Preaching to the choir is not challenging

Do you ever ask yourself what would you be doing if it weren't for the internet? Something useful maybe eh?

If you use Facebook, then you know its another way that the whole internet thing steals time. But you will also know, and I'm not exaggerating, that Facebook and the other social networking tools, are changing the world in ways we can't yet imagine.

What would be the state of the libertarian movement were it not for these tools? Would there be such a movement? I doubt it, at least not to the same extent. With Facebook I can interact with libertarians around the world, sharing thoughts, ideas, stories, pictures, you name it, and do it in real or delayed time, it's absolutely remarkable. That's the good news about these tools, and the bad. Bad, yes bad? Most of my "Facebook friends" are libertarians or liberty-minded, we form little groups and cliques where we share common likes and dislikes among ourselves, just like in the real world. By and large we have common views on many issues, and any discussions while lively, are frequently philosophical in nature and minor in the bigger picture. We are preaching to each other much of the time, and that's fine. We humans crave re-enforcement of our ideas and we do that a lot on the social networks.

I use the internet mostly to peddle ideas. But to be most effective its best to get into a group which is not homogeneous and not necessarily in line with my thinking even though that can be uncomfortable.

Below I have taken a comment from a Facebook thread that dealt with the cartoon you see above. Most libertarians with some knowledge of Austrian economics, like me, look at that cartoon and will agree that shifting the burden of taxes from individuals to corporations doesn't really lift the burden of taxation, it just shifts it. It may not be exactly as indicated in the cartoon, but corporations  don't pay tax to their own detriment, they just add the tax to their cost of doing business, and we all end up paying more. Government spending requires tax revenue, everyone agrees with that. So the discussion on my non-homogeneous Facebook group revolved around this issue, and one person, let's call him James, who wrote the following:          

"Alright. Where does the money come from? The consumer wants their social benefits. The consumer wants their pension plan. The consumer wants green jobs which only can come with government subsidization. The consumer wants unlimited free healthcare with a low wait time. The consumer wants state day care programs.

Well guess what, all those programs cost a lot of money. It's either cut those programs or raise business taxes. I've been in small business literally all my life, and I am pro small business. At the same time, the same politicians who advocate on a stronger economy don't have the balls to cut social programs relentlessly so that business' can actually work efficiently. Large corporations will not be hurt by tax increases, there's always ways around it - I work in that industry. Will it be passed on to the consumer? Not really. Prices will stay marginally the same as business' find new ways to stay competitive. This means firing a few people and keeping the innovative ones to find ways of keeping the bottom line strong. So, like minimum wage, more taxation will probably mean a few people could potentially be cut.

I'm not for raising corporate taxes as corporations provide jobs. What I am all for is raising taxes on the bracket of tax payers who make 1m or more, at least in the US (where the rate is at its lowest in 50 years). Basically the government raising taxes on business' is a spineless move. Politicians don't want to lose votes of a majority of society who will complain when they make social programs more efficient through cost benefit analysis, so they raise taxes instead.

At the same time, the massive government programs we have provide a great deal of work to the private sector, so cutting those programs will have a backlash to.

As I said, more complicated than this. This comic is actually more incorrect than correct. Why? Because the alternative is to cut social programs which will see a lot of government workers without a pay cheque which will lower their purchasing power affecting all small business. No matter what the government does to cut the debt, it will affect the consumer most likely negatively. Why? The last 40 years we mortgaged the future, and now our interest and principal are due."

Its difficult to respond to comments like that from a free market viewpoint with short pithy retorts. This person has practical knowledge of business economics, the implications of tax cuts, and the popularity of entitlement programs. So where to start?

In the first paragraph James outlines "consumer wants." The fact is consumers want many things, fortunately not all of them are provided by government, unfortunately many are. So my first issue is why is government involved in, pensions, green jobs, healthcare and daycare? Can government do a better job providing these services than the free market? If that were true than why doesn't government provide ALL of our needs? One of the reasons that doesn't happen is that consumers also prefer choices. Government rarely offers choice and almost always creates monopoly situations. In fact government does nothing better than the free market in my experience. But James is correct, money for these services must come from somewhere or the services must be cut. Politicians are reluctant (James says: "spineless") to make the cuts so they either raise taxes or worse, borrow the money. In either case, the economic freedom of citizens is affected. 

But where I disagree most with James is his contention that: "the massive government programs we have, provide a great deal of work to the private sector." Is that true? It is, if only one side of the story is examined. Look at the government monopoly in healthcare. Government together with various professional organizations agree on a compensation packages. The government takes on the responsibility of payment. The private professional organizations regard the government treasury as a bottomless pit. The government arrangement eliminates free market competition between the various healthcare providers, and as a result costs always go up in healthcare. 

