Right-to-work OR race-to-the-bottom?

Hard to believe "right-to-work" has arrived in Michigan.
The Detroit area, called Motor City, was once the centre of the universe for automobile manufacturing. Michigan was a fantastic wealth-producer as well as being heavily unionized and really one of the centres for the labour movement in America. Things have changed, that's what competition does.

The manufacturing sector has been shrinking in Michigan since year 2000, and has only weakly recovered in recent years, much of that due to artificial government "stimulus."

But competition has also pushed Michigan to act. Earlier this year neighbouring Indiana became a right-to-work state, so, lose jobs to Indiana or stop the bleeding, that was the choice for Michigan.

Of course Michigan borders Ontario, so are we next? We can hope, but not likely, not yet.

The principle behind right-to-work clearly lines up with the libertarian non-aggression principle. Workers should be able to join and contribute fees to a union or not. Employers should have the right to choose their employees based on whatever criteria they please. Workers should be able to freely associate and form collective bargaining units (unions) and approach employers with terms. Employers should be free to bargain with the union or other workers who are NOT members of the union. Unions and union members do not own the jobs they have, the jobs are the property of the employer/owner of the business. Right-to-work for workers means freedom to choose to belong to a union or not, within a free market.

Of course none of that squares with the way unions operate in reality. Generally the "brothers and sisters" do not appreciate independent thinkers in the workforce and are more likely to bludgeon (and I mean literally) reluctant joiners into joining. This practice of union coercion is referred to as "hard fought gains" by the mainstream media. One of my least favourite reporters from CBC, Neil Macdonald, wrote his fair-minded assessment of the situation here. I'm not sure which of the thirteen "!" CBC unions Macdonald belongs to, but even he couldn't ignore reality in that missive:

"Now, it is unarguably true the unions brought a lot of their misfortune upon themselves. The larger ones have often been corrupt and sometimes entangled with organized crime." Oh really?

Evidence that union jobs don't belong to the union members came recently in the dispute with Hostess Brands. Two unions were involved, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers (BCTGM) Union (part of the AFL-CIO). The story is complicated, Hostess has been struggling for some time now, 8 of the last 11 years were in bankruptcy, and blame is shared all around. But to give you an idea as to how unions help business this is from a story in the Wall Street Journal:

"Under the latest turnaround plan, the sticking point was Hostess's distribution operations, source of the Hostess horror stories filling the media. Union-imposed work rules stopped drivers from helping to load their trucks. A separate worker, arriving at the store in a separate vehicle, had to be employed to shift goods from a storage area to a retailer's shelf. Wonder Bread and Twinkies couldn't ride on the same truck."

Rules are rules, and sometimes they get in the way. Hostess is being liquidated and the jobs are gone for 18,500 people, but the union wins a Pyrrhic victory, whoop-dee-do.

Jon Stewart called right-to-work a race to the bottom and went on to say: "It's one of those things that are actually named for the opposite of the thing they do, like strip bars call themselves gentlemen's clubs."  I think he got that wrong. What unions want is the right-to-coerce, what should be, is the free market.

Anti-vax backlash

Two rules to contemplate for the new year:

1. Never fool with mother nature, she will win.
2. Frequently conspiracy theories have no merit, you should be skeptical always, especially when there is good evidence that contradicts the theory.

Good advice, I think. Sadly the photo left tells a different story. The photo suggests that someone associated with the liberty movement is against vaccination, all vaccination I guess. This is troubling. Certainly the person in that picture has a right to voice an opinion, right or wrong. But blanket generalizations like that do not put libertarians in a good light. The man holding the sign is doing a disservice to the cause of liberty and perpetuating a myth. And both are dangerous. "Say no to vaccine" flies in the face of over 200 years of evidence, it's a stupid, stupid statement. I'm not about to defend the practice of vaccination here, if you are interested in finding out some information from someone other than Alex Jones, then go here.

