Speech from the Throne 11/22/11

Doesn't that sound highfalutin? Well, in a Westminster style Democracy, like Canada's, it's not. It is what routinely happens at the start of every new sitting of Parliament, Federally or Provincially. Today it was Ontario's turn, the 40th Session of Parliament, and the speech was delivered by the Queen's Representative (hence Throne) here in Ontario, the Lieutenant Governor.
The speech itself is written by the governing party, in this instance the McGuinty Liberals. They probably consider themselves middle-of-the-road politically. Of course in every Western Democracy, that means statist, that is, the state is the beginning, the end, and the middle of all problems and solutions. That unfortunately is the way they think and so do many of our citizens.
I take my new role as Leader of the Ontario Libertarians, seriously enough to respond to any major Ontario Government announcements, and a Throne speech sets the tone and the goals of the new Parliament, so, it is important.
Below is a heavily edited version (under 5 minutes) of the speech, written highlights can be seen here. But give a listen, then read my response underneath.

In the Throne speech delivered today, while the McGuinty Liberals are acknowledging the global financial crisis, their actions are woefully inadequate as a means of averting the same fate. As if totally disconnected from the market turmoil in all of the Western democracies, the McGuinty government’s plan pretends that Ontario is immune to such problems. In Europe and in America, governments have grown to the point where they are outspending the productive abilities of their own citizenry. The excessive deficits and accumulating debts are now jeopardizing the credit ratings of these countries while impacting the wealth and well being of their citizens.

Unfortunately for Ontario, it is following in the same path. Since McGuinty has taken power in 2003, Ontario's government has grown much faster than its economy. Government spending has doubled and so has the provincial debt, resulting in Ontario becoming a “have not” province. Those facts are intimately linked - cause and effect.

In a recent speech, Dalton McGuinty suggested that Ontario would weather the economic storm with a strong stable plan; this was repeated in the speech from the Throne today. It’s as if the government now realizes that the provincial payroll has ballooned out of their control, so they now intend to reduce the Ontario public service by five per cent by March 2012, and a further two per cent by 2014. Add to that another $200-million in workforce reductions at the 630 government agencies, and they claim this will be sufficient to attack the massive $250-billion debt. That is pathetic, and does not even begin to address the problem.

Despite the newfound appreciation for budget restraint, the government is forging ahead with the expensive and unnecessary introduction of full day kindergarten and a reduction of college and university tuition by 30 per cent for families earning less than $160,000 per year. This amounts to a subsidy and job security for the teacher’s unions. Supporting the education sector is moreover highly questionable, given the teacher’s union’s active support during this past election campaign.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government insists that it will find improved efficiencies to encourage greater productivity without ever explaining how this can be done. In fact, the government undermines any possibility of this happening by treating the government monopolies of Healthcare and Education as sacrosanct, and never to be touched by the evil practices of competition, so widely and profitably used in every other sector of our economy.

No, the McGuinty Liberals have co-opted the wealth of hard working families and transferred it to government because think they know better how to spend the money of those families. Certainly, those families may prefer to make their own decisions about how best to spend their wealth if they had a choice.


-30-

Atlas Shrugged Part One: a review....

"The film is magnificent," according to Stefan Molyneux as seen in his latest blog post here. I can't think of a better endorsement, so I bought it. I bought in good faith with the hope that this production group finishes the three parts.

The DVD is available at Amazon.ca or here.

Here is Stefan's review:

Getting to the real source of the problem...

Civic officials are attempting to close down "Occupy" movement sites in cities all over North America. In Canada and northern US cities, winter is closing in. The occupiers will be faced with serious challenges from nature AND civic officials very soon.
For me, the problem with the OWS movement is its ambiguity. I can't wholeheartedly support a movement that really has not defined itself. If OWS "leaders" (are there any?) actually came out and said they want the link between crony capitalists and big government broken, well I might listen. If they actually pointed to big government, union-government monopolies, government-business monopolies, and unsustainable entitlement programs as problems, then I might listen. But they don't. Their message is muddled and could be capsulized as "We don't know what we want, and we won't leave until we get it." That was a suggestion on a talk radio show I was listening to, unfortunately it works for this protest.

