Suzuki's misguided war on fish farms

The West coast of Canada like the East coast, is dotted with fishing outports that provide Canadian and world markets with seafood. Despite strict government regulation and oversight by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Canada, the entire Northern Cod fishing industry collapsed in 1992, creating unemployment and more economic hardship in the Canadian Maritimes (see graph).


The collapse of an entire population because of overfishing or overhunting is not new or unusual. The Plains First Nations culture that depended on the North American Bison was destroyed when overhunting decimated Bison populations in the mid-to-late 1800's. Many readers might think that this collapse was because of lack of regulation by government in the territories where the bison herds roamed. But you should ask yourself what might have happened if those bison herds were owned by ranchers? The bison story is more complex than that; as one libertarian blogger suggests in this, his first "Avatar post". Today, surviving bison herds are protected or managed and cultivated in farms.  My point is, that a food source fit for human consumption is often best managed if it was cultivated, and owned by a farmer.
Fish farming, the most common form of aquaculture, eliminates many of the risks posed by commercial fishing, namely overfishing, as in the cod example above, the risks to the fishermen themselves, and catching and killing the wrong fish, called by-catch. You would think environmentalists like David Suzuki would support fish farming, and you would be wrong. Over the years through petitions and other forms of activism the Suzuki Foundation has attempted to undermine this industry on the basis of flawed scientific evidence and fraud.
An excellent article in the Financial Post by Vivian Krause called Suzuki's fish story, is an attempt to set the record straight. The article points out that a scientific study in a prestigious journal in 2004 triggered a world-wide scare about toxic (cancer-causing) contaminants (PCBs) in farmed salmon. The study suggested that farmed Atlantic salmon had almost 8 times more PCB's than did wild Pacific salmon, the difference was between 0.0366 ppm and 0.0048 ppm. While that is an 8 times difference, the acceptable range is around 2 ppm, or 55 times more, well within acceptable limits for consumption. When the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported to the media that farmed salmon was 8 times more toxic than wild salmon and a co-author of the "study told the media that 'women should avoid eating farmed salmon at all, from the day they are born through menopause,' and that 'one should avoid farmed salmon like the plague. Our results indicate elevated cancer risk from one meal (of farmed salmon) or even less per month'." Well, that was a bad day for farmed salmon.
It turns out that the fears were all groundless and misleading, but much worse the entire story which involves influential people within the AAAS and the prestigious journal Science and their use of those outlets "to sway market share towards wild fish and away from the competition: imported, farmed fish." Millions of dollars were involved and the Suzuki Foundation is at the centre helping promulgate the lie and receiving funds while doing it. (read Ms. Krause' article)
Ms. Krause points out that this misinformation put out by the Suzuki Foundation may be negatively impacting newborns of "educated" mothers in the Vancouver area, who are not giving their fetuses sufficient omega-3 fatty acids because "Canada's most trusted environmentalist has been giving pregnant women faulty advice to avoid farmed salmon." 
Maybe Suzuki is getting the message, "....the Packard foundation paid the David Suzuki Foundation US$762,600 for Pacific Salmon Forests, a project that produced a brochure titled, Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon." I did an online search for this brochure which I located in several libraries on the BC coast and this is what came up: "Not Found" (see below)

Again, if you are at all interested in David Suzuki and his work, you owe it to yourself to read Ms. Krause' article. Suzuki can and has made mistakes, are there others? I think so, just before I close let me point you to an interesting event that happened last fall in BC.
Much credence was given to Suzuki's war on farmed salmon because wild salmon harvests were falling along the West coast each year. Somehow this was blamed on farming (although I would have thought that to be counterintuitive), disease caused by farming, and global warming. Low and behold huge numbers of salmon returned in 2010. Why? That is not yet understood, but it's interesting.
For those interested in fish farming, here is a quick look.