Its easy to dismiss the tremendous evidence that very few people in the Western world get sick or die from the numerous diseases that don't seem to be making people sick or killing them anymore. The diseases are no longer a problem, most people are immune to them because of vaccinations. But the diseases are still out there, people are still infected, the causative microbes still get passed around. Very few people show symptoms because their immune systems are able to fight the microbes off due to previous vaccination That's how we know the vaccines work. What happens if people refuse vaccinations, like my liberty minded friend above?

In recent years vaccinations have become associated with childhood autism, there is no evidence to support this. Young children get numerous vaccines through their early years. Autism is behavioural disorder that doesn't manifest itself until children are 12 months to 4 years old. Parents look for a cause and point to vaccination because autism and vaccinations are correlated. But correlation is not causation, and I repeat there is not supporting evidence. On the contrary, there is much written against. But worried parents have taken the precautionary principle to heart, and refused certain vaccinations. The results are predictable as you can see here, here, and especially here.

Be skeptical, but be smart.      

The future? "Better in some ways, worse in others."

"The story that was widely accepted in the 1960's.....strong central government and central planning.....is much less believable now, than it was then." David Friedman 

Good news: "the use of force is going down"

"Libertarianism is based on a single ideal, the non-aggression principle, so libertarian rhetoric tends to be remarkably consistent." Mary Ruwart

A new understanding of why money and democracy don’t mix well.

Of the many events that happened in November 2012, one of them was the first Toronto Austrian Scholars Conference. The conference was held by the Mises Institute of Canada, whose mission is to educate the public to the importance of placing human choice at the centre of economic theory.

One of the featured speakers at this conference was Assistant Vice-Provost of the University of Guelph-Humber and Program Head of Business, Dr. George Bragues. My daughter interviewed Dr. Bragues, and here is what she wrote. This originally appeared here.

If democracy needed only to be viewed through a moral lens, Dr. George Bragues, would have many good things to say. “Equality is the moral pivot of the whole democratic regime. And in many ways, a very noble aspect of it,” he says.

But enter a financial lens, and the picture becomes clouded with contradictions.

Money in a democracy is an affair of the State; the State prints the money, and oversees its supply. But in a democracy, the State is also voted in by the many. This naturally brings political incentives into the picture – and more than that, the necessity to please the many in order to win their votes.

“Given the moral climate democracies tend to foster, and given the incentives that politicians face to get votes – politicians tend to be inclined toward deficit spending,” says Dr. Bragues. He explains: “Democratic politics becomes a bit of a bidding war, where politicians tend to outbid one another in an ‘I can offer you that’ manner in order to win a majority. But never is there talk about how it will be paid for. In a democracy, the cost of public goods always appears cheaper than they really are to the voter,” he says.

Once politicians are faced with deficits, Dr. Bragues explains the three options from which they have to choose: “One – you can cut spending, which is not very popular. Two – you can increase taxes, which is difficult from a political standpoint. Three – you can just print more money.”

Dr. Bragues says it is this third option that is often the chosen route, given the innate realities of a democracy. But to take this one step further, Dr. Bragues adds that printing more money leads to its devaluation. Soft money, as it is otherwise known.

Here comes the part where Dr. Bragues prefaces his thoughts with “I hope I don’t sound pessimistic.”

“Soft money raises serious moral questions.”

He argues that certain virtues become undermined with soft money, ultimately and inevitably leading to a moral decline. “What ends up happening is one part of society uses another part. The people who profit more from a soft money regime gain at the expense of those who get hurt by it.”

“So – are you really treating everybody equally? Or is the political regime just helping one part of society to gain at the expense of another?”

Here is Prof. Bragues in his own words at the conference:

Middle East Morass

Troubling, is what I would call some of the commentary from libertarians on Facebook and other social media with regard to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict recently.

Steve Horwitz, a professor of economics and an advocate of the Austrian School, wrote a blog post on the conflict that sums up my thoughts very well, in an argument that might satisfy many libertarians. Have a look at his blog post, it's worth your time.