If the OWS movement is unable to pinpoint the problem or articulate a solution, that does not mean it hasn't been done. In fact it has been done several times over the years, but without much fanfare and none of the drama that roving bands of protestors offer to the media.
The video below is an example, and shows Russell D. Roberts, Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. In October of 2009, in the midst of the TARP and financial crisis, Roberts gave testimony to a US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The testimony was articulate, pointed and for me and others, hit the nail squarely on the head. The testimony was also promptly ignored.
Professor Roberts has blogs here and here. His testimony is what OWS should be using as its mantra and its reason for being. Instead, OWS organizers brainwash their followers by having them repeat inanities in a way reminiscent of cult behaviour. Superimposing the "Hive mind" over the individual thinker. That sort of collective action makes me suspicious, always.
If you have not heard Prof. Robert's testimony you are in for a treat, if you have, its a treat to hear it again. Its needs to be shared widely.

COP 17 or cop out.

Last August there was news that an old theory had been resurrected to explain global warming. You will remember the story out of CERN, that cosmic rays may have an effect on warming, greater than the dreaded CO2, such was the evidence presented.
That posting, plus others, frequently prompt comments from other bloggers, and readers informing me of my heretical position in view of the scientific consensus. No one is more righteous, or more fervent in their belief, than a religious zealot. So I feel comfortable in comparing AGW belief and religion, and that does not even include the question of evidence in either case.
Of course not all who believe that global warming has occurred, and is occurring, are religious zealots. I agree that warming has and is occurring (I'm not a zealot, just a skeptic), I also agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (so are H2O and methane). I just don't believe its an issue we can or should try to control, nor do I think it will ever be a problem, at least not in the Al Gore doom and gloom scenario. As I have stated before, the scientists are gung-ho for AGW research and grants, because they need the money, plain and simple, and governments want the power and control.
In the last few months their have been some interesting developments on the AGW front. The Koch Brothers, rich American libertarians (of all people), funded a study called BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature), which discovered that the earth has been warming, shocking I know, and the continental glaciers around my house have retreated, too! The warmists are thrilled, because this BEST project, could mean the end of climate change skepticism or as they prefer, denial. I don't think so. In fact there are many questions that remain unanswered and the whole thing has been questioned.
Then there was the case of the delinquent teenager, or rather the new book that compares delinquent teenagers to "climate experts." This book by the Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise, adds gasoline to the firestorm created by "climategate." Imagine having the power to affect multi-billion dollar government programs based on "peer-reviewed" data compiled by activist graduate students. That is part of the claim in Ms. Laframboise' book as explained here.
At the end of November, the IPCC meets again to save the world, this time in Durban South Africa. Will it be another Cancun, I hope?  Will people realize that climate science resembles pseudoscience in its ability to predict doom, or as Matt Ridley eloquently stated: "we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed." Who is Matt Ridley? He is a zoologist who recently delivered a lecture for the Angus Millar Lecture 2011, on Scientific Heresy. The lecture dissects the difference between science and pseudoscience (well worth the read). Ridley provides six lessons which he uses to attack the establishment view on AGW. He concludes: "I’ve spent a lot of time on climate, but it could have been dietary fat, or nature and nurture. My argument is that like religion, science as an institution is and always has been plagued by the temptations of confirmation bias. With alarming ease it morphs into pseudoscience even – perhaps especially – in the hands of elite experts and especially when predicting the future and when there’s lavish funding at stake." I couldn't agree more, as for COP17, we should cop out.

 

