Science fiction meets science fact when the TV crew of the Starship Enterprise saw NASA’s space shuttle prototype Enterprise. From the left are then NASA Administrator James Fletcher and Star Trek cast members (several in leisure suits) DeForest Kelley (Leonard McCoy), George Takei (Hikaro Sulu), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), Nichelle Nichols (Nyota Uhura), Leonard Nimoy (Spock), series creator Gene Roddenberry (brown suit), and on the right Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov).
Toronto: On an unusually hot and humid day in early June 1983, I went up to the rooftop of my workplace to see the prototype Space Shuttle Enterprise fly piggyback atop NASA's first 747 shuttle carrier aircraft as in the picture.
Why was it flying over Toronto? Canada was a stakeholder in the project, the Canadarm was designed and built in Toronto by SPAR Aerospace. The overflight was part of a trip by the Enterprise to the Paris Air Show. NASA decided this was good PR.
The Enterprise never flew in space, it was used to practice landings on earth and verify the flight worthiness of the design, and it was retired in 1985.
Over the years I have had a great interest in space flight, manned and unmanned, the shuttle was an amazing achievement in many ways, and a total disaster in others. I'm sure you've heard the comment that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, well the space shuttle was obviously designed by a committee. A perfect example of how a government institution (NASA) compromises to achieve a mission that might have been done much, much cheaper, and safer. I'm not going to detail what was wrong with the design, suffice to say that two astronaut crews were killed directly because of known flaws in the design. A quick Google search will give you much more expert opinion.
The fiscal crisis in the United States, has spawned a for profit private sector space industry. It's about time.
ReasonTV has their own take on the past, the recent final flyover, and the future of manned space flight.
My family will tell you that I walk around with a fairly negative outlook on government, the economy in Canada, and just about everywhere else. That may be true, but deep down I'm optimistic. Why? Because history shows me that things have always improved for people.
Yes, its true their have been bad times, setbacks, and I'm certain there will be more in the future (ask my family). Nothing goes up in a straight line. So when I see a story, in this case about a book, where the author supports my long term worldview, I have to share.
Here is a book that I'm going to read, as soon as I get through all those I've already started. The author is Matt Ridley, and here he is being interviewed for ReasonTV:
If you spend some time reading my blog posts you might think that government is the source of all that ails us. Of course that's not true.
In a pluralistic, relatively free country such as Canada, governments are only reflections of our society. Society is made of individuals, families, voluntary organizations, involuntary professional organizations, businesses, unions, and corporations as well as political organizations. All of them have a role in selecting the political party or person that wins an election and governs. This is true at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal.
In modern times the person or party that is elected has managed to cobble together enough support by various means to defeat other parties and candidates. It's the "various means" that I want to address.That's interesting to me because I lead what most will call a minor political party in Ontario. One of the reasons we remain minor, is precisely why the major parties have become major.
In virtually every modern democracy, political parties have learned to cater to some of the societal groups mentioned above in some way. For example if a political party achieves power with the help of a group (help like monetary donations), that group may expect in return special privileges backed by legislation. Privileges may range from monopoly positions in certain areas of employment, or monopolies on services available to the general population, often including special bargaining privileges for salaries and benefits. While that may sound illegal, it's not, it is a reality of politics. All of the major political parties have made these kinds of alliances, that's why they are major political parties, they have tapped into economic resources that have allowed them to seek and gain power, or more precisely the potential of gaining power.
In Ontario, each of the major parties, the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives (oxymoron?) and the New Democrats have held power in recent times, and the potential for a return to power for any of them, exists at every election.
Elections Ontario requires all registered parties to disclose their funding including sources. The PC's and Liberals get more than half of their funding from organizations in various industries. Its all been outlined here for the most recent election campaign which was Oct. 2011.
If you follow that money you can fill in your own reasons about why parties receive support from donors. One of the largest donors is the Carpenter's Union . Might that be because governments are always granting contracts for infrastructure?
Few if any of the minor parties in Ontario (or Canada) receive donations from organizations of any sort. I know the Ontario Libertarian Party receives donations from individuals only, all of them voluntary, nothing is coerced. Can that be said of Union funds collected from unionized workers for the major parties? Certainly not!
Unionized workers are often forced to join a union as a condition of employment, fees are extracted from them and a portion is spent on political contributions. As a union member you may have voted PC, but your dues were used to support the NDP, and you had no say in the matter. That is political reality in Ontario, the major parties prostitute themselves so they may get power. Libertarians would refuse to grant favours of that sort to achieve power. That is our disadvantage, of all the parties we are principled and consistent. We will not BUY your vote. When will voters understand real politics?