The issue of course is extremely complex, made worse by missteps on both sides and by the 24 hour news cycle that needs to be fed. On top of that there are issues of political correctness when one or the other side is criticized.

A great many younger libertarians and modern day liberals have approached this conflict with the same view promulgated by politicians, commentators, and reinforced by the modern liberal mainstream media who believe they are being objective in their position which sounds something like this: 

Poor tiny Gaza is being blockaded by the tyrannical Israeli's, whose apartheid policies have caused the Palestinian people untold hardship. It's an unfair fight, the Israeli's with their modern military might against the Palestinian's homemade rockets and plucky attitude of resistance. 

That represents the superficial argument if you, like many, are unaware of the history of this conflict or you have been fed the revisionist story widely available on the CBC et al. 

The purpose of my blog is to advance the cause of liberty and secularism. It is difficult to ignore that this conflict seems to be a clash of religions. Lets put aside the conflict for the moment, one has to consider which side in this conflict has the greatest possibility of advancing the cause of liberty in the future. So lets look at that.

Over the past two years a number Arab states in the region have undergone what is called the Arab Spring. This has been touted as a freedom movement by the liberal media, a move towards democracy and away from dictatorial rule. In several of the countries dictators have been overthrown or killed and replaced by new government. Lets look at Egypt, one of the more "peaceful" revolutions. The dictator Mubarak was overthrown, the new President, Mr. Morsi, after 100 days in power has adopted temporary sweeping new powers, effectively making him a dictator now backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. A Mubarak military dictatorship has been replaced by a Morsi theocratic dictatorship. 

Is that a move forward or backward? I'm not sure. 

Its happened in other places and in Syria, it is still happening. The dictator is slaughtering his own people, cutting them off from the rest of the world (Internet was turned off for two days) with no peace in sight yet. The Arab Spring has morphed into the Islamist Winter. I'm going to take a guess and say that it is unlikely that any of these revolutions will result in classical liberal democracies with the type of liberties common in other countries like Canada.

On the other hand Prof. Horwitz has this to say: "Let me be blunt: there is one and only one state in the region that rests on broadly classical liberal values and that is Israel. It has the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a more or less market economy that protects private property, not to mention a higher degree of ethnic/religious inclusiveness in its political institutions. It is far from perfect, but it is the most classical liberal game in town."

Their have been several wars since the state of Israel was founded 65 years ago, Israel has been victorious in all of them. Do you seriously believe that if Israel had lost one of those wars the country would still exist? I don't. Yet each of Israel's neighbours still exist, they have even (foolishly IMHO) had land returned by the Israeli's in an attempt to have peace, but those wars have morphed into an ongoing war of attrition. I'm predicting this war is going to get much, much bigger, in many different ways. I hope not, but history is not on the side of peace. 

The video below is a bit of history, and if you haven't seen it you should.

A farewell from Ron Paul

Here is likely the final address to Congress of Texas Rep. Ron Paul. His final chance to tell them what he really thinks, and he pulls no punches as usual.

Market Power - I, Pencil

There is nothing simple about the science of economics. Worse yet it's very difficult to predict using ordinary mathematical principles commonly used in science.

For example in chemistry it's fairly straightforward to predict the products and their quantity in a particular chemical reaction or even a set of reactions if the starting materials and conditions of the chemical reaction are known beforehand. Using stoichiometry, "the rules of chemical reactions," its simple enough that high school students can do the calculations and make the predictions.

Economics, is very different. There is something called econometrics, the application of math and statistics to economics. It's very useful in showing economic trends and events in the past, but predicting the future, not so much.

In the 19th century, Thomas Carlyle called economics the "dismal science" in response to the grim predictions in the writings of Malthus in the previous century. Malthus was wrong, he could not predict the scientific and agricultural advances that changed the lives and economics of Western civilization, the apocalypse did not happen as Malthus envisioned.

Malthusians in the guise of environmentalists are still around today, predicting doom and gloom. It makes for great news stories because of the hyperbole involved, the books written, movies made, and the creation of an army of charlatan scientists predicting doom and gloom. Malthus would have been proud.

