Be it resolved that religion is a force for good in the world...

The next Munk Debate (Nov. 26, 2010) pits former British P.M. Tony Blair against writer Christopher Hitchens arguing if religion is a force for good. Is there really any point? It might be an interesting evening, but here we will see Blair defending the indefensible and Hitchens arguing for the intolerable.

Who knew that politics gave Blair the credentials to argue in favour of religion? Oh, wait a minute "power" is central to both, and there is corruption, control, obfuscation, and extortion in both; maybe he is qualified. Certainly Blair's recent book tour where he defends Britain's entry into the war in Iraq qualifies him to defend the indefensible.
Hitchens' is a widely respected atheist who certainly qualifies as a worthy opponent, but his position as posted on the Munk website is: "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world." That is as intolerable to me as religion itself. Imagine "instruction...not allowed", quite a different world indeed. Hitchens' shows us in that statement his true conservative roots - and when I use the word "conservative" I mean it in its most derogatory sense. What an ugly comment, what an ugly thought!

I don't have a problem with anyone practicing and perfecting their religion, just leave me out of it and keep me away from bigots like Hitchens'.

Balancing a budget sometimes means spending less on frills!

According to Dan Mitchell at CATO, spending less on government departments that are not really (according to the US Constitution) functions of government, will quickly balance the US budget. I know that sounds unbelievable; have a look for yourself:

It will always come down to morality

Last week I mentioned the talk given by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio (FDR) fame. The event was recorded and the YouTube posting is now available. The video spans virtually the entire evening; 90 minutes long, and recorded at a pub in Toronto early in September 2010. The evening was sponsored by the Ontario Libertarian Party. 
Stefan talks about the one unavoidable fact that libertarians frequently fail to address in any discussion and I am as guilty as anyone. It is a fundamental belief, a starting point really of libertarianism. 
All libertarians will agree that the initiation of force in any interactions between people and other people, between individuals and groups of people including organizations and of course government is immoral; period. It is the non-aggression principle,  very simple but with huge repercussions in daily life. Stefan uses this interactive-talk to expand on his acceptance of the non-aggression principle versus the rationale people use today to justify our democracy.
 

Lessons from the European Union

Is America lurching toward European-style statism? Many people think so, I think so. Here in Canada we already "enjoy" a generous helping of European statism. We don't have the same libertarian beginnings as our cousins south of the border, but many of us aspire to those values. Lately the problem has been that the Americans, I should say the American leadership, has the appearance of being worse than our own leadership (if that is possible). The good news of course is that both of our countries share a common heritage, similar political and business practices, and it is not too late to heed warnings when they are given. The CATO video below is a warning we should take to heart.  

"Daniel Hannan's new book, The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America, urges Americans not to take such things as federalism, the rule of law and limited government for granted. He believes the United States could find itself lurching toward European-style socialism even more quickly. He spoke at the Cato Institute September 29, 2010."