    

David Suzuki at 75

Among the soldiers of the Green-Gestapo, Canadian David Suzuki holds the rank of Generalfeldmarschall at least. He will be turning 75 in a few days, and he is enjoying iconic status among many Canadians, with a movie, a foundation and unrivalled popularity amongst the green and wanna-be-green-gliterati. Personally I think its way-way overdone, but I'm sure Suzuki thinks he is doing the right thing, and yet I totally disagree with him on so many issues. So how could he and I have such a different perspective on things? We're both good people, I am, anyway.
The answer is that we have different world-views, different first premises and as a result a different moral structure.
My view is that humanity is a part of the biota of this planet, and each person on the planet is entitled by virtue of their existence to certain rights. The chief among these rights, is to their own life, each person is in charge, and is the owner, of their own life once they are old enough to leave the caring umbrella of their parents. When are they old enough? They are old enough when they can use their own reason and their own abilities to fend for themselves, and reason is the primary tool that separates us from the other creatures on Earth. As free individuals, people are also free to form associations with others in order to achieve common goals. So far many of you might agree with me. Where we might part is here: individuals or groups may come into conflict when the rights of an individual are infringed upon by another, or by a group. Even if that offending group calls itself the lawful government of the land, by coercing individuals to do things that are essentially contrary to the rights of an individual or individuals, then that is immoral, not justifiable and should be resisted. I believe the government's proper primary purpose is to defend the rights of individuals and settle disputes between them. From a look at the Suzuki's website, my last two statements is where we disagree.

The Suzuki Foundation (DSF) is a lobby group, freely formed and entitled to exist within the laws of the land (although they are not registered lobbyists). I'm fine with that, I even agree with some of their causes. Part of their stated purpose is to "...work with government, business and individuals to conserve our environment by providing science-based education, advocacy and policy work, and acting as a catalyst for the social change that today's situation demands." Not a problem, generally, but I believe DSF has too much sway on government, and government should not be doing some of the things it does in its policy planning and enactments.
On their website, DSF has a page titled Declaration of Interdependence. I have excerpted a section below:

I'm fairly certain Suzuki would agree with the Declaration and with the part excerpted above. The first sentence spells out that humans are a blight on the Earth, the second sentence claims that the our wealth (in Canada etc.) comes at the expense of the "suffering of millions." The rest is a demand for reparations to pay for the "full ecological and social cost ..... of development." In essence, this document of interdependence  actually separates us from the other creatures on the planet rather than connecting us. How dare we reproduce and become the dominant species of Earth. How dare we presume to alter the planet to bring ourselves comfort at the expense of  "fellow creatures." How dare we succeed! That's my problem with Suzuki!

Don't get me wrong here, I understand how important it is to do the right thing for the environment, and I agree that protecting and preserving all aspects of nature where possible is virtuous. I love to see and be a part of nature in all its glory, that is a value to me and my family. But given the extent of pollution and destruction that has occurred already, do our current rules really work? Even where there is massive government regulation, pollution occurs, oil spills occur, species are lost because of shrinking habitat, and on and on. Will doing more of the same, more regulation by government work? I doubt it.

The problem might simply boil down to ownership. Property that is owned by individuals is property that is protected by individuals. I know it might sound counterintuitive, but private property is always better protected than public property. The legal issues are complex, but the argument that free markets better protect the environment than governments is out there, here for example.

So maybe Suzuki is barking up (or hugging) the wrong tree. I only disagree with him on fundamentals, and the means to arrive at the proper ends. I don't disagree for the most part on the ends, but I do disagree that the means justify the ends. I'm sure his birthday will be well attended anyway.

