Leveraging change

In my last posting I suggested that we will never know when the electorate is ready to accept libertarian ideas. Can we encourage them? Can we help create the conditions for the cultural shift that might result in electing a libertarian? Good news, it's happening right now, without our help.
Nouriel Roubini a professor at New York University and a market analyst who famously predicted the financial crisis of 2007 - 09, peered into his crystal ball recently and suggested that: "a perfect storm" was brewing in the global economy as a result of sovereign debt restructuring and economic stagnation in the US, Europe, and Japan.
Roubini like others, uses the metaphor of governments and individuals kicking-the-can-down-the-road of too much public and private debt. But the can is getting heavier, and at some point, someone will trip up. Roubini thinks things come to a head in 2013, maybe, who knows, sooner or maybe later.
In Canada household debt has just reached record levels, and though many think the Canadian government is fiscally sound, factoring in provincial (especially Ontario and Quebec) and municipal debt, things are just as bad here as anywhere.
Of course with all this going on, people are starting to notice (finally). It's becoming apparent even to Joe A. Canuck (not from VYR) that government is not the solution to ALL that ails us, in fact, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, government is the problem.  
Of course it almost goes without saying that libertarians are deeply suspicious of government and are well aware of all the above. They are critical of just about everything to do with government, but most libertarians in Canada do nothing about it, and I mean NOTHING. In fact someone wrote about the libertarian malaise here five years ago, so this is not a new phenomenon, have a look.

Its time to get off your butts folks, you don't have to move the Earth like poor old Archimedes in the picture, even a small gesture multiplied by many times will do the same work as that first class lever the old Greek is using. Our mechanical advantage will not be force, but money. One hundred dollars from one hundred people is $10,000! Since Canadian politicians know how to take care of themselves, the tax break is excellent. In a moderate tax bracket you will get 75% of your donation refunded. At least you would be doing something. Why stop there?
In Ontario this Fall, the Party of Choice will be fielding a much larger slate of candidates than the last time (2007). It would be wonderful to have a candidate, real or on paper, in each of the 107 ridings across the province.
Be part of the change, join the party, be a candidate, donate to the party, volunteer for a candidate, do something, because apathy doesn't work.

Are we there yet?

The idea that a libertarian government will not happen until and unless there is a major cultural shift in our society, has almost become a mantra among libertarians around here. Imagine what that sounds like to new enthusiastic young or even older libertarians. Wait until the time is right, then we will come riding to the rescue and like the cavalry in the old cowboy movie, and we will win the day. Just wait!


Its time to cast aside that idea, because that kind of thinking only blocks action, stifles creativity, and squelches debate. We must accept that day will never come, we will never know when the time is right, and no one will whisper in our ear the magic word: "now!" It's not going to happen.

So here is a challenge, how can we make this happen? How can we engage the unengaged? Those people who know in their gut that something is wrong, but can't imagine an alternate universe, and can't or won't get out of the rut of our current paradigm. (I'll have more on this soon)

If the libertarian idea is so powerful, why do we have such a problem making it sound desirable?

How often do you find yourself using negative terminology when explaining an issue in a casual conversation with someone. For example, on health care: libertarians would abolish government programs, yes they would. On education: libertarians would get rid of the public school system, in a heart beat. On energy: libertarians would privatize the electrical system and remove government from its monopoly on power.
All of these issues are ULTIMATE GOALS of libertarians, and more often than not, expressed in a negative way. We would remove this entitlement, or stop that monopoly and of course rarely do we offer a better option. That's a turn-off, no one likes to have the status quo upset and turn expectations into uncertainty. Most people would argue that things are working fine, maybe not as well as they could be, but "I'm satisfied" they would say. "The governments are trying, and if they screw up, well, we are free to boot them out. Whats wrong with that?" 


