In Canada, the US and much of the world, the concept of limited government is as foreign as Martian soil. Ask someone on the street or a friend what is meant by limited government, and you will get contorted faces, quizzical looks and maybe a response like "does it mean they have limited liability." Sadly, no! Governments today somehow believe they are liable, that is, responsible for everything, everything.
That fellow in the picture, Wilfrid Laurier, may have been Canada's last Prime Minister who understood the meaning of limited government.
The video below is my attempt to capture the essence of the Ontario state, its size and scope in under two minutes.
From the excellent parody website: http://thepeoplescube.com/
One of my pet peeves, and there aren't that many, occurs when members of the statist media, or Statists themselves refer to libertarian friendly comments as "ideological." So when Canadian P.M. Stephen Harper, no libertarian he, advocated the removal of the mandatory long form 2011 Census, or the removal of the per voter government subsidy to federal political parties, he was reviled for being ideological. This was coming from statists who somehow felt THEY were not being ideological. Of course not, they were just repeating the media bullshit (we call that the CBC here) and supporting the dominant paradigm.
What is that dominant paradigm? Essentially its one or other form of collectivism, socialist, communist, fascist, Liberal, Conservative, it doesn't matter they are the pretty much all the same expect in degree.
So here is another election ad, this one about windmills and the ideology of environmentalism. It fits in with other forms of collectivism only its green on the outside and kinda red inside. HappyFourth, tomyAmericanreaders!
Notwithstanding high taxes, enormous
expenditures, and many promises, the standard of health care services provided
by successive Ontario governments has continued to deteriorate.Medicare cannot be continued without changes from
the current form of unrestrained demand for “free” services coupled with
central bureaucratic planning and government mandated supply restrictions.Growing private sector involvement will help,
but competitively priced, widely accessible, high quality health care will only
be available for everyone to the extent state involvement is eliminated.Since this cannot be accomplished overnight
without some short term hardship, transition measures will be needed.However, ultimately everyone will be
personally responsible for their own health care in a libertarian free market
system.
John Ivison has an appropriate and funny column in the National Post today. He is covering the "Royal" visit of two young people from London (in the picture) and his comments will make anyone smile.
The news media will be all over the Royal honeymooners and Gay Pride week here in the centre of the Canadian universe during our National holiday weekend.
I can't think of how to relate these two events. Yes, there are queens involved, not royal. There will be Royal parades and Pride parades, pomp and pageantry at both and ass-less chaps and mounted horsemen (I'm not going to touch that one).
The Royals aren't coming to Toronto, too bad. Maybe it had to do with Pride Week, competition you know. But missing Toronto is a bit like trying to get the flavour of France without going to Paris. Why choose the Calgary Stampede over Pride week? Why piss off the animal lovers AND the LGBT community?
The big media story here this entire week, has been the failure of the newly installed Mayor of Toronto (Rob Ford) to acknowledge the Pride events in his city. Maybe we should be pissed off at the Royals too?
Want to see how the "pen is mightier than the sword?"
Paul Krugman is in town today, speaking to the Economic Club of Canada, and he wasn't very optimistic about the future, but not for the reasons you might think. Krugman thinks that governments are not doing enough to stimulate their economies. Really? Yup, “We’re living in a time in which, for the time being, virtue is vice, prudence is folly.” What does he mean? Spend more dammit! Sigh.....
As I was saying about the pen and sword, read Peter Foster today in the Financial Post, he splays Krugman open and the insides aren't pretty.
Click your mouse on that map. Only New Zealand and Switzerland are shaded bluish indicating they have greatest degree of economic freedom according to the Fraser Institute in 2008.
The map is part of a List of Freedom Indices that someone created for Wikipedia, and it is a wonderful resource for anyone on the planet to compare their country on issues of political, civil and economic freedoms.
The Freedom Indices are mentioned in a great column in today's Financial Post written by Karen Selick the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. Ms. Selick's column "Pursuit of one's trade," argues that without economic freedom all other freedoms are jeopardized.
Of course the reality is, liberty cannot be rationed into press freedoms, civil liberties, and economic liberties. True freedom requires all of them, not two out of three. Just as life requires air, water, and food, the rationing of any one impinges on life, period.
