these all have the intended purpose of preying on voter ignorance by appealing to emotional responses instead of rational discussion based on the merit of an idea. “Conservatives seek to rob women of their rights”-- not true abortion is not even part of a Conservative platform, “The Conservatives are a bunch of robber baron rednecks from Alberta that seek to divide this country”-- strengthening provincial rights would unite this country and besides provincial rights have nothing to do with the imaginary hopeful abandonment of Canada, “they hate homosexuals”-- Harper only intends to put gay marriage to a “free” legislative vote, to have the debate, and once again Conservatives have no desire to ban gay union they simply want it to be called a “civil union”. Then there is the “you hate Canadians and Canada!”-- because we are unhappy with a corrupt and thieving paternalist government means we are uncanadian. This is an all direct attack on thinking and somehow this call for blind allegiance is viewed as “progressive” and “moderate”.

Why Canadians are Sympathetic to Socialism

2005-11-27T14:36:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-26T09:39:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-19T11:44:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-13T10:50:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-12T12:30:00.000-08:00

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?

2005-11-06T13:58:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-02T20:40:00.000-08:00

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!

2005-11-01T21:02:00.000-08:00

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!

The Negative Income Tax

2005-10-29T10:06:00.001-07:00

Alright it seems my last post warrented a death threat in rhetort. How do I follow that up. Christ there are lots of crazies. I came home wanting to talk about the Negative income tax. Oh well. The show must go on. I have already done posts on the evils of its opposite-- the graduated or progressive tax model (see earlier post)

The easiest way to increase the amount of money available to welfare programs is by changing the means in which they are administered, first, simplify the program to protect them from being exploited from loophole abuse, and secondly, reduce the size of the ever growing bureaucracy that does the administering. Current regulations are complicated with deductions, credits, differing allowance rates, and property considerations, which allows them to be easily exploited by individuals, and even worse than that, a massive bureaucracy is required to monitor and administer the complex program, a bureaucracy also equally vulnerable to abuse and unnecessary waste. Fixing both of these problems can be specifically achieved through the introduction of a negative income tax - subsidy program to replace the current, overly complicated, and mottled legislation of the positive income tax system, which drains our welfare revenue base at an ever increasing rate.

The positive income tax system allows people to receive a certain level of income exempted from taxes. The exempt amount is based on rates, which are deemed as a minimal for subsistence. This level is superficially low so that the government can begin taxing income as soon as possible. Any income earned over this level is subject to being taxed. The problem lies in the fact that if the marginal earner makes under this exempt allowance level nothing happens. The unused allowances simply put, goes unused and wasted, plus he is ineligible for welfare benefits, as he is considered employed. This system punishes the low wage earner as he is unable to recover these unused benefits, and this in effect begins to transfer the incentive from working to not working, as welfare, monetarily speaking, is comparable to the artificially low level of exempt allowances.

A negative income tax system would allow for some portion of the unused allowances to be recovered up to the specified exemption level at a set subsidy rate. Milton Friedman, the system creator recommends a rate of 50%. This rewards the low income earner versus the non-worker, instead of punishing him with essentially 100% tax rates, as all earning are essentially deducted from welfare payments in a positive income tax system. A negative tax system with an exemption level of $20,000 for a family of four with subsidy rate of 50% qualifies a family of four with no income to be eligible for $10,000. Any income made on top of this initial amount reduces the subsidy by 50%. If the family of four earned $12,000 in a single year, the subsidy would be reduced by $6000, giving the family an overall income of $16,000, at an expense of $4000 to the taxpayer. Where as with a positive income-tax systems, the family of four would be left with the decision of taking their earned amount of $12,000 or being completely unemployed and still earning $11,500 from the government, with no incentive to earn the $12,000 as it would be only a $500 improvement over not working at all.

Positive income tax guidelines are designed to benefit only those who are completely unemployed. Unused credits from those that are marginally employed are not refunded, which shifts incentive from working to not working for the low-income earner.

Lack of skills is the biggest problem facing recipients. Keeping recipients in the workforce is of optimal importance as it is the only way to build the worker’s skills, and prevent already present skills from further atrophy. Welfare handouts have no way of passing on the virtues of the employed to the unemployed.

Welfare mother’s are penalized, instead of rewarded when they earn extra money, through such pursuits as babysitting or working one day a week in a restaurant, men turn down the opportunity to drive a cab once a week, because it is essentially deducted 100% from their welfare payments. When the tax rate for low wager earners is essentially 100%, there is little incentive to work.

The primary goal of the state whenever dealing with the unemployed should be to keep them working. A penalty of 100% on extra initiative should be reconsidered.

The strength of a country lies in its citizens and their productivity. A government’s role is to nurture this productivity and not to destroy it with insecure legislation.