In economics, more often than not, the past does not predict the future because human actions are far too complex. But because humans are incentivized to act for their own well being, what seems chaotic and spontaneous often has wonderful orderly results, and what seems destructive, ends up being very creative.

The following video is a perfect example of a seemingly chaotic and spontaneous interplay, creating order.           

If you didn't understand that, here it is explained.

Bastiat Prize for Journalism 2012

John Robson (second from left) of the Ottawa Sun and a frequent contributor to SUN TV NEWS received second place honours, $5,000 and a candlestick from the Reason Foundation's Bastiat Prize for Journalism.

Here are some interesting comments from attendee's of that event.

Caring for the aged, voluntarily

My daughter works for a small local university as a writer and web specialist, promoting the school to the rest of the community. Interestingly the head of the business department in this school is an advocate of the Austrian School of Economics. It turns out other professors are discovering that governments are often not the answer to every social issue. Here from one of her postings is an example:
A low-cost answer to our aging population? We’re already doing it.

Why the Canadian Association on Gerontology is interested in one UofGH Professor’s findings… and why others should be, too

By now, a discussion around the aging population and its impacts needs almost no introduction. Dr. Brenda Elias, Professor in the Family and Community Social Services Program at the University of Guelph-Humber, echoes the sentiment: “We know we are looking forward to amazing numbers of people growing old. We know about the baby boomers.”

The latest population projections, according to Ontario’s Ministry of Finance, show the number of seniors aged 65 and over to more than double – from 1.9 million to 4.2 million – by the year 2036.

Add to this one more absolute: “And we know about the huge concern around healthcare costs,” says Dr. Elias.

While part of the Ontario government’s solution has been, in Dr. Elias’ words, ‘investing billions in big healthcare centres with lots of technology and expensive machines’, she has been investing her time in searching elsewhere for answers.

“In looking at small, rural communities, we find very rich and vibrant centres,” she says. “They may look sleepy, but in fact, they’re good places to grow old because of amazing volunteers leading not-for-profit organizations. Not because of trained professionals.”

She adds that the investments put forth by larger provinces in Canada, such as Ontario, often don’t reach many seniors, as rural communities often boast senior populations of more than 50 per cent. These seniors often don’t have access to family doctors or walk-in clinics – something city dwellers might take for granted.

Dr. Elias’ research took her to Georgetown, a small community in Ontario, home to a not-for-profit-run seniors facility called Bennett Village. What she found was remarkable success amid unremarkable circumstances.

“This not-for profit organization already has two facilities for seniors, but given the needs of their population, they’re being proactive and planning for a third next spring with long-term care beds,” says Dr. Elias.

She continues: “This community doesn’t have any more money than anyone else in Ontario. But what they’re saying is, we have a responsibility to our neighbours; we can take control of this situation; we don’t need government money.”

“They didn’t wait for someone else to come along and offer financial help. They just went out and did it. What they have is strong leadership - and that’s what it’s all about,” she says.

Dr. Elias points to what she calls a newfound caliber of volunteer as the reason behind such strong leadership. As baby boomers now enter retirement, a new pool of trained professionals is forming.

“We’ve never before had trained professionals with the time, resources, energy, and enough pension money [to support such demanding volunteerism]. This is a tremendous resource that Canadians have, that is not necessarily replicated around the world – not even in the United States,” she says.

In finding that small, rural Canadian communities are capable of supporting successful aging, Dr. Elias’ work corroborates that of others, including Dr. Norah Keating, a professor in the Department of Human Ecology at the University of Alberta, and one of Canada’s pre-eminent social gerontologists.

The key now is to get the right people listening.

She presented her findings this month at the Canadian Association on Gerontology’s Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, “but if we can discover what makes a successful, supportive community, and how to sustain leadership in the community – then that may be a very low cost option that government may want to take a look at.”

Sustaining strong leadership does add a final twist to this story. If successful communities are those that are taking advantage of their volunteers, then how can we ensure future volunteerism?