My apologies to William Shakespeare, but is the Canadian housing market in a bubble? There is some concern that the events in the United States that led to the Great Recession, namely their artificially low interest rates over the past decade could be happening here. The Federal government is concerned as well, earlier this year the "rules" for getting a government backed mortgage were tightened. Thats right the government has rules for getting a mortgage, why that should be a function of government is beyond me. You would think that our vaunted bankers would be clever enough to make their own rules about mortgagees and mortgagors.
An excellent column in the Financial Post by Lawrence Solomon this week, outlines how the government may be stoking the fires of a mortgage crisis not unlike the mess created by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac that led to the 2008 housing collapse in the States. The effects of that collapse are still being felt in America and around the world. Solomon points to CMHC as one of the chief culprits, but more than that he outlines some of the myriad other housing enticements that encourage demand and inflate the housing market. He thinks it's not too late to "fix" the problem.
You could say that explains the Socialist NDP surge in Quebec and elsewhere during the most recent Canadian federal election. All those voters were subliminally affected by the Smurfs in their childhood, now they are just a practicing what was preached to them. Its all a giant plot designed to turn the world into a Statist Utopia (see oxymoron). Who knew? Or, this could be clever capitalist marketing in advance of the Smurfs' new movie where they resurrect the career of Jonathan Winters, 85, - yes, he's still alive and he is the voice of Papa Smurf in the new movie The Smurfs in 3D opening July 29, 2011. Yes, the Statist Smurfs arrive in New York City the Capitalist capital, and proclaim "where the smurf are we?" Statist Europe is already deeply involved, with blue villages popping up all over. Here is Antoine in his own words, after the promo:
Why are prices important? Prof. Daniel J. Smith of Troy University describes the role that prices play in generating, gathering, and transmitting information throughout the economy.
Gerry Nicholls has announced "a new website......to promote and protect conservative values.....called www.freedomforum.ca ." He writes: "I want freedomforum.ca to provide a principled, non-partisan voice for the conservative ideals of smaller government, free markets and individual liberty. My hope is this site will help win the war of ideas and mobilize Canadian conservatives to push our political parties in the right direction."
On the website the 'About us' says:
"A strictly non-partisan site, Freedomforum.ca is dedicated to promoting, defending and celebrating our economic, political and individual freedoms. Its aim is to offset the anti-market bias so prevalent among the mainstream media, political parties and special interest groups and to raise awareness about the moral underpinnings and principles of democratic capitalism and individual liberty. In short, this site is for Canadians who believe our country needs less government and more freedom."
Sounds good right? Here is my problem: since when are smaller government, free markets and individual liberty conservative values?
The word "conservative" is liberally sprinkled all over this website, over and over again. I did a word search for "libertarian" and three articles came up, but none of them actually used the word libertarian, none. So what's up with that? Does strictly non-partisan mean strictly not libertarian, but conservative is OK? Don't words mean anything anymore? Does this new site advocate keeping the status quo? Isn't that what the non-partisan word 'conservative' means?
The dictionary definition of the adjective conservative as in the phrase "conservative values" where conservative modifies values is: conservative (adjective) - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. OK, maybe "restore traditional" values, that works, but who is there in Canada that remembers those values? By the way the libertarian movement is all about limiting government not limiting change as conservative implies.
Yes, this website looks interesting, even promising. My advice to Gerry and any other writers on this site is that the word libertarian as an adjective actually means "advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty." Isn't that closer to the ideals of smaller government, free markets and individual liberty? I think so. Use the damn word!
Last weekend was the 50th Anniversary celebration of Canada's only openly declared and still socialist political party.
In my last posting I suggested that there is much to learn from the rise of the NDP to official opposition status. So continuing that thought, let me direct you to an interesting article in MacLean's magazine this week. The article, The making of Jack Layton by John Geddes, is way more than I ever wanted to know about Jack, but I found parts interesting and useful.