The bottomless pit characterization holds true in many areas. Whenever government puts out tenders for construction or any sort of purchase, they may accept the lowest bid, but the bidders know who they are dealing with. Not to mention that virtually every government worker is ensconced in a labour union, and their demands depend on the bottomless pit idea too. It's no wonder that government workers have some of the most generous compensation packages around. No one asks why should the unions be the sole providers for government services?

So yes its true, lots of work for the private sector, but are we getting the best value for the money spent? This avoids the moral question, is it reasonable to make everyone pay for services that they may not even use? Governments create uncompetitive, overpriced, over regulated services that everyone pays for whether they use the service or not. The entire process depends on coercion administered by government and mostly unchallenged by citizens. At some point, the citizens will wise up. I hope it happens soon. There will be short term pain, yes, but all successful surgeries require healing.  

The Cato Institute?

The Cato Institute needs to be an independent, APOLITICAL, libertarian, think tank. I hope it stays that way.
The Koch brothers have launched an extraordinary campaign to take control of America’s most respected libertarian think tank. Will they destroy it?

Signs of Hope & Change 3

This month marks the beginning of my fourth year blogging online. I have over 500 blog posts, coming up to 41,000 page-views, and I'm still learning how to use this wonderful tool.

Why bother? Only because I believe, perhaps naively, that I can make a difference, I can help change things for the better. That's why I've jumped into politics after spending most of my life being apolitical.

Politicians and their antics seem to dominate the news media in North America. While I haven't done a survey, I'm sure that's true. Even though I've become political, I don't really want to be in the news, I just think our lives have been manipulated by political agendas for far too long, and that has damaged individuals and society as a whole. There needs to be a counteracting force.

The world is run by busybodies that inhabit various political offices, legislative assemblies, parliaments and congresses. To justify their own existence, these political entities are forever busy dreaming up new legislation that almost always adds to the cost and size of government, while at the same time removing money, freedoms and responsibilities from individuals.

Most interesting to me is that with all the political shenanigans that have gone on and are going on, very few if any of them have an impact on improving our lives, our living conditions, or anything else of value. On the contrary, think about it, when was the last time a political decision had a significant positive impact on your life?

But our lives have improved despite governments, how? Peter Diamandis explains in the TED video below that things are getting better. If you have heard of the X-Prize, then you may know Dr. Diamandis. The X-Prize, does what governments around the world notoriously appose, it incentivizes human competition, governments of course, do the opposite. The X-Prize leverages the human mind and the free market and gives us all reason to be optimistic and hope for better things.  
        

Political Irrationality

Are you politically irrational? In the TED video below, Michael Huemer points out two of the more glaring politically irrational policies that exist in the present day United States. These policies exist in most Western societies to some degree, Canada is no exception. Libertarians will agree that BOTH of the examples that Huemer uses are indeed irrational. Conservatives will agree with one of them, Socialists will likely agree with the other one.

I know generalizations are dangerous, but Huemer does suggest that a different group of people may agree with one or the other. For those of you that don't understand libertarianism, maybe those examples will help?

Huemer goes on to suggest that the reason policies are often irrational, is because most people are politically ignorant. In my experience that is a fundamental truth of politics. I think Huemer gives a good explanation and then he surveys his audience to validate his explanation.

Huemer then goes on to explain why people are irrational. Being rational is costly, his first point. People will be rational if they believe the rewards exceed the cost, but most people understand that they have just one vote to affect change. So why bother thinking rationally? At this point, Huemer suggests that its easy to persuade most people, that most people are irrational about politics, absolutely true.

So why do we need people to be rational about politics? Well, you should watch the video, he seems to spend the least time on that, but it's the most important point in the story. 

Stossel at Students for Liberty

In this video clip, John Stossel explains that he has discovered that liberal progressives are closed minded and impossible to talk to, with respect to liberty compared to social conservatives. I happen to agree, having experienced the same thing.
Nick Gillespie offers hope.

Gay marriage, soon to be everywhere.

Maybe they are? Whose business is it?

North American Public Transit still sucks

In Toronto, the "transit wars" are ongoing.
Once upon a time ago, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), was the envy of North America, clean, efficient, and accident free by comparison with American cities. That was back in the 1970's, American cities were rotting, from racial strife, urban flight, and other things. The rot had not yet reached Canada. That kind of rot still has not affected Canadian cities, the rot in Canada, is caused by other things, almost all of them to do with government at some level.

