The problem with democracy

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame.

Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988)

On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.

Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.

And

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

All those pithy quotes come from this very helpful site - it is interesting browsing.  There is truth in all of the quotes and my favourite is the first one from

 Churchill, 

often misquoted.  I have always had trouble with the idea of democracy, even as a young boy I realized that the two words "wisdom" and "majority" are not always correlated.

For libertarians democracy is problematic much like Churchill's quote. In the present day, those countries that are democracies tend to have the most freedoms available to its citizens. When problems occur freedoms are often "suspended" even in democracies and frequently under the guise of protecting the majority. Those of us in the Toronto area recall how the recent G20 debacle interfered with daily life, freedom and commerce in the downtown core.  Clearly democracy and liberty are correlated but sometimes not guaranteed in practice. In fact, just the presence of the G20 meetings and the security disruption caused, was to me neither democratic or in any way advancing freedom no matter what local politicians said.

Democracy is also intrusive. If allowed, governments that are democracies, will grow by claiming responsibilities that rightfully belong to individuals or groups. When this happens, governments that claim they know best will confiscate resources (taxes) and spend them often inefficiently. When taxation becomes too intrusive governments will amass debt, with the promise of repayment underpinned by the 

future 

productivity of the population. Expanding the debt while increasing government responsibility is characteristic of almost all of today's democracies and it is unsustainable.

This week Neil Reynolds writes in the Globe and Mail about the disintegration of the welfare state in Europe, democracies that are living beyond their means and it's a warning to us.     

God and the Charter

So last week I suggested that the Queen (British Crown) be phased out of Canadian law. As unlikely as that may seem, given the constitutional changes required, here is another windmill I'm going to tilt at.
Yesterday the National Post highlighted a discussion that occurred because of an unusual interpretation of the Charter by a Superior Court judge in Quebec.  The judge defended a private (sort of - they are funded 60% by Quebec) Jesuit high school of its right to teach Roman Catholic ethics and religion rather than the mandated Quebec provincial curriculum. The judge used the Preamble to the Charter ("Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law") to make his case.
This presented an opportunity for CFI to get some publicity and its executive director Justin Trottier to point out that the Preamble is inappropriate for about 25% of Canadians who are agnostics or atheists. Bloody right! Furthermore the Preamble and section 2 of the Charter are a bit contradictory. Section 2 states that everyone has fundamental freedoms including "freedom of conscience and religion" which of course does not preclude atheists but I hope you see what I mean.
Again this is not a big deal and nothing will happen as a result, but the last phrase in the Preamble is what makes Canada what it is. The rules are important and need to be tested and sometimes tweaked, and this document (as imperfect as it might be), and others need to be part of the fabric of daily life. 

Suicide, politics and economics

A study that appeared in the British Medical Journal this week suggests that the $6-million state-of-the-art suicide barrier built over the Bloor Street Viaduct in Toronto works wonderfully. No one has jumped from that bridge in the 4 years since the barrier was constructed, however those who wanted to jump went to other bridges. That's right, the number of suicides by jumping has not changed in the city (56.4 per year pre-barrier vs. 56.6 per year post-barrier). The entire very readable report is posted here.  On average 9.3 people per year jumped from the Bloor Viaduct, but in the macabre economics of suicide that number did not change. Interestingly the overall number of suicides in the city has decreased significantly over the same time span.
Hindsight is 20/20 sure, but politics in Canada on a city scale or a national scale is fairly predictable. The construction of the bridge barrier is a perfect example of how other people's money is misallocated daily by elected officials at all levels of government. To me this illustrates a phrase commonly used among Austrian economists "what is seen versus what is unseen". If you go to the Ludwig von Mises Institute's website (a wonderful place to explore) and type that phrase into the search box you will see it produces almost 150 results. It is a common theme in Austrian economics that refers to misappropriated resources. Yes, the $6-million solved the problem for the Bloor Viaduct (seen), but did not solve the overall problem of jumping from bridges and has left the city with fewer resources to solve other real problems (unseen).
As this story circulates through the media and gets bounced off a few "experts", you can be sure that no politician involved will admit this was in any way an error, but rather that more money needs to be spent going after the root problems of suicide prevention. Count on it.

The Royal Visit is a royal pain.