The article shows that Layton is a natural leader type, going back to his school days and is obviously related to his family's entanglements in the world of politics. Layton grew up in Quebec, in the politically volatile time period of the rise of Quebec Nationalism. His activism put him on the periphery of groups involved in the October Crisis in 1970. He eventually came to Toronto and became a politician in the municipal arena. Two lessons in the article, first this story from the article: "In 1985, a barbed joke in a bar prompted him to rethink his political style. He went to meet one of his younger brothers, then doing graduate work at the University of Toronto, at a downtown pub. “He’s introducing me to his buddies, and one of them—he’s had several beers—says, ‘Oh, you’re Jack Layton. I thought your name was But Jack Layton. You know, you read in the paper, ‘The mayor proposes this, but Jack Layton,’ or, ‘They want to do this, but Jack Layton . . . ’ ” The jibe stung. “I was opposing things,” he says."
Lesson one: criticize yes, but offer constructive alternatives, Layton took that to heart. Lesson two: Layton lost in a bid to become Toronto mayor in 1991, and in a Federal election in 1993. Learn from losing, yes it sucks, but it is the market telling you that your message needs improvement.
In the federal election just passed, the number of rejected ballots in Markham-Unionville beat my total as the local Libertarian candidate, again. But this time it was closer. I’m not discouraged because I know I made a difference. People don’t necessarily vote for or against a particular individual or party, so I don’t feel slighted in any way with only 0.5% of the popular vote.
As a case in point, look at the NDP surge in Quebec and elsewhere. One young NDP candidate never set foot in her riding, had no election signs or campaign office, spent a week of the campaign vacationing in Las Vegas, and was virtually invisible, but won her election handily. Effectively she was a “paper candidate,” riding on the coat tails of her leader, Jack Layton. The Harper majority has presented her with a four-year contract and an annual salary of $157,731 plus perks, just for showing up; not bad for agreeing to help out her party. She obviously made a difference with very little effort. For the NDP it was important to field candidates in every riding across the country for the sake of credibility, even if their candidates were not credible themselves. Helping the party is one important lesson for Libertarian candidates and potential candidates in the upcoming Ontario Provincial election.
For all the considerable effort that I put forth in this election campaign, my vote count barely budged from my 2008 results. It was not for lack of trying. I had an unpopular package to sell the voters of Markham-Unionville. Some day, in the future, that package may look more attractive to voters, but not yet.
This campaign was my second attempt. This time I had signs throughout the riding, attended “all-candidates debates” (except where I was involved with other party matters), I was profiled on the local cable channel, and local newspaper, had a widely heard radio interview on a Toronto Rock station, I used social media like my blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. I also had short YouTube clips online, and a website dedicated to the election campaign. I campaigned with pamphlets from door-to-door and in public areas.
Did it have an effect?
Well it certainly did not translate to votes. However, on several occasions people that I met on the campaign told me that they saw my signs, but didn’t know what the Libertarian Party represented, or more often, they had never heard of the party before. The point is, now they have. No party wins voter trust instantly, and it takes repetition and familiarity; look at the NDP story.
This year is the 50th Anniversary of the creation of the NDP, and it has taken 50 years of repetitive collectivist rhetoric and thinking for them to achieve the trust of a large percentage of the electorate. Over 30% of voters across Canada (much improved from 18% in 2008) chose an NDP candidate in this election, making the NDP the official opposition for the first time. In those 50 years Canada has changed enormously from a nation that accepted a relatively limited role for government with emphasis on individual, family and community responsibility. The current paradigm in Canada, is one where government should do as much as possible for as many as possible. This happened in a slow but steady evolution, with the assistance of politicians that pandered to the public sector unions, corporations, and was abetted by the public school system, and the mainstream media.
The other important lesson we Libertarians should take to heart is the role of leadership. If we are going to act like a political party and ask people to vote for us, they need a face, and a persona to go with the party name. The NDP example demonstrates my point; look at what Jack Layton accomplished. In ridings all over the country, disenchanted Liberal and Bloc voters chose NDP candidates sight unseen. That will not happen to us necessarily, but an effective leader allows the generally lazy mainstream media to zero in on one individual who can deliver the message for us all.
We have much to offer to a thinking electorate. We are the only party where principles of freedom would direct policy. The only party that openly advocates free enterprise, reduced spending, reduced government, and actually means it. The problem is we are few, and it will take each of us to make a difference, but make no mistake, you can if you try.
The above article originally appeared in The Libertarian Bulletin, The Newsletter of the Ontario Libertarian Party Summer 2011, Vol. 31 No. 4