The Fatal Conceit

A new website has got me thinking again, about why I do this blog, and why I believe, two apparently very different topics, are so intertwined. The idea that links politics and religion together for me, is called "spontaneous order." One of my fellow bloggers is far more learned than I on the topic, you can find him at Interdisciplinary World down there to the right on my blog list. I've written about this before, and you will see why it comes up again.
Spontaneous order is essentially order that seems to arise out of chaos. Why? Because there are unseen "rules or laws" that create the order. The rules were not made up by anyone, they are just characteristics of the nature of matter and energy, the way the universe works. Humans have discovered a lot of these rules with a tool called science. There are many subdivisions of science now, and we know a lot of the rules.
One of the book covers seen above, is Darwin's Origin of Species. Its in this book that he outlines what he thinks are the rules that govern speciation in nature which he calls natural selection. Natural selection is part of the mechanism of Evolution. Of course Evolution conflicts with a great many religious beliefs which brings me back to the first paragraph, and part of the reason for this blog. Generally I tolerate religious belief because it can be compartmentalized sufficiently so as to not interfere with other people's actions. When it starts to interfere, becoming "pushy" and smothering, I push back. One of the positive results of the new world of "political correctness" that we now inhabit, is that people realize that their particular religion is not necessarily everyone's. So my own children did not sing "yes Jesus loves me" in "public" school, like I once did. Chalk one up for freedom from religion.
Darwin did not know about the genetic reasons for evolution, he did not know about shifting allele frequencies or anything at that level of complexity or below, so he really did not discover the "rules," he inferred the rules. We are still discovering all the rules in biology. The important thing for me, is that the rules are discoverable, not mystical, not under the control of a deity. No deity is required, evolution is spontaneous and orderly.
The other book cover, Hayek's book, is related. If you look up spontaneous order, you will see written that many classical liberals (that's politics folks), like Hayek, believe that markets are governed most efficiently without being governed. The rules that govern markets and human behaviour - the science of economics - work best spontaneously without the tinkering of an intelligent designer.
In evolution, the idea of an intelligent designer is common among religious folk, the undiscoverable, unseen, and unknowable deity, is the designer. In economics, because it is a science peculiar to humans (and no other creatures on Earth), many believe there needs to be a designer, a tinkerer, someone to make it more efficient, because people are smart. Right? Unfortunately this is where the conflict occurs. Economics cannot be compartmentalized, in fact it pervades every aspect of one's life in a civil society. Instead of being left to a deity, economics has become by default the purview of government. My children are not free to interact with others in a spontaneous economic order as they should, they, and all of us are manipulated. We all sing to the tune "the government is here for the common good." The disagreement is whose common good? That is what Hayek's Fatal Conceit is about, people who think they know better.
The video below comes from a new website: Libertarianism. It references spontaneous order, and its delivered by an excellent writer David Boaz. If you need a refresher or a new insight, watch.        

  

  

Untying the knot that strangles economic freedom

SURPRISE! The Federal Conservative Party's pipe-dream promise of cutting Canada's deficit (never mind the debt) by 2014, has just stumbled into objective reality. The financial chaos in the rest of the world is beating at our door.

That (photo) Saturday Night Live skit (Nov. 5, 2011), referencing the Greek financial turmoil, joked that "Dionysus (god of the grape harvest, ritual madness and ecstasy...) has the spending part down cold, but saving … not so much." Time to call in "Klaus, the German god of prudence and austerity."

The cradle of democracy is in trouble. Exposed for all to see, are the unintended consequences of the political entanglements that were created for the common good. It seems manipulating for the common good, is really not so good after all. (go ahead, try and sell that idea)

Prime Minister Harper, is fresh from the latest G20, where noises were made that G20 members should 'kick in some cash' (yes, that's us folks) to help out our Greek friends. 'Hey buddy, can you spare a dime' (or else). Now Finance Minister Flaherty, says that promises made just last June will be altered. Quelle surprise!

The Greek gods have inspired my friend Gene Balfour to cook up a policy proposal for Ontario that suggests practical steps to untie the knot created by big government. Gene suggests that it is excessive regulation that creates and expands the need for public sector jobs, which increases the payroll, which impacts government spending, which affects the deficit, and adds to the debt. Do you remember what happened to the old lady that swallowed a fly? It's a bit like that, but not funny. Here is Gene's proposal.   

Winning!

