Making the unthinkable, more popular: A libertarian goal

"Should libertarians become involved in politics?" Not a tough question for me, having run in two elections, and about to start yet another campaign. But that was the question posed in a debate at this year's Liberty Summer Seminar in Orono Ontario.

The debaters were Leon Drolet a former Michigan State legislator, arguing for the affirmative, and Anton Howes (negative) on the board of European Students for Liberty in the UK.
Despite my bias, I found it a fascinating debate and discussion, and a learning experience. Both debaters were excellent, though I, and a majority of the audience thought that Mr. Drolet carried the day. Of course I didn't need convincing, but I was exposed to a new (for me) concept in Mr. Drolet's rebuttal.
Mr. Drolet was careful to acknowledge that his opponent's position was as important as his own, namely the apolitical philosophical advocates (like the Institute for Liberal Studies and other think tanks and thinkers) were as important as the political ones. Both are required to eventually sway public opinion and make policy change in government.

In the rebuttal Mr. Drolet referred to the Overton Window, a model of policy change that describes the range of acceptable options that politicians can support and still win re-election.
In any politically related discussion there are always a range of alternatives as is indicated in the diagram above. New ideas may be so "out there on the fringe" that they are considered by most people as being unthinkable. Others are either already policy, or possible policy. Mr. Drolet suggested that it is up to the philosopher thinker or the think tank to present an idea. It is the politician's job is to sell it, so that it eventually becomes more acceptable and mainstream. In any political enterprise such as an election campaign, the “window” (named the Overton Window) includes the range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion. Any politician may recommend anything within the Overton Window without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office. Overton's idea was arranged in a spectrum on a vertical axis of “more free” and “less free” with regard to government intervention. The window moves or expands as ideas become more or less politically acceptable.
So within the context of the American campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination, Ron Paul's ideas, by and large, are considered unthinkable or too radical to make him a viable candidate. That is how the mainstream media are portraying him. But events may change the public perception of Ron Paul, and some or all of his ideas may become more acceptable or sensible to the general public. That's why he is running.
That is true about Canadian libertarians as well. The election campaign in Ontario, now underway, will give us an opportunity to advocate unthinkable or radical ideas to the electorate. The goal is to move the Overton Window toward acceptability and eventually get someone elected. Can this happen? Of course it can.
Unthinkable ideas 50 years ago, are now completely accepted. There is a black President in the US. Marriage between homosexuals is legal in Canada and many American jurisdictions. Marijuana today, seems "less dangerous" and is likely to be decriminalized somewhere in North America in the not-too-distant future. Today there is no law in Canada dealing with abortion. All of those ideas were once unthinkable, but with patience, and persistence, they are within the realm of policy and practice. There is hope.

Libertarian island : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

Straight from the Liberty Summer Seminar: Peter Jaworski on Ezra Levant. Click below to see video.

Libertarian island : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

The British Non-Working class riots

Theodore Dalrymple best expressed what is and has been happening in Great Britain lately.

"The riots are the apotheosis of the welfare state and popular culture in their British form. A population thinks (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class) that it is entitled to a high standard of consumption, irrespective of its personal efforts; and therefore it regards the fact that it does not receive that high standard, by comparison with the rest of society, as a sign of injustice. It believes itself deprived (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class), even though each member of it has received an education costing $80,000, toward which neither he nor—quite likely—any member of his family has made much of a contribution; indeed, he may well have lived his entire life at others’ expense, such that every mouthful of food he has ever eaten, every shirt he has ever worn, every television he has ever watched, has been provided by others. Even if he were to recognize this, he would not be grateful, for dependency does not promote gratitude. On the contrary, he would simply feel that the subventions were not sufficient to allow him to live as he would have liked."

It's difficult to be more incisive than that, so I won't try, and the entire article linked above is worth the read.

After the 2008-2009 financial turmoil, I recall reading financial commentators who predicted that a crisis of the sort that happened, not a typical boom and bust recession, but one where a fundamental de-leveraging was occurring, a bank and debt crisis, was the type of crisis that would lead to violence, and war. Of course a vague prediction of that sort, probably can be made anytime with some accuracy. But when I read it, it felt ominous almost Orwellian. 