Removing safe and reliable electricity generation in Ontario

In Ontario the Provincial government has demonized coal-fired-thermal-power-generation. Lets put aside for the moment the obvious question that asks why is government is involved in supplying electric power to homeowners. I think competitive free enterprise would do a better job, but I will deal with that issue later. In the meantime an Ontario election is looming and citizens will have an opportunity to pass judgment on the policies and practices of Dalton McGuinty's Liberals soon.
One of those policies is McGuinty's plan to remove the option of coal and reduce natural gas usage for power generation, replacing them with solar panels and wind mills. This ideologically driven policy may lead to some serious unintended consequences for Ontario's future. It's "ideologically driven policy," because McGuinty is convinced that the waste gas carbon dioxide is a significant cause of the evil global warming. Why global warming is a problem for Ontario, I'm still not certain?
In a widely distributed pamphlet McGuinty's Liberals claim the reason for removing coal power is because it pollutes the air, even though there are ways of mitigating that problem that are less expensive and less risky for the future. If air pollution is a primary effect of coal-fired-thermal-power-generation, then the closure of these plants should reduce air pollution. Does it? Have a look at my answer in this video: 

Confronting the inevitable in Wisconsin

Here you see part of the 85,000 demonstrators that showed up in Madison Wisconsin (March 12/11) to protest first term Gov. Scott Walker's legislation to remove the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin State employees.
I have avoided this issue because I feel very sympathetic to to the workers, especially the teachers. I don't condone there behaviour of late, which was appalling, but I understand their protest.
Speaking for myself, I became a teacher because I loved the subject matter (science) and I thought I could share that love and enthusiasm with others. The idea of teaching sounded good to me as an undergrad, because some of my previous teachers seemed to enjoy what they were doing. Who would not want a job that they enjoyed? That was my primary motivation. In order to earn the best salary and benefits I was attracted to the public school system simply out of rational self-interest. This meant I had to join a union (we called it a Federation - OSSTF) and I will admit I felt uncomfortable about the whole thing except the teaching. Most of the time I was able to dismiss the fact that I had a government job, and I was able put aside my philosophical and political beliefs. The worst times were when contract bargaining occurred, or the union supported some group/party that I did not support. There was strike action and work-to-rule action that I did not support, and that I actively undermined. I always knew that my union was in cahoots with the municipal and Provincial(State) governments, and that we teachers enjoyed job security, salary and benefits that did not exist in the private sector. It is for that reason that I think Gov. Walker is doing the right thing. Although he may not be doing the right thing for the right reason, this could be a political tactic.
Wisconsin like most of the states in America and Provinces in Canada, is teetering on default. They differ only in degree of urgency. Over the years legislators in all those jurisdictions, have conspired (and recruited to get re-elected) with public sector employee unions to create contracts and entitlements that cannot possibly be fulfilled, and are far in excess of what the free market private sector would provide. Everyone knows that, Wisconsin is the tip of the very large iceberg that will collide with the good-ship Liberal-Democracy, soon enough. Other states are bound to follow, New Jersey and Gov. Chris Christie comes to mind, the poop is hitting the propellor!
Below Stefan Molyneux has some interesting observations on Wisconsin.    


  

Ban Conservatives!

Take a moment and Google "conservatives ban." When I did there were 2,570,000 results. Many of the first few pages dealt with conservatives banning burkas, booze, abortion, gay marriage, smoking, Harry Potter!, various books and words, trans fats, song lyrics, topless sunbathing etc., I think you get the picture. Conservatives like banning things they don't like or supporting the banning of things they don't like, and the list is long.
Now try that again but this time Google "libertarians ban." There are results, but they are phrased differently, more like: should libertarians be banned? Also very common is "libertarians against the banning of....." a whole range of things, a list almost as big as the conservative ban list. It's an interesting distinction, unfortunately libertarians are often lumped together with conservatives and thought of as being similar when in fact the difference is huge.
A posting by George Bragues on the new Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada website called Conservatism vs. Libertarianism points to one thing the two share: ".......conservatism and libertarianism share a deep suspicion of collectivism. Conservatism does so because it prefers changes that are continuous with, and organically flow, from the status quo, whereas collectivism typically entails a top-down engineered break with custom and tradition. Libertarianism, by contrast, has no special attachment to the prevailing order. It opposes collectivism simply because it violates the principle of individual liberty." That's why the two sides are lumped together, but conservatives are not averse to using collective action on many things.
The chief difference is "......the libertarian is willing to tolerate behaviour that he or she does not approve, whereas the conservative finds it difficult to do the same. If the conservative cannot approve it, he or she is inclined to want the state to ban, or if that’s too onerous, restrain it." So the fact is I'm willing to tolerate conservatives - not ban them, but that does not mean I like them.