Change is coming to America. No, not hope and change, it's clear to many that hasn't worked, and that particular lie won't be repeated. What are the changes? People are either not registering, or deregistering as Republicans and Democrats. People are realizing that there is no difference between the two.
Can that kind of change happen in Canada? Why not? How long will it take before people in Canada start to realize how similar the main parties are here? Not long, I hope.
This video is lengthy, these two are trying to sell a book, but it's an interesting view of politics and free markets in America.
Economist Art Laffer says: "If you tax people who work and you pay people who don't work, don't be surprised when you get a lot of people not working."
Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario NDP, is threatening to bring down the McGuinty Liberal government if her demands aren't met.
Ms. Horwath wants to tax the rich even more, and has a way to magically create jobs using taxpayers money. Hmm, wasn't that trick was used for GM and Chrysler? Ms. Horwath is proposing that the McGuinty Liberal government redirect $250 million in planned spending on business subsidies (she has a point there, what a waste that would have been) to a new tax credit that ties government handouts to new hiring. Employers would be reimbursed for 10% of the salary paid to each new employee in the first year, up to $5,000. Genius, sheer genius. So, we get a new rule, making government even more complex than it is, and even more government intervention into the marketplace. Its win-win for the politicos!
You've got to hand it to her she has good intentions, but even the best of intentions often don't work.
Have a look at this excellent little video on minimum wage, a good intention gone awry.
The Facebook discussion forum that is associated with the political party (Ontario Libertarian Party) that I lead, must be one of the more active in Canadian politics. People who do not even live in Ontario join up because our discussion threads are often long and heated. If you are ever in need of an argument not unlike Monty Python, you'll get it in this group.
I mention this because one of the former members of that Facebook page, proclaimed the other day that she was a "communist-libertarian." This person was known to be one of the more opinionated on the page, often coming out with statements that are counter to the regular fare that might be expected when libertarians interact. As many people pointed out in the ensuing discussions on Facebook, communist-libertarian seems oxymoronic, I believe it is.
At Dictionary.com, the term libertarian is defined as: (noun) "a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct." And I would agree with each of the 5 definitions of "liberty."
A communist advocates communism, and communism is defined as: "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."
A libertarian advocates libertarianism, and interestingly, there is no analogous definition of libertarianism at Dictionary.com. Why not?
This is where the problem occurs, there does not seem to be a consensus on the meaning of libertarianism. Here is what I found in Wikipedia: "Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no consensus on the definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is general agreement that libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power."
So while communism is a system of "social organization" that, by definition, removes the right to property from individuals (as stated above), libertarianism is "voluntary association" that emphasizes individual liberty. Individual liberty implies the right to property, because the most important possession one can have, is their very own life. In communism property is ascribed to the community or the state, so what is "yours" really belongs to everyone, including your life, I guess. In communism, everyone has a claim on your life, or at least the fruits of your labour, and all your possessions. If you own nothing, and have nothing, and can create nothing for yourself, well, I hope you can see where that leads. It's not liberty.
To me the differences are stark, communist-libertarian is an oxymoron. Anyone who claims to be one really has not thought it through at all.
What about other hyphenated-libertarians? Again, there are many others and all likely exist because defining libertarianism is like nailing Jello to the wall.
One of the commonly seen hyphenated-libertarians is the "conservative-libertarian." I'm not sure what that means because the meaning of conservative, liberal etc. in the political context has become so fuzzy. I've written about this before.
Then there is the Bleeding Heart-Libertarian, note the link following, because they actually exist in the blogosphere and part of their "About" is: "Bleeding Heart Libertarians is a blog about free markets and social justice. All of us who blog at this site are, broadly speaking, libertarians. In particular, we are libertarians who believe that addressing the needs of the economically vulnerable by remedying injustice, engaging in benevolence, fostering mutual aid, and encouraging the flourishing of free markets is both practically and morally important."
I have some sympathy for that one, but their very existence implies that libertarians don't care about the economically vulnerable, and somehow they are not benevolent individuals. The implication is also, that libertarians are devoid of empathy and charity, and of course that's not true. Maybe that is the point of their blog - to show it's not true, I'm not sure. But the blog is very philosophical and not easily accessible to casual readers. It seems to me they spend much of their time and space searching for who they are. Nothing wrong with that I guess.
So, what is libertarianism and does it really need to be hyphenated? For me, if the word 'libertarian' is a part of the name of a group like: Ontario Libertarian Party, and that group has defined itself (like this), then the meaning is clear for all to see. As for hyphenation, I don't like it because it always diminishes the concept of libertarianism.