Admittedly a concern for Dr. Elias, who shakes her head at a current provincial government policy designed to support the trend: high school students in Ontario must complete a minimum of 40 hours of community involvement activities in order to graduate.

“I’m torn about this policy, because I’m worried that we’re not making sure that younger people understand volunteerism,” she says. “Volunteerism is a very fragile thing, and I’m worried about the future.” 

Originally appeared here.

Family and Community Social Services Program

They chose the devil they knew....

Unsurprisingly Barack Obama remains POTUS for another term. The US Congress is still divided, and as one of my more learned Facebook friends suggested during the TV count coverage last night:

"It appears we are headed for four more years of divided government and gridlock. The least bad of all possible outcomes."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for what happened, but as positive as could be hoped for. 

Alas, a 5% showing for Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate, did not happen, not even close. Johnson had his best showing in his home state of New Mexico with just 3.5% of the popular vote, next was Montana with 2.9% then Wyoming with 2.2%. Everywhere else was slightly more or less than 1%. His national total (at this posting) was about 1,140,000 votes, just 1.0% of total votes cast. This graphic from Google is one of the best sources. The graphic above from the Libertarian National Committee neatly compares the three candidates on a variety of issues. Of course most campaigns really are not about issues, are they? 

Another Facebook friend pointed out an article written by a libertarian that stirs up the hornets nest of the third party in a two party system. It's an interesting argument here.

Then there is Jeffrey Tucker's blog that neatly summarizes a libertarian perspective on the entire ordeal that is the American election campaign here.

I've already seen indications that the next campaign has started....Rand Paul anyone?

Occupy vs. Liberty

Liberty Now 2012 - in the foyer UTVic...

Liberty

I apologize, no postings for almost three weeks. Other work, and family obligations have kept me very busy. Some of you will know that I have been involved with the "liberty weekend" here in the Toronto area, and in all modesty, a  very successful one.
First, there was Liberty Now on Nov. 3, 2012, then my party's Annual General Meeting the very next day, so some things, like blogging, had to go by the wayside.

Liberty Now was a great success; it may even have lived up to it's billing as "Canada's largest Liberty Event." We had two liberty-related themes that day, each one with 3 sessions opposite the other throughout the day, all were well attended, plus a keynote lunchtime address from the host of Freedomain Radio, Stefan Molyneux. There was a liberty-bazzaar of sorts (see picture) in the foyer of the beautiful Victoria College building at the University of Toronto. The whole event was designed to bring people from different parts of the Canadian liberty movement together for discussion and networking purposes, and it worked wonderfully. The only negative about the day for me, the media chose not to attend, I'll have more on that.
The next day, Nov. 4, was my party's AGM, a private affair. Over the course of weeks and months, I've assisted the efforts of our party's Campaign Director, who has put us on the path to a useable, workable, presentable Platform, designed to ready our candidates with a document to carry into the coming Provincial election battle, likely next spring. We'll be ready, and with some hard work, and determination, we will strive for a full slate of candidates across Ontario.

Occupy

You will recall that it has been about a year since the Occupy Wall Street movement rose up, seemingly spontaneously in cities around the world including Toronto. The local media were all over it, covering every inane chant, every emanation and demand from a besieged neighbourhood park in the heart of Toronto live and direct. I thought of that event while driving home from the event on November third.
Prior to Liberty Now I had notified some local media, radio and TV, about Liberty Now, once I saw that we could have a good crowd. As many as 115 people actually showed up that day to occupy Victoria College, of course they paid us, and we asked permission from the College, rented the space and paid for the day. Everything was done by mutual agreement. We did not squat in a public area, we did not disrupt a neighbourhood or force ourselves on the local citizenry. It was totally peaceful, no demands, no whining, no muddy mess left behind, on the contrary, Liberty Now came replete with solutions and suggestions to improve the lives of Canadians and all people. A positive event, attended by people no less sincere than the Occupiers of last year, but no media. We'll be back, bigger and better.   

Free Trade? at 25, USA and Canada

Charge!!!   

