David Suzuki at 75

Among the soldiers of the Green-Gestapo, Canadian David Suzuki holds the rank of Generalfeldmarschall at least. He will be turning 75 in a few days, and he is enjoying iconic status among many Canadians, with a movie, a foundation and unrivalled popularity amongst the green and wanna-be-green-gliterati. Personally I think its way-way overdone, but I'm sure Suzuki thinks he is doing the right thing, and yet I totally disagree with him on so many issues. So how could he and I have such a different perspective on things? We're both good people, I am, anyway.
The answer is that we have different world-views, different first premises and as a result a different moral structure.
My view is that humanity is a part of the biota of this planet, and each person on the planet is entitled by virtue of their existence to certain rights. The chief among these rights, is to their own life, each person is in charge, and is the owner, of their own life once they are old enough to leave the caring umbrella of their parents. When are they old enough? They are old enough when they can use their own reason and their own abilities to fend for themselves, and reason is the primary tool that separates us from the other creatures on Earth. As free individuals, people are also free to form associations with others in order to achieve common goals. So far many of you might agree with me. Where we might part is here: individuals or groups may come into conflict when the rights of an individual are infringed upon by another, or by a group. Even if that offending group calls itself the lawful government of the land, by coercing individuals to do things that are essentially contrary to the rights of an individual or individuals, then that is immoral, not justifiable and should be resisted. I believe the government's proper primary purpose is to defend the rights of individuals and settle disputes between them. From a look at the Suzuki's website, my last two statements is where we disagree.

The Suzuki Foundation (DSF) is a lobby group, freely formed and entitled to exist within the laws of the land (although they are not registered lobbyists). I'm fine with that, I even agree with some of their causes. Part of their stated purpose is to "...work with government, business and individuals to conserve our environment by providing science-based education, advocacy and policy work, and acting as a catalyst for the social change that today's situation demands." Not a problem, generally, but I believe DSF has too much sway on government, and government should not be doing some of the things it does in its policy planning and enactments.
On their website, DSF has a page titled Declaration of Interdependence. I have excerpted a section below:

I'm fairly certain Suzuki would agree with the Declaration and with the part excerpted above. The first sentence spells out that humans are a blight on the Earth, the second sentence claims that the our wealth (in Canada etc.) comes at the expense of the "suffering of millions." The rest is a demand for reparations to pay for the "full ecological and social cost ..... of development." In essence, this document of interdependence  actually separates us from the other creatures on the planet rather than connecting us. How dare we reproduce and become the dominant species of Earth. How dare we presume to alter the planet to bring ourselves comfort at the expense of  "fellow creatures." How dare we succeed! That's my problem with Suzuki!

Don't get me wrong here, I understand how important it is to do the right thing for the environment, and I agree that protecting and preserving all aspects of nature where possible is virtuous. I love to see and be a part of nature in all its glory, that is a value to me and my family. But given the extent of pollution and destruction that has occurred already, do our current rules really work? Even where there is massive government regulation, pollution occurs, oil spills occur, species are lost because of shrinking habitat, and on and on. Will doing more of the same, more regulation by government work? I doubt it.

The problem might simply boil down to ownership. Property that is owned by individuals is property that is protected by individuals. I know it might sound counterintuitive, but private property is always better protected than public property. The legal issues are complex, but the argument that free markets better protect the environment than governments is out there, here for example.

So maybe Suzuki is barking up (or hugging) the wrong tree. I only disagree with him on fundamentals, and the means to arrive at the proper ends. I don't disagree for the most part on the ends, but I do disagree that the means justify the ends. I'm sure his birthday will be well attended anyway.