As a postscript for those interested, here is one libertarian's view of the different kinds of libertarian in the US context:
I'm not even sure what "Four Loko" is. A new drink? Not that new apparently! It's sold in most of the 50 States and in Europe, but not Canada. I guess we are being protected by our various provincial alcohol regulators. In fact, it's not that easy to enter their website, try it here.
I feel so much safer, don't you? Below, ReasonTV makes its point .
I'm happy to announce that I am one of the organizers (not affiliated with my party) of the Canadian Liberty Fest, which promises to be one of the largest gatherings of libertarians and people interested in Austrian Economics in Canada. I'm hoping it will be an annual event, so here is your chance to be at the very first one. I will post a link as soon as we have one. We already have some excellent speakers lined up, Stefan Molyneux among them, and there will be display areas, books for sale etc. from several liberty-minded groups, all for a very low price for the day - lunch included.
It will be centrally located in the heart of Toronto and attendance will be limited. Tickets will be on sale probably in early June. Stay tuned.
If you are reading this, you should be quietly saluting the people on this list, from Ampere to Watt.
They were some of the people that changed the world.
They are some of the people that took humanity from the darkness, from poverty, from scarcity, from the cold, and slowly through their efforts, their discoveries and achievements, brought humanity into comfort, convenience, and global communication. So that you can now sit in front of your computer or tablet device and read this.
Those people made affluence accessible, so that even the poorest people in Canada have luxuries that royalty could not have imagined 100 years ago.
Yes, the planet is where we live, but it does not give us anything that we do not first take from it for ourselves.
There is no need to thank the planet. The god Gaia will kill you or support you, but that is entirely up to you, and Gaia doesn't care.
Thats right, we must actively build our homes, stock them with food, keep ourselves warm and dry, because the alternative is a short brutish existence. As the writer of this article suggests, nature is there to be visited, not worshipped.
Earth Hour is the celebration of ignorance, poverty, scarcity, pestilence, and it's distressingly political. Worse yet, it's the wrong kind of politics, read this.
Leave your lights on, and go see a movie tonight, because you can. HAH2012
Or should I say the penny was dropped in the 2012 Canadian Federal Budget, tabled March 29, 2012, the first by a majority Conservative government. The penny will be phased out this fall.
The idiomatic phrase "the penny dropped," literally means "I finally understand."
In this case, the Conservative government along with a slew of businesses that were lobbying them, finally understood that our money has devalued to such a great degree, that the penny was not only worthless as a currency, it cost more to make than it was worth.
Copper prices, like all commodities have experienced a boom, and copper is such a useful and important metal, governments have long ceased using it as coinage. The Canadian Mint last made pure copper pennies in 1996, a long time hold out.
In the US that happened in 1943, but they made bronze pennies up until 1982.
Canadian pennies are now made of copper plated steel with a bit of nickel, and US pennies are copper plated zinc.
The graph seen here, illustrates what has happened to the value of the Canadian fiat dollar over a very short time, and therefore the penny, all of it in just part of my lifetime (graphs for US dollars are very similar).
A fiat dollar, like any fiat currency, is only worth something because a government regulation says it is.
Paper currency once upon at time, represented or was "backed by" some amount of a real metal, like gold or silver. The metals were too heavy to carry around, hence paper.
I can recall that the penny once had value. It took 3 pennies to buy a daily newspaper when I was a child in Toronto. Penny candy, was just that, candy that cost a penny or two.
Today, most people would not even stoop to pick up a lost penny on the ground. Most view pennies as an annoyance. What happened? Well, it's a long and complicated story, here is where you can start if you really want to find out.
Not only is this an end for an historic coin in Canada, but a large hole is left in Canadian English, though it may take years to phase out. My young grandson will grow-up and he will be mystified by phrases like:
Penny Pincher, penny wise and pound foolish, pretty penny, penny for your thoughts, a penny saved is a penny earned, without two pennies to rub together, penny ante poker, and on and on. Here is an interesting article. It's a sad day.
Cuts? Not so deep really, they should have been different cuts, but the Liberals just don't get it yet.
The Ontario Budget released March 27, 2012, mostly affected the one million or so public sector workers in Ontario's government. Thats a lot of voters and their families to antagonize, and believe me they are voters.
All the public sector unions are gearing up for the election battle to come. It may not be for a year or so, but it will happen sooner than later.
For the public sector employees, the Liberal budget has frozen salaries, grid moves, pensions and these things are definitely going to happen, for sure, because they said so.....or else.
The Ontario PC's have already decided they will not support the budget. I'm not certain why, the budget calls for less spending than the PC's wanted in the recent election. So it sort of looks like a start toward fiscal sanity, maybe.