Isn't that what you hear in the conversations you have? I hear that ALL THE TIME. That's the problem, our so-called solutions aren't really solutions, they are dreams and most often improperly framed and poorly presented. People then walk away thinking: "what a kook with a kooky idea." Before long libertarian equals kook, and can you blame them?


So, to the question in the title, I think we're there, and I'll have more to say on this.

Life is carcinogenic

More worries. An announcement from the WHO recently about risks from Radio Frequencies (RF) associated with mobile phones was all over the news.

Remember the WHO, they are the group that announced the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic, that caused no end of consternation among world governments, but proved to be a tempest in a teapot. So what are we to make of this?
Its well known that ionizing radiation can result in molecular interactions at the level of living cells and tissues. X-rays and Gamma radiation are the most common form of ionizing radiation we humans are exposed to. X-rays are generally considered "man-made," gamma rays are naturally occurring, and for most people these two would be considered identical in their effects depending on dose: exposure time.
But radio frequency (RF) radiation is non-ionizing, ie. it does not mess with molecules by breaking chemical bonds when electrons are moved around. RF is a bit like visible light, shine intense light or RF on something long enough and that light or RF will be absorbed by the something and converted to heat, another form of non-ionizing radiation. It might help to have a look at the electromagnetic spectrum to see how all these radiations are related. Or not, this is starting to sound like a physics class.
Here is what the WHO announcement said with regard to my last paragraph:
"Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body."
"A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”."
Is this anything to be concerned about given those comments? There is no discussion about possible mechanisms, or comparisons with other heat producing devises. What if a heating pad is held to the head for an extended period of time? Does it present a risk? Is heat the problem or is there something special about RF? What about cordless phones so common in many homes? What about microwave radiation from leaky ovens in homes? What about the fact that we in the industrialized world, are bathed in an ocean of RF and microwave radiation almost all the time?
The online version of Reason Magazine has an article that addresses this very issue, and gives it much needed perspective. For me the entire issue sounds like a way for scientists to scare up some money from various governmental organizations, for further study to no one's benefit, quite the contrary in fact. Then there is the line I heard the other day on radio, if this were true about cell phones, entertainment and sports agents would be dropping like flies.

Magnetic bubbles at the edge of the solar system

The Voyager probes have been traveling away from Earth for over 30 years now. I occasionally check back on them because I have always been a bit of a space nut. Voyager 2 was special, because my son was born on the day it was launched by NASA in 1977. It was the first one launched and so was my son. Other than my little story, the Voyager Program was involved in the first Star Trek movie as a hybrid robot entity called V'ger, you might recall. That was 1979!
It's humbling to appreciate that these probes are now just at the edge of our solar system, past the orbit of Pluto the former planet, and hurtling into interstellar space. Space is really, really big, beyond imaginings!
These probes have returned a wealth of scientific data, and made discoveries that would be impossible in their absence. The latest one is that the edge of our solar system is filled with frothy magnetic bubbles. Here is NASA's explanation:

Popping the balloon of big government.

What came first: Big government OR Lobbyists? That is not a chicken and egg question, the answer should be obvious. There is no point in lobbying a small, powerless limited government. Only big, powerful and unrestrained governments are worth lobbying.
POTUS Gerald Ford said this in 1974 to a joint session of Congress: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." He understood that there are two sides to the power of big government. Lobbyists and special interest groups know how to work both sides, this is true in the USA, Canada, and everywhere there is big government. Of course even in free and democratic countries there is corruption in government despite the best efforts of the law makers and the judiciary, corruption seems to be a "function" of government AND a function (in the mathematical sense) of BIG government. (yes two meanings of 'function').
Dan Mitchell at CATO produced a short video that suggests how to avoid corruption. Even though its content and advise is directed to an American audience, there is much to learn from it:

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Fake?