Removing safe and reliable electricity generation in Ontario

In Ontario the Provincial government has demonized coal-fired-thermal-power-generation. Lets put aside for the moment the obvious question that asks why is government is involved in supplying electric power to homeowners. I think competitive free enterprise would do a better job, but I will deal with that issue later. In the meantime an Ontario election is looming and citizens will have an opportunity to pass judgment on the policies and practices of Dalton McGuinty's Liberals soon.
One of those policies is McGuinty's plan to remove the option of coal and reduce natural gas usage for power generation, replacing them with solar panels and wind mills. This ideologically driven policy may lead to some serious unintended consequences for Ontario's future. It's "ideologically driven policy," because McGuinty is convinced that the waste gas carbon dioxide is a significant cause of the evil global warming. Why global warming is a problem for Ontario, I'm still not certain?
In a widely distributed pamphlet McGuinty's Liberals claim the reason for removing coal power is because it pollutes the air, even though there are ways of mitigating that problem that are less expensive and less risky for the future. If air pollution is a primary effect of coal-fired-thermal-power-generation, then the closure of these plants should reduce air pollution. Does it? Have a look at my answer in this video: 

Confronting the inevitable in Wisconsin

Here you see part of the 85,000 demonstrators that showed up in Madison Wisconsin (March 12/11) to protest first term Gov. Scott Walker's legislation to remove the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin State employees.
I have avoided this issue because I feel very sympathetic to to the workers, especially the teachers. I don't condone there behaviour of late, which was appalling, but I understand their protest.
Speaking for myself, I became a teacher because I loved the subject matter (science) and I thought I could share that love and enthusiasm with others. The idea of teaching sounded good to me as an undergrad, because some of my previous teachers seemed to enjoy what they were doing. Who would not want a job that they enjoyed? That was my primary motivation. In order to earn the best salary and benefits I was attracted to the public school system simply out of rational self-interest. This meant I had to join a union (we called it a Federation - OSSTF) and I will admit I felt uncomfortable about the whole thing except the teaching. Most of the time I was able to dismiss the fact that I had a government job, and I was able put aside my philosophical and political beliefs. The worst times were when contract bargaining occurred, or the union supported some group/party that I did not support. There was strike action and work-to-rule action that I did not support, and that I actively undermined. I always knew that my union was in cahoots with the municipal and Provincial(State) governments, and that we teachers enjoyed job security, salary and benefits that did not exist in the private sector. It is for that reason that I think Gov. Walker is doing the right thing. Although he may not be doing the right thing for the right reason, this could be a political tactic.
Wisconsin like most of the states in America and Provinces in Canada, is teetering on default. They differ only in degree of urgency. Over the years legislators in all those jurisdictions, have conspired (and recruited to get re-elected) with public sector employee unions to create contracts and entitlements that cannot possibly be fulfilled, and are far in excess of what the free market private sector would provide. Everyone knows that, Wisconsin is the tip of the very large iceberg that will collide with the good-ship Liberal-Democracy, soon enough. Other states are bound to follow, New Jersey and Gov. Chris Christie comes to mind, the poop is hitting the propellor!
Below Stefan Molyneux has some interesting observations on Wisconsin.    


  

Ban Conservatives!

Take a moment and Google "conservatives ban." When I did there were 2,570,000 results. Many of the first few pages dealt with conservatives banning burkas, booze, abortion, gay marriage, smoking, Harry Potter!, various books and words, trans fats, song lyrics, topless sunbathing etc., I think you get the picture. Conservatives like banning things they don't like or supporting the banning of things they don't like, and the list is long.
Now try that again but this time Google "libertarians ban." There are results, but they are phrased differently, more like: should libertarians be banned? Also very common is "libertarians against the banning of....." a whole range of things, a list almost as big as the conservative ban list. It's an interesting distinction, unfortunately libertarians are often lumped together with conservatives and thought of as being similar when in fact the difference is huge.
A posting by George Bragues on the new Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada website called Conservatism vs. Libertarianism points to one thing the two share: ".......conservatism and libertarianism share a deep suspicion of collectivism. Conservatism does so because it prefers changes that are continuous with, and organically flow, from the status quo, whereas collectivism typically entails a top-down engineered break with custom and tradition. Libertarianism, by contrast, has no special attachment to the prevailing order. It opposes collectivism simply because it violates the principle of individual liberty." That's why the two sides are lumped together, but conservatives are not averse to using collective action on many things.
The chief difference is "......the libertarian is willing to tolerate behaviour that he or she does not approve, whereas the conservative finds it difficult to do the same. If the conservative cannot approve it, he or she is inclined to want the state to ban, or if that’s too onerous, restrain it." So the fact is I'm willing to tolerate conservatives - not ban them, but that does not mean I like them.