Where will the next war begin or will the ones we have already grow, and become more widespread? Is the violence internal and specific to certain countries? What kind of violence? The advisors I read, pointed to violence related to the economy. Again, is there any other kind? Just about any kind of violence that does not have a sociopathic cause, is caused by economics, any war, any criminal violence, just about everything has an economic root.

The British violence has an economic root too, but its economics according to what Dalrymple suggested above, and what Stefan Molyneux has researched below. 

    

Liberty Summer Seminar - Huddle in the Hinterland

LSS 2011 under the tent

Last weekend I had the privilege of learning about liberty in the country side of Southern Ontario. Just under 100 people, Canadians, Americans, even a few Europeans, all with a deep appreciation of liberty, gathered in the woods near Orono. It was the Eleventh Annual Liberty Summer Seminar (LSS) sponsored by the Institute for Liberal Studies.

This years edition of the LSS was in jeopardy at one point. Some local politicians were determined to close it down because of arcane bylaw regulations. Thanks to widespread support, legal help from the CCF, and a municipal election that ultimately turfed out most of the offending politicians, the 2011 LSS went ahead.

From a personal point of view it's always reassuring to be in the company of other libertarians, sure there are still arguments, but they seem much more productive and satisfying.

In many ways this seminar is like an annual renewal for those attending. Friendships are renewed, ideas are exchanged, passion and determination are refreshed, and the annual downpour has a cleansing effect. It did pour, but not for long.

My plan is, to post several times over the course of the next week or so, highlighting some of the speakers and stories that were observed during the 2011 LSS, and the first one will be about a debate - "Should libertarians become involved in politics?" 

The Cassandra Syndrome

The Procession of the Trojan Horse in Troy
by Domenico Tiepolo (1773)

A comment by an economist with apparent Austrian School leanings, has prompted this posting.That economist was frustrated because he says he can explain the current economic malaise/crisis in Austrian terms, but no one either believes or listens to what he is saying. He likens his plight to that of Cassandra, of Greek mythology.
Cassandra of course foresaw the destruction of Troy and the death of Agamemnon, commander of the Greek army, but no one believed her. In the current context it's a situation that many of us can sympathize with and it has been named the Cassandra Syndrome. The Urban Dictionary defines Cassandra Syndrome as:
1) The condition of speaking the truth and having no one believe you.
2) The condition of being able to predict the future, be it the outcome of a particular event, or the reactions of others to the same event, and having no one believe your prophecy until it transpires.
3) Being able to see or understand things long before others, often resulting in them coming to the same conclusions long after your own initial analysis.
This morning, CBC Radio News reported on the FOX sponsored Iowa Republican Party nominees debate. In that report, Michelle Bachmann was mentioned, Mitt Romney was mentioned, and so on, not a word about candidate Ron Paul of course. To be fair most of the other candidates were not mentioned, but Ron Paul exemplifies the meaning of Cassandra Syndrome exactly. He is the only candidate that calls for peace, liberty, and limiting the power of government. He needs to be heard, to be listened to, and to be supported. Watch and listen to his answers, a Cassandra if ever there was one.

   

Freckles on the sun

Astronomy was one of my first loves. The wonder of it is how much we don't know and are still finding out. There are far, far, more planets around distant suns than you or I can imagine..........watch.

Crash....and reboot!

Disturbing..........

Your life after death.....digitally.

So what happens to our digital life after we are gone? Adam Ostrow, a journalist, argues that we all have one thing in common, we will all die. Then what? Will our blogs be erased? Will our status updates on Facebook indicate the moment of death? Will we live on as part of the ever growing "cloud?" All good questions, a bit morbid maybe, but interesting.