A couple of weeks ago, I was involved in a lengthy Facebook thread on anthropogenic global warming (AGW - a favourite topic of mine as many of you know). In the thread we had arrived at the point where links to websites like 'green-goblin' or 'green-man' or something were being posted. As if those links would provide me the missing bit of evidence that suddenly made me accept the theory of AGW. It reminds me of arguing with a Creationist who uses parts of the bible as his evidence, sorry.
One of the aforementioned thread participants (not a friend) called me a "conspiracy theorist" when I suggested that the entire issue of global warming may lead to a form of world government. I let the insult pass without comment, but I get his point. The fact is though, the UN and its IPCC sprout, already have the aura of a world government. I'm convinced however, it is no conspiracy. There is no plot by political leaders to force the world to trade carbon credits and it's not going to happen, no one is that stupid, oh wait, maybe the Europeans. Now there is a conspiracy of the stupid, the European Union, one of the dumber idea's of the last century.
If there really were such things as secret conspiracies I suspect we would already know about them, or soon will. In a world hungry for information it is almost impossible to keep things secret for very long. Reals secrets are worth real money to anyone that has the secrets to sell. People even give secrets away, free! Case in point, that fellow who leaked to WikiLeaks,  Bradley Manning, he gave it away, the military can't even keep a secret.
Most conspiracy theories are ridiculous yet still have relatively large followings. You know what I mean, UFO's and Area 51, the JFK Assassination plot, Faked Moon Landings, Chemtrails, the 9/11 Truthers, and my favourite, Jewish World Domination, yeah right. The list is long.
How hard is it to keep a real secret? Ask the US Air Force about the billion dollar secret unmanned space plane called X-37B. It seems a couple of Canadian backyard astronomers with math skills outed X-37B. You can go out and spot this secret space plane, just enter your postal code or zip code into this webpage, and you will get a list of satellite flybys and at some point during the week X-37B will be overhead. Don't tell anyone.        

June 6th is Tax Freedom Day.....

Tax Freedom Day in Canada is Monday, June 6th, 2011, two days later than last year. Many libertarian bloggers, writers, and philosophers will tell you that taxes effectively make us slaves because your taxes are spent largely without your direct input, and often in ways you would not prefer. Slaves don't have much say in their lives either, but here in Canada we are only slaves for the first five months of the year. This gives us the illusion of freedom.
How many of you out there are in favour of continuing to bomb Libya with pricey "smart bombs" so that we may protect Libyans from Gaddafi? Not I! Of course that justification is a ruse, the primary reason NATO wants Gaddafi out of Libya is to ensure that oil continues to flow to our NATO partners in Southern Europe. Was their even a vote in Parliament about this issue? I don't recall, the point is your taxes are being used over there, on the shores of Tripoli as the song goes.
The Fraser Institute does a good job of reminding us each year of our impending freedom from slavery, here is where to find the latest reminder. They have even come up with a little song for this year:


Just so you don't feel you have no say at all, the National Post has a survey that you might try. Who knows it might influence the government in how they spend the taxes the stole took from you this year. The survey has its own ambiguities, especially if you have libertarian leanings, give it a try, here.   

Copyleft and right

Imagine if someone could copyright the idea of automobile, computer, or airplane. Those people would be wealthy beyond dreams, wouldn't they? Well, maybe they would, if they actually did a good job of producing and marketing, then sold their tangible idea (product) to willing customers. The good news is, none of those ideas were actually patented, these were just ideas that were "intellectual," in the mind, like the idea of soup or bread.
Ownership of intellectual property is a disputed issue amongst libertarians. When should someone be accused of theft of intellectual property? In fact is it possible to make such an accusation? Is it possible to own an idea to the exclusion of everyone else?
Do yourself a favour and follow this link to Sheldon Richman's short article called Slave Labour and Intellectual Property, then check the Freeman Online for this longer piece, and all will be revealed and you too can join in the discussion.  

