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.   

Warp Factor

“We don’t allow faster-than-light neutrinos in here,” says the bartender.

A neutrino walks into a bar. (That's a joke circulating on the web - explained below)

There was nothing more confusing than a Star Trek story where time travel was used as a plot device, and there were lots of them. 

Of course TV and movie screen plays and books don't need to conform to reality. So the idea of time travel has been very common in science fiction plots from the days of Jules Verne to well, the other night on TV.

This is an example of reality that doesn't conform to theory. A major scientific group discovered that neutrinos "seem" to travel faster than light, that seems to break some "theoretical rules" discovered by Prof. Einstein over there.

Relativity theory predicts that things that approach the speed of light develop infinite mass. Neutrinos aren't very heavy to begin with - mass is non-zero, so, that leaves lots of room for speculation. 

This discovery, if its true, is not yet support for Star Trek's warp speed, but it makes you wonder about neutrinos getting kicked out of taverns they have not yet entered, and it upsets most of modern-day physics.

Something is wrong - Occupiers with no Occupation

I became an adult in the 1960's (although some may argue). During those years, protests were served up on the nightly news as frequently as people had cereal for breakfast. It was standard fare. Anti-Nuke, anti-war, anti-draft, pro-choice, pro-life, femme-lib, racial strife, assassinations, just-society, war on poverty, war on drugs (still happening) we had it all, day after day after day. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot to complain about, and interestingly, in almost every case I tended to side with the protestors, never with the government program or solution. That hasn't changed.
What is going on in the Occupy Wall Street Protests, well, I sympathize with that too, maybe not the way you think. Something is wrong, the protestors know that, I know that, if you don't know that, well its time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is not a simple issue, there will be no simple fix, no bailout to make it go away, and make no mistake, there will be blood. The system is broken.
The protestors are themselves products of the broken system. Most went to typical state-run schools, and were indoctrinated by people of my generation with the progressive-collectivist bullshit ideas common these days. The neo-cons and conservatives in the media are criticizing these young people for biting the hand that has fed them. I understand that view, its well illustrated in the picture (top left) that has made the rounds of social media. If that saying: "you are what you eat" is true, then surely you are what you wear, carry, play with, or use to communicate. The conservatives or Republicans, whatever you call them, look at these protestors as a whining minority. Well, so were the anti-draft, anti-Vietnam war protestors, look what happened.
The protesters bought into the broken system and are expecting the system will somehow care for them, you know, like we are all supposed to care for each other. Help each other realize our own potential, stay in school, get that degree in Psychology, Women's Studies or English Lit. But now we just have school debt, no job, no prospects and we're tired of living in our parent's basement. Something is wrong. Why aren't we getting that job, big salary, big benefits, why? They lied to us!

My friend Rod Rojas, knows something is wrong and in a recent article published in Mises.org he tries to pin the blame in this phrase: "The big problem with the honest Left is their absolute and obstinate refusal to learn the most basic economic principles." I like that. We're not talking financial literacy folks, we're talking Economics, one of the youngest and least understood of the sciences. It needs to be explained, Rod's article is simple and an excellent start. Who better to continue the explanation than Tom Woods, Misean Scholar, interviewed by Stefan Molyneux:

Libertarian Election results and the future

That chart is an unofficial tally of the Oct. 6, 2011 election results for the Ontario Libertarian Party. Compared to the last election in 2007 when the Party had 25 candidates, this time there were 51 candidates, and we received 19,695 votes, slightly more than twice the vote count of 2007.
Many of us were satisfied that we had made progress, the party had grown, more members, twice the candidates and more interest. Three of our candidates even beat the Green Party candidate in their particular ridings. Yes, we made inroads, but if looked at in perspective, our provincial total was roughly the same as the winning candidate, the incumbent Liberal, in my own riding. One person, the same as our total. We still have a long way to go.

Many of our Libertarian candidates took comfort in the fact that we beat the Freedom Party (FP), our disaffected and embittered kinfolk. Yes, they were once libertarians, and yes we beat them by a large margin (more than two to one), even though our real differences (based on those members that I know) are virtually nonexistent. They took a different approach in this election, deciding to pander a little more to popular appeal, and thus make themselves look less scary. Their leader was aggressive, obnoxious, a bit of a braggart, and not very nice to us (he called us "a scraggly bunch of anti-government protestors" even though he has the full beard). He got lots of free press (as you can see in the previous link), they had more candidates (57), a flashier website, more money, generally more exposure than we had, and yet, very disappointing results compared to us. I wish them no malice, their goal is very similar to ours, but when you act, and look just like a conservative, people will vote for the conservative party or candidate they feel has a better chance to win, in this case the oxymoronically named Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. That's what happened to FP, and they will need to rebrand themselves or rejoin us, because we are not going away.
There is a lesson for us here, we can't make ourselves less scary, because we lose what little credibility we have now, and we no longer become an alternative protest vote. The Libertarian brand is becoming established here in Canada, just as it has been in the US. This is not the time to change the formula or the packaging. Nor is there any chance we will be elected, not in the near or even distant future. We can change the conversation, and the Overton window in Ontario, without getting elected. Our socialist friends have done exactly that.
In 4 weeks we have a Convention, where new leadership may be chosen, and where we decide our future. There are noises among some of our new members that the time has come to get serious, to cast off our "debating society," modus operandi, and become a "real" political party. See that chart up there, we are real, we are also not the same as any other party, its time to accept that fact. Maybe thats what the noises are about. Is it time to look and act like the other parties, maybe? However, for a scraggly bunch of anti-government protestors, I think we are doing as well as can be expected, given how few of us are actually doing something, and how little our resources are. Size does matter folks, and we can only grow if people start pulling in the same direction.       

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs 1955 - 2011