Gimme your money or else! Its tax time

Did I ever mention how much I hated doing income tax? I believe I did, last year. Nothing has changed. It might not be so bad if I felt I was getting something for the money (I'm kidding). The fact is, I suspect much of my tax money goes to transfer payments, either to another province or directly to some other people. I have no idea where all the money goes, and I think I pay attention to things like that. Imagine the plight of most of my countrymen who generally don't give a damn, they are being robbed blind. I wish someone who knows where the money goes would itemize it for me, not that it makes a difference, I know it isn't being spent well.
My municipal-regional real-estate tax gets me garbage collection, road maintenance, sewage and snow removal, police, schools, transit and other tangible services. I get all of those services for about one-fifth of my family's income tax payout. While I have little choice in who or how delivers these services, they are generally adequate, but with lots of room for improvement.
Lets see, my federal-provincial income tax gets me health care (it must be a big chunk of that money), a smallish armed forces (its wonderful to live next to America), a judiciary, a border control and an enormous bureaucracy to dole out the transfers etcetera.
To further irritate me, I spend hours trying to dodge and finagle my way out of paying too much tax by filling out tax forms each year on my computer. Last year I mentioned the idea of a flat tax, its still a great idea, and William Hanley in the Financial Post thinks so too. He suggests 25%, I'd start lower and dump some of the gravy, a term that has become popular in these parts.
Of course an income tax is punitive, and always brings to mind the chant "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Yes, that phrase popularized by that guy, should make everyone think about the morality of income tax. Its immoral, legalized theft, and it penalizes effort, never a good idea.
Consumer taxes are better, and less punitive. We had a provincial and a federal sales tax, PST and GST, now we have the harmonized sales tax HST. I don't really like it either, but at least it is avoidable in some ways.
A big problem with those taxes are that businesses become government tax collectors. One of my colleagues, who runs a business, actually snubs his nose at government, and refuses to collect sales tax. Watch and listen to this interview of a very brave gentleman.

Khan Academy: The self-paced lecture

In my entire career as a high school teacher there were just a few times when I could walk out of a classroom after delivering a lecture and think to myself "That was good, I did a good job of explaining those concepts and I think I covered all the bases." On those days, I would think: "wouldn't it be great if I could have filmed that lecture or discussion and repeat it again for my other classes or in future years?" More often after class I was self-critical, I knew I had failed to mention this thing or that, but I also knew I would see them again and bring it up then, if they were all there.
A much worse feeling was knowing that some of the students did not understand my talk even though I thought I had done such a fine job. That can be the worst, most frustrating part of teaching. Even if you ask a group whether they understand, few in the group will have the courage to say no and waste everyones time. That is one problem with one-size-fits-all teaching.
Salman Khan wants to use video to reinvent education. He might already have done that. Years ago in my former school board, there was a concept kicked around called "mastery learning." Basically students don't proceed until they have mastered a particular objective. So imagine a student airline pilot who only gets 75% of his/her landings correct. Though thats not bad, you would not want that person to become a pilot, not yet anyway. The problem with mastery learning is that it does not fit the model on which most school systems function, and since there is little competition among school systems because they are largely government institutions, well, you see what I mean. Students are left with gaps in their education, not able to master some things because of time or some other constraint. Salman Khan has helped flip the eduction system around. Using hundreds (2100 so far) of YouTube videos to teach basic concepts, Khan has allowed students to master by repetition (YouTube is very patient) particular lessons so that they may proceed to the next level fully prepared. Teachers can then use one-to-one contact to help the stragglers. Does it work? Well, have a look the TED video below and he will explain it, then visit the KhanAcademy here.    