Another supposed ecological disaster averted

Can an environmental advocacy organization ever admit that it has made an error (or worse)? Apparently not.
The David Suzuki Foundation has claimed for the past 10 years that eating farmed salmon is dangerous and that just farming salmon adversely affects wild salmon by spreading sea lice to them, and decimating the wild salmon populations. Both claims are at best exaggerated, and at worst just plain false according to Vivian Krause, a Vancouver researcher, writer, and blogger. 
Ms. Krause's most recent article was in the Financial Post. I have written about this before here. Ms. Krause's column points out that The Suzuki Foundation has been quietly removing all references regarding their 10 year battle against farmed salmon. Why? Is it because its wrong, or worse is it because they have accepted funds from lobbying organizations to dissuade people from eating farmed salmon for the purposes of marketing?
Thanks to Ms. Krauses' investigative work, we can get a peek inside the environmentalists cabal, to see just how they get their money and realize that science can be just as shady as politics. Check out this video:  

Natural selection should guide economics

Look carefully at that picture. See the moth? There are actually two of them.
In the world of evolutionary biology, the story of the peppered moth has almost iconic status when it is used to explain natural selection might work. It's fairly easy to explain the selective advantage of camouflage, especially for something as helpless as a moth on tree bark.
In high school biology, illustrating the concept of natural selection can be this simple, or a bit more difficult using the Hardy-Weinberg Principle of shifting allele frequencies. Either way the concept of Natural Selection can be used to explain biological evolution. For those who understand this stuff it's fairly clear that it can be used to explain and predict events around evolution. Though many people might think that evolution is random , the truth is, if enough information is known the direction and even possible outcomes may be predicted.
I thought of evolution the instant I read an article by Steven Horwitz in this months issue of The Freeman: Free Markets Are Regulated: The myth of disorder. The article argues for the proposition that unregulated free markets, are in fact regulated by the rules of economics, creating order without design. This is an argument I wholeheartedly support.
Now I'm going to make a sweeping generalization. I suspect that there are many who believe that the Theory of Evolution is the best way yet devised to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Whether natural selection is the primary mechanism, or whether there are several other mechanisms, is not really important. What is important is, that there was no "guiding hand," no "intelligent designer" involved in directing the evolution of those species currently extant. Their very existence was regulated by a complex interaction between environmental conditions, species variability, reproductive rates, and chance. I'm willing to bet that many who believe these ideas about evolution, also believe that governments should regulate the economies of countries, and not leave them to the supposed vagaries of the free market. In other words, many who read the blogs associated with Planet Atheism (which I am happy to be part of), who support the teachings and the truth about evolution, many of you are collectivists, statists, socialists etc. etc.
You believe that somehow science is not involved in economics. I believe economics is a science as much as evolution, and as such, there are rules that can be understood and used to make predictions. Furthermore, to interfere in a free market to my mind, is a bit like believing that a god, or an intelligent designer, somehow can make a few tweaks to improve the process of evolution. While that is not going to happen, governments do interfere in free markets, and Steven Horwitz's article explains that when they do they create disorder and randomness. By "regulating things" the state destroys order.           

Giving back or just giving - The Morality of Profit

This is a picture of Bill and Melinda Gates, among the most generous people in the world. Bill Gates is often quoted about his generosity as saying he is just "giving back." The video below from the Atlas Network points out that when rich people say they are giving back, most of them like Gates, are doing no such thing. In fact they are mis-speaking at the best, or being falsely modest at worst. At any rate it is a distortion of the truth. Watch the argument:

Bad choices made right

At our regularly scheduled pub night recently, a libertarian friend posed this question to me: "Why are you a libertarian?" I had to think for a moment then I blurted out something about having choices. Deep thoughts aren't generated at pub nights, so I was not prepared for the question and my answer was poor. My friend followed with something like this:
"So, if libertarians are all about choice but want to get rid of government health care, and allow people to seek private insurers or have no insurance at all, then libertarians are restricting choice by eliminating the government option and effectively forcing people to have private health care or none at all. What kind of choice is that?" Again I did not immediately grasp the fallacy in that thinking, not until afterward, and that's why I writing about it here. So here is a more thoughtful answer to both of the above questions.