That puts the ball in the court of the NDP, who seem to be non-commital, they will let the people decide. Right. You may have your say by contacting the NDP, and giving them an earful. It's a good publicity ploy anyway. Some time next week they will say: "you know, nobody really wants another election." They will hold their noses and vote with the Liberals to pass this thing, OR maybe just "sick out" a few MPP's (just three sickies are required I think). But they need to somehow court the public sector unions for the inevitable election fight. I'll let them worry on that.
Meanwhile the Liberals will keep their pet projects, all day kindergarten, subsidized but GREEN power generation, build more and larger LCBO stores to better monopolize the market for booze, and they are getting deeper into the gaming industry.
These are effectively additional taxes. Why? Because many people drink liquor, beer or wine, and the markup is high because the government has a monopoly. Think of it like a tax on bad habits.
Similarly, more casinos in more populated parts of the province will fleece the gamblers, increasing the odds of taxing the stupid. I will include myself in that group, because I do buy the odd lottery ticket, really stupid.
This neat little graphic at the Globe & Mail, shows how the deficit will deplete (they hope), and how the cuts help the decrease and the added revenues help too.
The video and text below it, represents my 5 minute response to this budget.
Ontario
is in financial trouble, that's according to the proposed budget tabled
yesterday by Finance Minister Dwight Duncan.
Less
than six months ago, during the provincial elections, none of the major parties
made the debt or deficit an important issue.
Ontario
didn't get into trouble in just six months. This trouble has been building for decades
and was greatly aggravated in recent years.
The
Liberals have doubled the Provincial debt and deficit since coming to power in
2003, doubled in less than nine years.
Finance
Minister Duncan blames the global recession, and the stimulus spending, that
the government chose to do, for creating the current problem.
But
the spending problem began in their first budget, well before the
recession. The Liberals raised taxes, pulling more money out of the pockets of
families, and increased government spending.
Their
spending problem was aggravated by an economic slowdown and a reduction in government
income.
So,
what if your family runs up a large credit card bill during hard times? Would
you continue spending lavishly, or consider cutting back on some frills? Would
you decide to take on more services, or consider doing with less, and paying
off your debt?
I’m
not the only one criticizing the Liberals; their own people have been their
greatest critics.
The
provincial Auditor General in his last report pointed to excessive spending and
poor management in adding heavily subsidized wind turbines and solar panels to everyone’s
electricity bill, and also increasing government debt.
Don
Drummond, in his recent report on reforming the public service, echoed the
Auditor’s criticism, and came up with 362 recommendations to balance the budget
or the deficit would balloon to $30 billion in five years.
To
add to the criticism, Moody's, a financial rating agency warned Ontario that
it's credit rating would be in jeopardy if its lavish spending habits don't
change.
And
what does balancing the budget actually mean? To compare it to your family
credit card bill again, it means just making the minimum payments without
paying back what is owed. And worse, the government has said it won’t balance
the budget for another five years, so debts will continue to increase.
So,
what have the McGuinty Liberals done in this budget? They have decided use the
coercive powers of government to freeze the salaries of all public sector
employees. The public sector will take the brunt of the cuts, in salaries and
pensions, but many of the items recommended by the Drummond Report were
ignored.
Many
of the frills are still in place and the government has chosen to increase its
income by doing things like building more and larger LCBO stores, and more casinos,
both of which act like taxes on consumers.
The
budget does not address the debt. Servicing the massive debt is Ontario's third
largest annual expense, and that assumes that interest rates will remain low.
The
Liberals have also cancelled a proposed cut in corporate taxes.
Libertarians
would not cancel the cut in corporate taxes.
We
believe that jurisdictions that have the low corporate tax rates attract more
business and industry. These will create real jobs that would ultimately
improve Ontario’s economy.
Libertarians
would choose to eliminate or amalgamate entire ministries and many agencies
that provide little or no value to the province, and where the free market
could do a far better job.
We
all want Ontario to be the best place to live, I’m sure that is true of the government.
I believe that their intentions are good, however, sometimes-good intentions
have very bad results.
This
is what has happened here. The government has a spending problem that it does
not want to admit; I have no confidence in this budget solving that problem. I
believe its time to change the government.
It's hard for people who think that government is the solution to all that ails us, to imagine what things would be like if the government just protected your natural rights.
In the video above, Yaron Brook explains why people will need to come to grips with the coming crisis in entitlement payments. This issue is already affecting some European countries, notably Greece. But its will affect Americans and Canadians in due course, Brook explains why Americans will be affected.
In Canada the difference is just in degree, it will affect Canadians, and in many ways is now, because our medical care system is already being rationed. Brook offers some general solutions that will solve the problems in an orderly way.