  

Revolution, democracy, education and gas pains

Ed meets Fidel

About a month ago I posted a comment on the Egyptian Revolution. It was about democracy and the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood would be involved in a future Egyptian government. Well, that revolution, or should I say coup d'état, seems to have subsided, Mubarak is out, and the Army is still in control as it always had been, no need to worry about the Brotherhood there, not yet anyway. George Jonas commented on that last week in a column Intoxicated by Revolution, where he gets closer to the truth of what is going on in the current Middle Eastern unrest. Jonas points out that Americans in particular are in love with revolution because their own country was born that way. The American and Canadian media got very excited about the Egyptian "peoples revolt" and their demand for freedom and democracy even though those terms have a different meaning for the Egyptians.

I'm old enough to remember a revolution that got North Americans excited more than half a century ago. The picture shows Ed Sullivan, lord of Sunday night television back when I was a kid (in 1959), speaking to a 32-year-old Fidel Castro about his "liberation of Cuba." Some liberation, opinions on that revolution changed soon after that interview was aired.

Mr. Jonas' column discusses democracy as being a goal of the Mid-East unrest. He points out that democracy is really just a "method of succession or power-transfer." In North America we view democracy as a synonym "for individual liberty, fundamental human rights, private enterprise, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, freedom of expression - in short, for the sum of the best ideals of Western-style societies." That is just our bias and it has never been true. Jonas continues that: "'Democracy' denotes a system in which governments succeed each other by being elected, usually for a fixed term, by a majority of qualified voters. That's all. Rule by majority mandate says nothing, in itself, about the kind of society such an impeccable mandate is going to rule." Jonas also adds that it is very unlikely for democracy to come from this current unrest "it's more likely for wealth, justice and liberty to bring people democracy," like has occurred in the West. In other words there is virtually no chance that we can expect democratic states, as we think of them in North America, to arise in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, or Libya. So what is going on there?

Two things are happening and both are related to the way government distorts the marketplace.

In both Tunisia and Egypt a post-secondary education is "free," even though the market for graduates is extremely limited. Tunisia particularly has 57% of its young people entering the labour market with a college degree, compared to the US situation with less than one-third of its young people in that situation. An education bubble fuelled by government policy has created unemployment and underemployment in both Tunisia and Egypt. The value of an education to an individual can only be determined by the price that an employer would pay to employ that individual. If the educated individual is unemployable, than of what value was the education received? That is the distortion created by these governments. Countries with groups of educated unemployables, subjugated by dictators like Gaddafi in Libya,  together with power of the internet, has created a volatile mixture. 

For us in the West the unrest across North Africa has distorted the oil market in southern Europe and as a result everywhere oil is used, "a pain in the gas." A prolonged civil war in Libya threatens to involve the armed forces of NATO and beyond, because it endangers Libyan civilians (no fly zone) and the oil infrastructure of Libya. We are all paying more for gasoline today because the market demands it. Interesting how one government distortion far away can lead to your wallet.         

    

OSCAR robbery and bad medicine

They were robbed. Thats right, the Oscar for Best Picture at the 83rd Annual Academy Awards should have gone to The Social Network. Instead The King's Speech, another very good movie won. The Fighter was also a very good movie, and I'm sure Inception (did not yet see) was as well. My problem is I really don't have much respect for the monarchy or monarchists in general.
Yes, the The King's Speech was about overcoming stuttering, a real problem (especially for a King), and certainly I was sympathetic and even moved by the acting.....I get it. Maybe Colin Firth even deserved Best Actor, but a movie that portrayed how an elitist overcame a problem so that he could fulfil the job which he received by right of inherited entitlement, well, I have a problem with glorifying and celebrating that. So I'm prejudiced against arbitrary rule. What else is new?