Suppose the government was in the food production industry. Food is essential to life, often health care is too, but overall it can be argued that food is more important, most of the time to most people, I hope you agree.
Governments in this part of the world are not involved with food production (not directly) nor should they be. Food is produced by efficient producers, for profit, and marketed all over the world. Food moves rapidly and efficiently across borders without much government fuss (except for the "marketing boards" in Canada, but that is another story). Food scarcity is controlled by price and so is food abundance, supply and demand rule most of the time. I have lived here in the Greater Toronto area virtually my entire life, and I have never known there to be a shortage of food. If you can't find red apples there are green ones, there are always choices that generally fit everyones budget. It's amazing, never a shortage, always more than enough in stores, and yet profits are to be made, and wealth is produced. So much wealth, and so much food in fact, that even the poor are able find enough through private charity and food banks.

In Canada, and much of the Western world, governments are involved in health care. A true libertarian thinker would say that they should not be. A hypothetical libertarian government by eliminating the option for government regulated health care, is not removing a choice, rather, that libertarian government is righting a wrong. The government should not be doing that, should not be involved in health care. Unlike food production, where shortages are controlled by price and choice, supply and demand, ALL Canadians in all provinces know too well that there are shortages in health care, because scarcity is not controlled by price, it is controlled by government edict. All Canadians are familiar with the term "wait-time" when it is used to reference health care. But did you ever have to wait to buy bananas? Maybe one store had sold out, but in the larger centres there are always bananas nearby! Rarely a shortage, even in the depths of a Canadian winter.
But health care? Now you're talking shortages. Can't find a family doctor? Have you ever waited in a hospital emergency room for yourself or a loved one and been "triaged" almost to death? Have you ever been in a doctor's overbooked waiting room, waiting and waiting and waiting? Have you or a loved one ever had to endure a long wait to get much needed treatment for any sort of ailment, surgery or otherwise? I'm certain most Canadians would answer in the affirmative to one or more of those questions. It's the Canadian way of life and death. Yet for some reason Canadians are proud to say that: "free health care" is what separates us from our less caring American cousins to the South. This is a fallacy that needs to be examined on several levels, but not here.
The point of course is that food production and distribution is relatively unregulated, driven by the profit motive and yet it fulfills the needs of most Canadians most of the time. Health care on the other hand, is almost totally regulated, removed from the profit motive because it is somehow unseemly, yet it rarely ever fulfils the needs of its customers at any time. The chart in the corner may be dated, but the message is the same today.
What about the poor, what about catastrophic situations? These are issues that can be accommodated, even in a competitive system. While I don't have all the answers, I do know that what we have now can be made much better with choice. A libertarian government would strive for choice, but there are some choices that are just plain wrong.  

HBO's "Too Big to Fail" - fails

Paul Giamatti as Ben Bernanke

"The Ben Bernank"