There is a scene from the John Candy movie Canadian Bacon, where American military types realize that 90% of Canada's citizenry live within 100 miles (~160 km) of the American border. They pretend to fear an invasion. The fact is Canadians invade the United States regularly, every weekend. But when Canadians 'charge,' they do it with a credit card.

This month marks the 25th Anniversary of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Reciprocity, as it was once called, pre-dates Canada, back then it was limited to raw materials, but in 1911 the terms were broadened and Reciprocity or free trade, was defeated when the Borden Conservatives rejected a treaty signed by the Laurier Liberals. The same arguments used against free trade then, were used in 1987, when ironically, the Mulroney Conservatives signed the FTA. A national election in 1988 confirmed the deal, which was apposed by the socialist NDP and left Liberals of the day. I'm sure Laurier would have been sickened by those modern era Liberals.

So if free trade has been around for a quarter of a century, why do Canadians in ever growing numbers choose to shop in the nearby border towns of the United States? Why are there services that provide "border wait times," for travellers - mostly Canadian - here, here, and here? The answer is simple, just have a look at the tariff chart below that was published in the National Post recently.

from the National Post

If all those items are 7 to 18% more expensive in Canada, AND, each province (except Alberta) has a sales tax plus a federal GST, you can see why many Canadians go on US shopping jaunts particularly since the currencies have been close to par for sometime now. Where I live in Ontario, there is a 13% HST (harmonized sales tax, federal and provincial) that may be avoided with a 90 minute trip to New York State. The potential savings on an item of clothing would be upwards of 30%! Lets not forget that shopping in upstate New York provides more selection and good sales too, because of "the economy of scale."

That phrase: "the economy of scale" is often used by Canadian wholesalers and retailers (as an excuse - but I'm not blaming them) to explain their higher prices. Yet the population of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is far larger than upstate New York, aren't we big enough here if we were part of that same New York State market? The simple answer is yes, we are big enough, and yes, we could be part of that market, but the invisible boundary that separates us from our neighbours in New York, adds various government costs to "protect" our industries here in Ontario. Some free trade.

So our political masters here in Canada try to protect the brassier and panty hose industry, while at the same time hurting the rest of the population and in particular those least able to afford brassieres and panty hose.

In that National Post article I've mentioned above, Terence Corcoran explains why free trade is due for a change.

BTW, for your enlightenment here is the trailer to Canadian Bacon, enjoy:

Ed & Ethan 0.5 are moving to a new format....

But, I made it to the final broadcast (in this format)...and some of the past broadcasts too. I like this one because I'm the only panelist along with Ed & Ethan. Have a listen:

Minarchy vs. Anarchy and the State

In libertarian circles the minarchy versus anarchy argument is ever present, and typically in a non-threatening way.

What I mean by "non-threatening" is that the anarchy is NOT the sort characterized by conservatives and liberals. You know the kind, rioters in black masks roaming the streets looting, pillaging, and causing general mayhem. That is not the libertarian view of anarchy, thats just rioting.

The libertarian view of anarchy coincides with the concept of spontaneous order. That concept describes how the unhindered the free market operates by imposing its own rules on itself, such that there is a "spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos." One of the biggest proponents of that sort of anarcho-capitalism, as it is called, was Murray Rothbard.

My background teaching biology made it very easy for me to accept spontaneous order in economics and society. Anyone that has ever studied biology will know that organisms, be they plant, animal or protist, live within "self ordered" ecosystems. There is a producer level, and various levels of consumer, and any external interventions often disrupt the order of the ecosystem. So, you see its not a huge jump to spontaneous governance among humans, and I have written about this before, here, here, and here.

In the ReasonTV video below, Stefan Molyneux is interviewed by Matt Welch at FreedomFest 2012. If you live in or near Southern Ontario, Stefan Molyneux will be the Keynote Speaker at Liberty Now on November 3, 2012. Why not come out and challenge the self-confessed  anarcho-capitalist on his home turf? I'll be there too.