Sorry to mislead, this post has nothing to do with the actor and party animal Charlie Sheen. However, in March of 2011, Sheen redefined the term "winning" to give it a more ironic twist. The usual meaning: "the act of a person or thing that wins" (without tiger blood etc.), applies here. Sure, money would have been most welcomed as a winning, but, in this case it's a political win, unusual enough for me.
On the weekend, the Ontario Libertarians had a convention where they chose me as the party leader, and I'm grateful for that; but my family, well, some misgivings there.
A political party Convention such as we had, would ordinarily get wide press coverage (there was local coverage). But, we are not a large group, though we are growing. Its pretty clear to me why we are growing, and why more people want the party to have more influence and impact.
We are the only real alternative to the "big government" statist political parties. Their failures at governing (or over-governing), are becoming visible each and every day, to all but the most collectivist minded people.
Just a few months ago, I had no intention of seeking the leadership of this party, it had not even crossed my mind. But as we drew closer to the provincial election on Oct. 6, 2011, I realized that it was possible to reach our stated goal of 60-plus candidates across the province. In fact, 74 people had come forth and completed some level of paperwork toward candidacy by early September. Ultimately, only 51 people jumped through all the hoops, still twice the number we had fielded in the previous election; impressive enough. The missing ingredient may have been leadership, like the inspirational coach that urges the team on to victory, that may be all that was required for the final push to 74.
Canadian libertarian parties have a sad history of invisible leaders. In the last Federal election (May 2, 2011) the Federal Libertarian leader was AWOL, he didn't even run; he disappeared not long after his leadership election. So, just a paltry 23 candidates represented the party in that election. The Ontario leader for the past 15 years was more visible, but not all an activist, so appeared absent. Of course the cloak of invisibility is sewn by the media, but it's the leaders themselves that provide the thread and the fabric.
Don't get me wrong, leadership alone is not sufficient for attention and success. Look at our scions the Freedom Party. Their leader was quiet visible in the media (to me anyway), especially television. He is articulate and presents himself as a reasonable alternative, and they had 56 candidates in the last election, yet received only half of our total vote count. So leadership, while important, isn't sufficient. It was supremely important however, for the NDP Federally in May, with media help and hype. That just tells me the message needs to be agreeable to the media.....too bad.
My political awakening these last three years, has shown me that political parties in Canada are remarkably flimsy things, I don't think most people know that. When I ran as a candidate over the last three years, newspaper reporters would ask me where my campaign headquarters were, and who my manager was. Surprise, surprise, my home and me.
Parties can be in government with a huge majority then literally disappear after and election (Kim Campbell in 1993 lost 167 seats). The Federal Progressive Conservatives are now gone from the scene, though Brian Mulroney had a huge majority once. Politics is a risky business. Sometimes you may need that Adonis DNA to survive.
   

Greek salad days are over....

It has been over a year now since I first wrote about a sovereign debt and currency crisis. The best part of that post, is the YouTube video that is associated with it: Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis. The video goes over the cause of the US mortgage and housing crisis that culminated in the Great Recession, and the aftermath that Americans are still coping with.
Banks and bankers, Wall Street and the corporations were blamed for that financial crisis, and are still being blamed thanks to the recent Occupy Wall Street movements around the world. Of course its true, they deserve blame but it is only part of the truth. The video clearly points to the real culprits as being the US (and other) government's attempts to prevent a severe recession after 9/11 by increasing liquidity, or in English, making it easier to get a loan, buy a house etc.
It worked, it really did get easy to get a loan or mortgage, so easy that people that should not have qualified for loans/mortgages got them anyway. And of course those shaky loans were "packaged" together, and with the help of colluding ratings agencies, the loans were treated as Triple A guaranteed secure investments to obtain an income stream. The packaged loans came to be known as Asset-Backed-Commercial-Paper, and the rest is now history.
But of course the crisis did not get resolved, it just got magnified and compounded as the video suggests, with huge bailouts, socialized bailouts. These corporate bailouts mostly, were so large (like TARP), that the US incurred new huge debt. Many countries already had such high debt and future liability from entitlements, that their solvency was already in jeopardy. Europe seemed to be rife with those countries that have come to be known as PIIGS. Greece is the "G" in PIIGS and it looks like it has real problems.
So here we are. Greece has so much debt, it has trouble meeting its obligations to payoff loans. As a member of the Eurozone, a Greek default would create a Lehman-like collapse for Europe, damage the Euro, and likely bankrupt some large banks that hold the debt. The Eurozone leaders met last week, and the crisis was resolved! Yippee! Stock markets were euphoric until yesterday, when the Greek President announced that there will be a referendum to accept or reject the terms of the Eurozone bailout, I think. The wording of the referendum is still in doubt, because the Greek government may not last until the end of the week. A parliamentary non-confidence vote could scuttle the whole deal, hell, the referendum could scuttle the whole deal. What is the deal? Basically the Greek debt will be "forgiven" to a degree. That means the debt holders will not get all their money back, like in a bankruptcy and Eurozone partners will cover some of Greece' payments and of course increase their own debt (lets not worry about that now.....).
But what about the referendum, what are the options Greek voters have? Greece looks like it is now stuck between the proverbial rock, and hard place. Should their be a referendum? That timely question was kicked around by two good writers at the National Post. In favour of a referendum: Terence Corcoran, against is Peter Foster. 