Some of you will smile when I refer to "The Ben Bernank." It's a bit of an inside joke that I won't bother explaining here, but if you have seen some of my previous postings featuring Mr. Tugwit's cartoon bears you will understand.
Anyway Paul Giamatti (left) plays Ben Bernanke (right) in HBO's  rendition of "Too Big to Fail" based on Andrew Ross Sorkin's best seller of the same name. I did not read the book, so I don't know how the movie compares, but Giamatti's role in the movie is not huge. He just seems to be there at critical moments in the movie to move the plot along, and save the world from something worse (as he says) than the Great Depression. Apparently Bernanke is an expert on the causes of the Great Depression so it was opportune for him to be in office pulling the "right strings" during the economic turmoil that occurred during 2008. (that is what we are told)
The movie illustrates the very fuzzy separation between the government players and the private bankers. So of course the underlying question throughout the movie is how closely the events depicted in the movie match with reality? I suspect it is close, but of course only the real players know for sure. The relationship between governments (not just American) and the banks should be enough to make everyone watching cringe, though I doubt they will.
A few things about the movie are clear, mainly that its complicated. The actors do a good job of pretending to understand what's going on, at least it looks like it. Maybe that is just the good screenplay writing (Peter Gould and Sorkin). There is a point in the movie about an hour in, when one of the characters explains what is going on indirectly, and believe me this movie needs explaining. I'm not saying it was badly done, quite the contrary, I thought they did an admirable job (though my wife thought it was boring).
The biggest problem with the movie (for me) has nothing to do with the acting, directing, casting or anything to do with its production. The movie comes to a resolution when the American government effectively nationalizes AIG and the Congress finally passes the TARP bill giving money to banks that didn't even need it. When this happens you almost expect to see the Henry Paulson (William Hurt) character and Bernanke slapping their hands together in satisfaction - job well done. The cavalry came to the rescue and everything has been fixed! That is the problem with the movie. It perpetuates the lie that an unimaginably complex creature like "the economy" can be fully understood and manipulated by a few people in a back room. It hasn't even been three years since the mess appeared, but the impression the movie leaves is things are back to normal. The Market is behaving like things are good, and all has been appropriately controlled. But if it is true, as I suspect it is, this economic repair is like the bubble gum in the cracked dam. We are not done yet.

Firecracker Day or British Heritage Day

When I was a child growing up in Toronto we called this holiday we are celebrating today, (Victoria Day) "Firecracker Day." It was our annual excuse to buy firecrackers (much easier to get in those days) at the local variety store, and spend the day getting into all kinds of mischief, like blowing up tulip blooms with  small firecrackers. I'm sure that's distressing to any gardeners out there, but the unfortunate and numerous tulips provided us with hours of entertainment.
It was a day off school and off work for most, because our true-blue Ontario stat-laws meant business was at a standstill, or else. Things are still shut pretty tight around here even in 2011. But that is another posting.
Even as a child I knew that celebrating the birthday of a dead monarch was a dumb idea, except for the fact there was no school. It still is a dumb idea, but rather that eliminating the holiday why not change the rationale behind it?
We in Canada owe our British forebears a debt of gratitude, not for the old queen or the present one, but for the rules, laws, and practices that we use to this day to govern ourselves. Canada is as successful as it is, because of the British idea of liberty from Magna-Carta to the Westminster System. While these facts may be widely known, they are not really understood by many Canadians, who have a very rudimentary idea of the concept of liberty, and somehow think that it is an American idea. Of course the Americans owe to Britain that same debt of gratitude because they are after-all our cousins.
Anyway, just a suggestion, change the name of the holiday to British Heritage Day, or Westminster Day or just keep Victoria Day. What really needs to change is what we are celebrating, not a birthday, but a way of living in liberty.  

Out there on the fringe

If you are reading this after 6 pm in the Eastern Time Zone, then you and I will likely make it through the night. Somehow I knew we would.
Apparently the mainstream media were starved for real news this week, or they were concerned that the end is indeed near, or they are giving us the old "wink-wink" with the story of the fringe Christian group preparing for the apocalypse today May 21, 2011.

Last month I attended a media gathering (but very few media were there) of "fringe political" parties in Toronto so that we, the fringe parties, could get some media attention during the Canadian election campaign.
Thats right the Libertarian Party of Canada is considered a fringe group. The party that advocates freedom from coercive force especially by government, the party that advocates free enterprise capitalism, the party that advocates property rights, limited government, adherence to a constitution that protects individual liberty, and on and on, WE are fringe! It boggles my mind every time I think about it, freedom is fringe! Did we get the same coverage as those moron Christians in the video below? No, not even close. I guess next time we should try billboards with a scary message like "freedom is not free" or something more ominous. If there is a next time! ;-)