The Social Network is a different kind of movie and I remember after watching it that the writing (adapted screenplay) was wonderful, and so was the editing, and each of the actors together did a fabulous and convincing job. It was amazing to me that such a great movie was made about what could be a very dry topic.
A column in the National Post last week said it best for me. Shaun Francis wrote this before Oscar night: "The Facebook story proves that a great idea, combined with good timing and an evangelical founder, can flourish in a system that allows it to quickly attract money, resources and talent. That system is, of course, the free market, capitalist, forprofit economy." He continues by adding: "...I am most struck by what was not part of the Facebook story: government. The Social Network doesn't include a cast credit for "faceless bureaucrat." Nor did the screenplay include any lines about statesponsored venture funds. No science and research tax credits. No federal regulations stipulating who could own Zuckerberg's company, or specifying the language or disclaimers for his home page." Mr. Francis continues by speculating about what would have happened if government were involved (disaster) in creating Facebook and then compares it to the Canadian and Ontario government's "bungled attempts to create electronic medical records."
Mr. Francis adds: "Mainstream political parties and academics claim for-profit medicine will make health care more expensive. Yet despite governments spending bigger and bigger budgets on health care, wait times lengthen and services are delisted. Clearly, taxpayers are not getting value for their money in our monopoly-payer system." 

Facebook has 500-million voluntary users, produces scads of money, and has absolutely nothing to do with government. Mr. Francis concludes that the film The Social Network: "teaches us to value the individual and the free market as agents of change. It proves it's possible to transform the world without a tax credit. It shows that you can make money and make a difference.
"I'm from the government," the man says. "And I'm here to help." When we hear those words, The Social Network suggests we should run in the opposite direction." Absolutely right!

Bringing people to the light

Why is capitalism portrayed as evil by many artists? Because its easy to suspend thought, much easier than thinking. Here are a couple of interesting views:

The case for gold

Some of my libertarian friends will tell me that gold has no intrinsic value, and pays no dividend so why bother owning it? Of course that is true. You can't eat gold, but it makes great jewellery, can be used in the electronics industry in small amounts, is still used by dentists, has a minor role in space exploration, but not much else. The point that is often missed in their argument, is this: for whatever reason gold has been used as a method exchange among people for thousands years. That is indisputable. Gold can, and has been used as money. However dragging around bullion or any other precious metals in your pockets has its downside, literally. The weight of the metal and the problems of storage have created proxies for gold. Once-upon-a-time paper money was a proxy for gold; no longer, too bad. Today if you want to buy gold you can at some banks, or other outlets. The other way to buy gold is through the proxy of an exchange traded fund (ETF), a little more scary but much more convenient. One of the largest ETF's, has the symbol GLD on the New York Stock Exchange. A friend of mine posted an article on the mises.org website today that simply must be read to understand why gold could be important soon. Have a look here.

Pope declares: The end of antisemitism?

It took a German Pope to exonerate the Jews for killing Jesus. From now on the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" will be directly referenced to that pronouncement in the Pope's new book.

I'm sure Jews around the world will breathe a sigh of relief when they read:
"Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus' accusers?" the pope asks, adding that the gospel of St. John simply says it was "the Jews."

"But John's use of this expression does not in any way indicate -- as the modern reader might suppose -- the people of Israel in general, even less is it 'racist' in character," he writes.

"After all John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers. The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews," he writes.

So John was not a self-hating Jew. Apparently it was the Temple aristocracy that was the guilty party, not all of Jewry. What a relief! Oops, sorry for this and this! Who says religion is irrelevant.

What is the tipping point to economic strangulation?