Most urban dwellers in Canada see public transit as strictly a government responsibility. Of course it should not be so, I have written about this before, for example here. The issue of public transit has become wrapped up in environmental issues like, urban sprawl, greenhouse gas emissions etc. Both politicians and the voters they pander to, believe that there are too many cars, or rather too many people using cars. So they go out of there way to make it more and more difficult to use cars and therefore encourage the use of public transit. Unfortunately most people, myself included, would rather avoid the deteriorating transit system. I have no need to be treated like a herd animal in a subway car, thats a common view. If transit were better, I and others might change that view, but for now the car is my preferred choice.

Add all that together in Toronto, and the result is a city with one of the worst commute times in the world. A recently elected Mayor in Toronto believes that the answer is subways, lots of them. To put it bluntly this Mayor suffers from tunnel vision. Unfortunately subways are very costly in a time of austerity everywhere, and in Toronto the population densities do not warrant the expense. it's a bad idea all-round, and additional government debt or yet more taxes will not make things better.

So what to do? Here is an American look at the same problem, and something we should think about:

What if it was all true?

In a recent posting I commented on the abrupt cancellation of Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch. There may have been many reasons, or just one, it doesn't really matter.

FOX NEWS owns the broadcast facilities that carried Freedom Watch, so I won't argue that they have the right to assert their ownership. Of course they do.  

Andrew Napolitano deserves credit for having huge cojones, as you can see and hear in his rant below.

Do I wish there was a Canadian equivalent? Everyday!

You may be one of the 900,000 plus viewers to watch the following YouTube clip which may be why Napolitano was fired, but certainly shows a man with the courage of his convictions, and I believe what he says IS all true.

Junk food Jury *COMING SOON*

It's an Orwellian world when food can be redefined as being pathogenic - causing disease. But that's exactly what three experts from Alberta (of all places) advocate. They are redefining what we normally consider as "junk food" and calling it disease causing, not unlike having the action of viruses or bacteria.

Here is a quote from the story in the National Post: "It's really just a nomenclature to attract attention to the fact we have a problem here and something needs to be done about it," said Dr. Norm Campbell, a University of Calgary cardiologist and co-author of the paper. "It will hopefully ... result in an evolution of our food so it's again a source of health, not a source of disease."

Dr. Campbell thinks that government should be regulating the kind of food Canadians eat. He compares this to regulating highway speed limits or air traffic which he says are government interventions that Canadians tolerate. Campbell goes on: "Why regulate crime? 'Oh, it's a murder, they shouldn't be allowed a second chance.' Well, the food industry kills many thousands more than that murderer ever had a hope of doing." 

I know, there are still many weeks until April 1st, but this is true, no kidding. I guess Dr. Campbell did not consider how many more people might die IF, there was no food industry. It's a broad and unfair accusation. It's exactly the same as saying the manufacturers of military equipment are guilty of the deaths caused by their products. Wait, don't bother writing to argue that one, I won't print it. It's simply not true.

Campbell's statement is just inflammatory, and amounts to posturing for the media. Driving on a highway and flying in an airplane are voluntary activities and regulation is required and accepted by the owners of cars, highways, and airplanes. Eating is not voluntary, it must be done to live. How is this similar? Who owns your body?

The Post story goes on to recall an article in last year's Journal of the American Medical Association that suggested some obese children be taken from their parents temporarily by child-welfare officials, and a more recent article in Nature that suggested age limits be required for the purchase of sugary soft drinks. Maybe a license should be required for having children? Oh, sorry, you say don't give them ideas, right.

Of course eating any kind of heavily processed food ALL the time, is probably not a good idea, though I have never seen compelling evidence that shows a direct correlation between 'hamburger - fries' consumption and longevity.

The scientific paper by the Albertans published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology does "not make clear" the role of junk food "in diseases ranging from heart disease to high blood pressure and diabetes." But the paper "recommends labelling ingredients such as saturated and trans fats, sodium and simple sugars as pathogens when their volume exceeds what the body needs."  Hmmmm, volume exceeds the bodies needs, eh? I recall this horrible chemical, known to kill thousands, either alone or in groups. It's the volume of this stuff that does the killing, maybe it too should be labelled. I'm talking about the dread chemical, dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO), better known as water, definitely a killer.

All kidding aside, knowledge of proper food consumption does not spring into our minds at birth. It must be taught and learned.