     

Atlas Shrugged Part One arrives, finally.

Atlas Shrugged the movie (Part 1) has finally made it to Canada more than 6 months after being released in the USA. I have no idea why it took so long to get here, to what the Toronto locals, like me, refer to as "Hollywood North."
So far, its at only one theatre in downtown Toronto, just half an hours drive from my house. I'm not sure I'll even go. The rest of Canada is out of luck, and FYI for my foreign readers, Canada is huge - really spread out.
I'm fairly discerning about movies that I'll actually attend, and this movie has received mixed reviews at best. The last movie that I saw was Moneyball, and it is well worth the price of admission, and as good as the critics have said. I've learned to wait for the reviews and the Rotten Tomatoes consensus, before I consider plunking down my cash for a movie. Otherwise I wait until a movie comes to DVD or to my TV movie subscription channels.
Atlas Shrugged has played a pivotal role in my life and my view of the world, and no movie could live up to that, least of all the one that has been produced from what I read.
Today a review of sorts appeared in the National Post, written by Peter Foster. Mr. Foster is one of my favourite writers on the Post, click that link in the previous sentence and you will see a list of his recent columns. Read some, and you will understand why I like Peter Foster. His front page review today, can be found here. I think the Post understands that many of its readers have a soft spot for Ayn Rand, so does Peter Foster. His review is positive, and he views the story of Atlas Shrugged from the movie, as an allegory to the events in the news today, lots of us do. It's an interesting view, and as he says, its the reason Rand's work remains "eternally relevant" and her books "still well worth reading."  

Bail out students and everyone with OPM!

Its time to re-examine the real goal of the Occupy Movement, especially from where it began, in New York, USA. The OWS movement has made their point, corporations that are in cahoots with government have received special dispensations (bailouts) using taxpayers money. Everyone knows that, and everyone should realize that the government bears full responsibility for that action. Will they be blamed, will they be punished for recklessly encouraging moral hazard? No, sadly, the OWS movement blames the rich mostly, the 1%. Worse yet, they don't seem to want to stop the occupation. Violence has broken out in some cities. Will it get worse, or will OWS fold up their tents and go home for the winter?
I'm betting it gets worse, and they will be stringing up Xmas lights soon, and I think its become more clear now what their real purpose is, and that is to achieve the very thing that they are protesting.

In the United States, they are creeping into election season (just one year away). On one side will be the Republicans and their Tea Party with their agenda led by one of the dwarf candidates, Perry, Romney, or one of them (likely not Ron Paul). On the other side will be the OWS (that might yet align themselves with the Obama Democrats) with their agenda, that has been until now fuzzy.
The fuzziness is clearing. Obama has announced a bailout plan for many of the student protestors in OWS. Not surprisingly, Rep. Ron Paul doesn't like it, but Obama is POTUS, and wants the job for another term. This could buy some needed votes!
Below, Nick Gillespie appears before the Judge, and doesn't mince words. BTW, OPM...? = Other People's Money.