What should be cut?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about "The curse of the spendthrift legislators." Governments everywhere in the 'first world' have racked up huge debts, primarily because they have ventured into areas they do not belong. Governments at all levels have some legitimate functions in libertarian philosophy. Most of these proper functions can be classified broadly as protecting our rights without impinging on our liberties, including economic freedoms.
So now that the government spending pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction everywhere, how can it be reversed?  As an example on a smaller scale, the link above mentions that the City of Toronto has a budget shortfall for next year of three quarters of a billion dollars. So city councillors are faced with cutting costs or raising taxes....a lot. What to do? One of the many suggestions in a report produced by KPMG for the city was to cut library services. You might imagine the hue and cry and that was elicited from the statist community for that one.
Realistically there is no way city government (or any government) will revert to the libertarian ideal in the near future. Our only hope is that government makes moves in the direction of more liberty. Two articles by Larry Solomon of the National Post suggest how this may be done. The first here, deals with the KPMG report and its effect on services. The second here, addresses the library questions and the perception that the cuts will somehow encourage widespread ignorance. Both articles offer interesting alternatives.   

Triple-A reality check

Today stock markets around the world resembled that ship over there, and that was after last week, a bad week. Standard and Poor's downgraded US credit on Friday after the markets closed, and all weekend media types were waiting for the other shoe to drop. Well, it's dropping, but maybe not yet completely dropped.
The media are portraying this as a debt crisis, POTUS Obama calls it a crisis in political will. No matter, things won't start improving until and unless everyone agrees that this is actually a spending crisis. It didn't start with Obama, or Bush 2, the problem  is chronic and widespread across the planet at all levels of government. Spending at a greater rate than income creates debt, its very simple, any household is aware of this reality. Why governments have the right to spend more than they have, is a great question, maybe for another time.
Canada lost its Aaa rating in 1992, and it was not reinstated until years later, after the Chretien-Martin Liberals actually downsized the Canadian Federal government. This downsize, that began about 15 years ago, is the reason most commentators say that Canada is doing so much better than the US and the other G7 economies at the moment.
So the reality is that a country functions better when it's spending is under control, and when its government shrinks giving the population more of its own discretionary income. Job creation is better, the monetary system is better and the future is brighter. That is the reality. 

Hyperinflation by fiat

Fiat currency or money, is money that has value only because of government regulation or law. That means there is no tangible commodity that the money can exchanged for, except its equivalent value in other denominations. So, one American dollar will get you four quarters made of some base metal combination, which at least has some heft to it. That is the law in the U. S., but once an American dollar was worth a pre-determined amount of gold, and then things changed.
The bill pictured is 1 x 10 to the 14th Zimbabwean dollars - one hundred trillion Zim dollars. Today, that bill is worth about $5.00 Canadian/US, as a collectors item. In 2008 that amount would purchase a cart of groceries, while 700 Billion Zim Dollars bought a loaf of bread. That's what happens when a currency collapses and hyperinflation ensues.
As posted here, the average life expectancy of a fiat currency is 27 years and as Stefan Molyneux explains in a recent posting below, the world's current reserve currency, the U. S. dollar, may be nearing the end of its life expectancy.

"Our genes talking"

Humans are successful because we have developed "social learning" and have used language to impart that learning to others.
Language is used to unite us, and divide us, and it has transformed humanity more than anything we possess.

Your government = your mommy

Don't touch those potato chips! Put down that can of soda pop! The government KNOWS whats best for you, trust them.
Seems to me, with all the things government is expected to do, chastising people for bad habits is one less thing it should be doing. Come to think of it, with the huge debts being accumulated by all levels of government on our behalf, there are too many things governments are doing. People should be responsible for themselves as much as possible, don't you think?

Rent Control, Race, and Sowell

Uncommon Knowledge is a video series produced by the Hoover Institution. Need your preconceived ideas shaken up? Then give a listen to Thomas Sowell (pictured), and hear what is meant by uncommon knowledge.

  

Warning, this posting is not politically correct and there is swearing too....

How many recycling containers do you use in your home? Here in my corner of the Great White North we have just a couple that we put out, and think we are doing our bit. But are we?
On garbage day a man on a bike, laden with bags and carriers, cycles through my neighbourhood in suburbia, rain or shine, summer or winter, and picks through the recycling "blue boxes" looking for anything of value. What could there be of value? Well, I can watch this guy through my office window as he picks out beer, wine and liquor bottles because the Provincial government beer store, returns a deposit on them and the man also picks up aluminium cans. Why aluminum? Good question, I'll leave that explanation for Penn Jillette and his colleague Teller. Enjoy, but be warned, there is swearing and it might shake your belief in recycling.