That is the question posed at the end of an article in the National Post by Kevin Libin. Apparently in Egypt more than one-third of the working population was employed by the state. That may have been the tipping point that brought down the Mubarak regime earlier this month.
The same kind of situation is happening in many jurisdictions around the world. When the size and cost of the public sector is factored together with their near and longterm entitlements, and the private sector is so burdened and disadvantaged, something has got to give. That maybe what is playing out in Wisconsin and what prompted an article in the New York Times to ask: Is Wisconsin the Tunisia of collective bargaining rights? Talk about mixing metaphors.
In Canada the same kinds of problems occurred in the 1990's when the Liberal government of the time instituted severe cuts to the size and spending of the federal government with very positive economic results. These same problems are beginning to appear again (see the graph); the Conservatives are in power now, but no matter, they spend like Liberals. This of course provides ample evidence that all the major parties in Canada are identical in power - spend and tax or borrow from the future. They all do it.
Even in smaller jurisdictions like cities in Canada or the US something will have to give and soon. The City of Toronto has frozen municipal taxes for 2011, but he future looks bleak for the new cost conscious administration, with a possible $770 million dollar shortfall for 2012. I'll predict an interesting and possibly violent next few months/years.

Incentives work better than disincentives

Would you pay for plastic bags at a store checkout counter? That is an issue in the Toronto region. Of course retailers pay for the bags they provide customers at checkout. The price per bag is minuscule because the number of bags used is large. But efforts to change human behaviour by penalizing them often just create resentment, antagonism or worse.
In libertarian philosophy, choice is always preferred and coercion is always shunned. So whether it's a ban on plastic bags or recreational drugs the operative word "ban" is antithetical to libertarian thinking. Even a surcharge on plastic bags rankles most libertarians. There must be a better way to change behaviour if that is a goal.
I'll put aside for a moment whether plastic bags are desirable or not (here is an opinion I would support). Personally, I have no problem with plastic bags, but if I was a store keeper, I would at the very least offer a choice, like they used to: paper or plastic, very sensible.
Of course store keepers feel compelled to abide by the government edict that prohibits "free" bags and they feel no obligation to offer a choice. Why? Because they were not offered a choice, and orders are orders. But imagine the goodwill that customers would feel if indeed some entrepreneurial store keeper started offering recyclable paper bags to their customers in the spirit of "you can catch more flies using honey than vinegar."
Some people at Volkswagen had thoughts along those lines a while back, so they sponsored what they call "The Fun Theory." The video below was part of that enterprise which causes people to change their behaviour if they are incentivized to do it. Watch the video and go see the others here.

The School Sucks Project - Part 2

A new philosophy magazine called Kontext is looking for readers and contributors. The magazine is published bimonthly out of the United Kingdom and its first issue as a pdf is available for free download. The hard copy may be purchased for about $12US.
Stefan Molyneux is a contributing author (my link), and the first issue is entirely about education which is what tweaked my interest, see Part 1.

The website of Kontext has links to Freedomain Radio and Mises.org which also makes it interesting to me. But what really got me involved was the link to The School Sucks Project.
As a former teacher, I am painfully aware of some of the problems in the government-run educational bureaucracies that exist in the English speaking Western democracies, particularly Ontario. The School Sucks Project (TSSP) uses a surgeons precision to splay open the entire body of the educational system (especially in the United States) and examine the entrails, and it's not pretty. TSSP looks at everything, the origins, the purpose, the immediate and long lasting effects of the school system that has shaped each us in some way for good or ill.
This first issue of Kontext and its link TSSP, asks the right questions about our school system.  How can a system that is regulated and funded by a government bureaucracy, administered by bureaucrats whose primary job is to manage public funds, and executed by unionized teachers whose allegiance is to the system and each other rather than the clientele, deliver good service, a good education? How? It boggles the mind. Mass-produced indoctrination and socialization must by its very nature create oddities, freaks, widgets that don't work. Whose child is so worthless that s/he can be tossed aside as unfit to proceed (like a malformed widget) as so many children are now? The system truly sucks. Is it any wonder that today the political structure of these same Western democracies employs the same sorts of coercion that were ingrained into each of us by the school system? If you are instilled with collectivist ideas for 12 years you begin to think that is normal, to think like a collectivist. It's not normal, we are each of us different in some way, and those differences cannot not be accommodated by the school system as it is.
Kontext offers its readers an alternative to the established model, its worth reading and promoting. I look forward to the next issue in April that will look at "People and Movements." Good luck!