Stopping the Gravy Train

It has been a year since Rob Ford was elected Mayor of Toronto. I point this out because he won a large plurality promising to get rid of municipal government waste, and over spending, without cutting services.
My view is that Toronto, is like any Western democratic government in microcosm. The city  government has grown by leaps and bounds, taking on more and more responsibilities: sewage, water, electric power, schools, transit, affordable housing, waste removal, roads, entertainment, parks, recreation, and on and on. Ford's mantra in the election was to: "stop the gravy train." So, one year in, hows he doing?
Well, yesterday he managed to punish one of the larger municipal unions for having a garbage strike two years ago. One half of the city will now have "privatized municipal garbage collection." Projections are, that money will be saved and the possibility of a city wide strike will be diminished. Chalk one up for Ford.
In many ways Ford has the typical conservative view of government: we need it, we need lots of it, but we can cut the waste and make it efficient too.
He was serious, he hired a large independent auditor to find ways to cut government spending without affecting core services. Well, I've written about that issue, here and here. To me that sounded like having your cake and eating it too, but Ford will beat you to the cake. ;-)
After several months in office looking for the "gravy," Rob Ford discovered that he was standing in it. There was little waste in the actual machinery of government, the waste turned out to be the very services he had sworn not to cut. The libraries, the pools, the theatres, the zoo, and all the "freebies" the citizens of Toronto came to expect, paid for by other people's money. Let's not even talk about the bloated salaries city workers make so that they may have a descent living wage. The city has a fair wage policy where it will over pay workers because it's really not their money is it? Someone else is paying, so we can be magnanimous.
When citizens got wind of Ford's plan to downsize government by cutting their precious "free" services, there was lots of  blowback. His popularity plunged. Even the "Occupy Toronto" protestors, very new on the scene, and with little to actually protest about, decided Rob Ford's plans presented a large juicy target. Indeed it does.
So, will Ford prevail? Does Ford actually have a better idea? Short answer, no. I'm betting he tweaks the system a bit, makes some cuts and declares victory. The unions are starting to target their guns on him, not yet with attack ads, that will come later. Right now they are using media to deliver the message that unions are made of regular people, your neighbours, your friends, and they care! They care about Toronto, soon they will say Ford doesn't.
   

Penn Jillette: Libertarianism

A snapshot from my Ontario healthcare family album

For the past month I've been watching and negotiating my way through the Ontario healthcare system on behalf of my elderly mother. Fortunately the initial problem was not that critical, but when one is injured in a fall, at 92 years of age, even little problems get magnified.

For all of its faults, and there are so many, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan or OHIP system seems to function, but at such a poor level of service and timeliness, that no one would tolerate it if it were in any other service area. In healthcare, most Ontarians choose to ignore or excuse the long worrying waits, or the pain endured before treatment is available because somehow, they view the system as part of their definition of what it means to be Canadian.

When the paramedics brought my mother to the local emergency department, she was "triaged" rather than "served" even though the emergency room was not busy by any stretch, I was there. Most of the "treatment" she underwent was done by the paramedics en route. When she arrived at the hospital she was viewed as an elderly patient who may or may not survive, and she was treated as a costly liability rather than an opportunity to make profit. What other service industry do Canadians interact with, that treats you like that? Imagine a dentist being so cavalier with someone's pain, how long would they be in business? Of course in dentistry, people have choices. This was a major regional hospital, yet my mother was not even given pain medication for over 3 hours when the doctor on-call finally saw her.

You would think that the supposedly compassionate physicians of Ontario (or anywhere in Canada for that matter) would collectively rise up and challenge the government health care model, but you would be wrong. 

In the editorial introduction to a recent FP Magazine, the editor Terence Corcoran, writes that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has "essentially abandoned their customers," and "Canadian doctors, the state-nationalized victims of health-care delivery, are also its official defenders." This is cronyism of the worst kind, and all Canadian doctors should be ashamed.

I think Mr. Corcoran's editorial was not widely read or discussed, because I've barely heard a peep out of the rest of the media, but it is worthy of your time to read it. 