Our primitive ancestors ate what was available to them. If it grew from the soil, or crawled, walked, flew or swam, and was edible, it was eaten. It mattered little what was eaten, just that it was. Humans are omnivores, their diets are functions of their environment and as diverse. Our primitive ancestors adapted to what was available and so did their bodies. They needed no knowledge, and no labelling, to advise them. What regulated their diet? Was it tribal rules, pronouncements by the experts? No, their diet was controlled by scarcity.

Abundance, the lack of scarcity, is the problem today and that's only true in parts of the world. Here in North America, abundance, convenience, laziness, and marketing have conspired on our population to create the so-called obesity epidemic. Do you really think someone biting into a Krispy Kreme donut is starving, or are they doing it just for the momentary bliss? That person might have chosen an apple, a carrot, but did not. It was choice. Do you think advising people of the fat and salt content of the donut will discourage the choice? Maybe, but must Big Brother supervise this, or can it be done with education? Should we also build barricades to keep people from jumping into road traffic, and nets to keep them from falling out of building windows? No, these things are taught and learned, and so to can proper diet be taught and learned. Even medical people will agree that a diet of junk food is tolerable if not desirable for an extended time. It's the AMOUNT of food consumed that is the problem. Should government also be regulating caloric intake? Is food rationing next?

Each expert that benignly suggests a new government regulation, forgets that a new bureaucracy needs to be created to enforce it. An on going expense is assured that creates a divot on the turf of the Canadian economy, sucking from the general treasury. This is how government grows and responsibilities are shifted from individuals to the collective. The end does not justify the means.

There are plenty of voluntary organizations that can and should use their resources to help educate the masses. Much as Lung Associations and Cancer Societies have and still are, railing against smoking, Heart and Stroke organizations can fight poor diet. Let people be responsible for themselves as much as possible.

Family sinking in debt? We told you so.

Suppose that nine years ago your family began a spending spree. There was no pressing need to do this, in fact, your family already had significant debt, but interest rates were low and you expected them to remain so. Your income was stable, and you expected it to grow over time, that way your debt would be manageable and your family would enjoy a better lifestyle.

Year after year, family spending increased and debt accumulated, your income was stable but economic conditions actually worsened. Your hopes for increased income did not materialize, but interest rates were even lower now, so debt was still manageable, though rising quickly.

Even with historically low interest rates, payments on the debt were becoming a significant portion of your monthly expenses and that was a worry. Family spending had almost doubled, so had the debt compared to nine years earlier. You needed help, so you hired a financial expert, to point out where cuts in spending could be made.

Sound familiar? Unfortunately that story is not that uncommon among Canadian families, many don't know better, and were/are enticed by the low interest rate environment. But when that story can be superimposed over the government of the Province of Ontario, which has expertise, and smart people who should know better, you begin to wonder.

This week the long awaited Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services, tabled its 540 page report. The very size of the report of course, is directly related to the size of the public service, its big, way too big. The comments in the next day's newspapers about tough medicine, drastic cuts, and grim diagnosis, makes it sound like spending restraint itself is the evil. 

No, what is evil is reckless spending, that's what the Liberals in Ontario have been guilty of since coming to power in 2003. They have steered the Province into a rock and the ship of state is sinking in debt, unless spending is curtailed now. Essentially that is the message of Don Drummond who chaired the creation of the aforementioned report.

This issue of reckless spending was not a concern of the major opposition parties or the government during the General Election less than five months ago. Why not? Was it not clear as day that the course set by the government would lead to trouble? Where were the supposed fiscally responsible Conservatives? Did they not see the rocks ahead? Hard to believe. 

There was one party that made this issue, the issue of spending and debt, the central theme of its campaign last October, the Ontario Libertarian Party. For example, the video that can be seen here, points directly to the problem and asks the important question: how much better off are citizens today with all the additional spending? Obviously not better off, in fact there is a problem and it's getting worse.

Mr. Drummond's report is barely a first step, but at least it's an acknowledgement of the problem, so that is a positive. The document itself contains 362 recommendations, almost one a day for a year. In the report, Drummond suggests that it needs to be enacted in its entirety, not just selecting some items and leaving others. The Liberals have already pronounced on that, they won't do it.

Drummond's mandate was to find a way to balance the budget. I repeat balance the budget. That does not mean reduce the debt, no sir. That means, just stop making the debt BIGGER. In government jargon that means eliminate the deficit by the 2017-18 year. That also means the debt continues to grow for the next 5 years. Citizens will continue to service the debt, which is now a significant portion of the annual budget, and everyone hopes interest rates stay at historic lows (not likely). The Drummond Report is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, of what the Ontario government needs to do (apologies to Churchill) in order to create the conditions for a prosperous future Ontario.