Regenerative medicine and longevity

When I first heard that Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer I remember hoping to myself that the cancer was discovered early. I knew that survival rates for this type of cancer were low, but this guy was wealthy and could afford the world's best treatment. Little did I know what was revealed this week in Jobs' official biography by Walter Isaacson, that Jobs refused conventional treatment for nine months: "Instead of opting for surgery, he took on a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic." That revelation diminishes the respect I had for his genius, but not for his accomplishments.
People are funny that way, I guess technological and marketing savvy don't go hand-in-hand with scientific good sense. Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference but you would think the odds favoured the team with the best performance on the field, that is the medical scientists versus the herbalists and psychics.
Medical science of course is part of the reason for the increasing human life span, though most people fail to appreciate that the biggest advances came with the introduction of what is unfortunately called "public health." Simple things really, like separating sewage waste from drinking water, that was huge. Mass vaccination of populations was also huge. Death rates really dropped when those two practices became widespread.
But the big improvements of yesteryear have been replaced by medical tinkering in more recent years, even though the technology exists for human lifespans to take another great leap foreword. See that ear growing from the mouse's back? That's not a new story, that story goes back more than 20 years now - replacement parts.
Below is a recent video from ReasonTV that presents a new book by Sonia Arrison author of 100 Plus: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to Family and Faith, "because everyone has an interest in living healthier longer." The book purports to show how replacement parts may change things.
After watching the video think about the major impediments to some of this work, especially for the people that really need and want it. This is likely to be expensive treatment and with all of the regulatory barriers set up by various governments, it will become more expensive, not to mention hard to get (probably impossible in Canada unless drastic changes take place). Imagine being given the choice possibly between life and death, as the author describes in the video, and then being told treatment is disallowed by some government rules or bureaucrats? Not funny, right?
The expense side of organ replacement is also interesting and recalls a movie I saw recently called Repo Men. In that movie, people buy artificial organs on credit then fail to make regular payments. The movie puts a whole new spin on "repossession."    

Anarchy and libertarianism

If you were asked to distinguish between anarchy and libertarianism (are they different?), how would you approach it? From an economic viewpoint or a law and order position? I would start with economics because that is where I see the most massive intrusion by government. This is very apt in view of the "Occupy (fill in blank) Protests" that have sprung up in North American cities over the past few weeks, where economic ignorance abounds.

Whenever I try to explain to someone that a free enterprise economy is self regulating (given a chance), I invariably get asked a series of "what if" type questions. What if an entrepreneur has a monopoly, charges exorbitant prices and rips people off? What if an employer is exploiting his workers with low wages and long hours? Shouldn't government step in and regulate the price, or the hourly wage or do something? My answers range from a curt "no" to a pointless attempt at explaining Austrian Economic theory in 30 seconds. My answers invariably leave the listener thinking that I am an anarchist, even though nothing could be further from the truth. The big problem is, that this disagreement often shuts down any further discussion.
True laissez faire capitalism, the kind advocated by most libertarians, has an uncanny resemblance to anarchy for any one who believes that economies must be regulated, that governments must intercede to control prices and wages; in other words for anyone who advocates a "mixed" economy such as we have. This is true of anyone who is a socialist, or fascist, a Liberal, or Conservative, all of them are statists of some form or other. All would agree that some level of coercion is necessary for governments to function. In general, libertarians don't agree. So it's no accident that the libertarian idea is confused with anarchy. 

The spontaneous order of a free market is as impossible to understand for a brainwashed statist, as evolution by natural selection is for a brainwashed theist. 

Notice I haven't even mentioned the "law and order" aspect of government yet, the statists usually can't get past our economics to even hear about our ideas on a military, police, courts, and justice system that includes restitution.

 
Virtually all libertarians of my acquaintance including myself are minarchists of some sort, not anarchists. 

Minarchists believe in limited government, government whose sole purpose is to protect the negative rights of individuals, life, liberty, property, and personal security. These are the rights we were born into or were created by our own individual effort, and to a libertarian these are our only government entitlements. 

Libertarian anarchists believe the state is immoral and they would advocate stateless societies, just voluntary associations without a hierarchy. Doesn't that sound like some regular libertarians you may know? It does to me.   

My point is, there is some difference between a libertarian minarchist and a libertarian anarchist, but I would venture to say they are more similar than most libertarians are to conservative statists.

If we libertarians are attempting to bring about a new world order, one person at a time, then we must include everyone within our fold, anarchists, statists, and collectivists of all stripes, and everything in between. Libertarian persuasion should be universally applied.