Imagine your young child asking about the visit of Elizabeth II to your hometown. What would you tell her?  Would you say this is an important person and then try and list off all the Queen's accomplishments? That list might present a problem, because the Queen's most outstanding accomplishment was being born into the right family at the right moment in time. Your child might ask why is the Queen important? Your answer might sound like this: Elizabeth II is important because she is the Queen; a lot like saying she is important because she is famous, like Paris Hilton only with more followers. Your child may or may not see through the circularity of this argument, but think about what she learns here, the Queen is important because people say she is important and people grant her that importance. You probably won't tell your child that she herself could never become the Canadian Head of State, because that position is reserved for the Queen or her progeny, not deserved, not earned, just because.

The Queen was in Toronto these past few days, probably not enjoying the heat and humidity much like the rest of us, she is human after all. She is also an anachronism and an expensive frill.
Sure I know why we have a Queen but as she has pointed out herself during this trip, Canada has grown up in her lifetime and I think its time to cut the umbilical with the Brits. The fact is Canada works, by-and-large so why mess with that? Many would say "it ain't broke" so leave it alone. Not only that imagine what the cost in stationary changes would be alone?  So no, I'm not advocating a referendum just yet, or looking for a more republican form of government yet; and then of course there are the constitutional issues. I'm getting a headache just thinking about what needs to be done.
So lets be economical here, cut the ties along the way as the Queen herself fades. That has been happening very, very slowly but it needs to be more deliberate.

The War on Drugs goes on "Take 2"

My previous post referred to the passage of Bill C-15 in the House of Commons. Apparently Bill C-15 has been reintroduced as Bill S-10 in The Senate. Here is the backgrounder from the Dept. of Justice regarding Bill S-10. The purpose of this legislation is to curtail the production and trafficking of all "illegal" drugs and particularly if it involves "organized crime". Below, I will present some of the arguments for and against these Bills and the prohibitions against drugs.
First let me be clear, I don't give a rat's ass about drugs or drug use. As far as I'm concerned people have the right to do whatever they like with their own body as long as they harm no one else. I personally do not advocate, use, promote or even like the fact that people use drugs. I don't see drug or alcohol use as virtuous, noble, fun or desirable and I would just as soon not have anything to do with the issue.    Furthermore, if users become dependent on the use of drugs or alcohol - so what?  It is still not my issue, I expect users to be responsible in their use and not affect those individuals who wish not to be affected. I have no right to tell people how they must live and neither does the state. There is no crime if there is no victim. Of course crossing that fine line between drug/alcohol self-abuse and the rights of others is a very different story, but not for now.
So why do I bother writing about this? All of us who live in this country and pay taxes are involved, all of us who pay for the police, the prisons and jails, the legal system; we are all involved whether we like it or not. The policies and laws implemented by the state determine to a large degree the safety of our streets. Look at what drug laws have done in Mexico and the United States, we don't need to copy those mistakes.
My problem is that I'm not onside with the anti-prohibition people in Canada or the US (from the evidence I see). Their opposition to prohibitions seem to be more pragmatic than principled. In Canada the people against Bill C-15 and S-10 point to empirical evidence - the science, that suggests that more Draconian policies and laws makes criminals of many and misspends scarce resources. Obviously I can't disagree with that, I just don't think the science is the reason to reduce or eliminate the prohibitions. Having said that, we can be allied in moving the policies in the right direction, so here are two videos that present arguments care of an anti-prohibition group:


Part 2:
   

The War on Drugs goes on

I first wrote about the War on Drugs in March of 2009. My view is that Alcohol Prohibition created criminals of American citizens in the 1920's and 30's and today drug prohibitions are doing the same to both Canadians and Americans as well as citizens of other countries around the world. The illegal drug trade and the laws against it has created violence that endangers the lives of innocent citizens rather than protecting them.
Contrary to good evidence the Harper Conservatives have introduced and passed (195 to 54) Bill C-15 that provides for Mandatory Minimum sentencing for so-called drug crimes even though more policing has been shown to increase violence. The violence threatens to spread into Canada and has grown worse especially in the border area around the US and Mexico. Bill C-15 will impose a minimum 6 month sentence for possession of between 5 and 201 cannabis plants. Though C-15 has passed in the House it has yet to become law awaiting passage in the Senate and signing by the Governor General.
The anti-prohibition group called LEAP has organized some opposition to Bill C-15 with this petition and the following video:
  

To my American friends and relatives:

Happy Fourth!

Bigger government equals poor economic performance - The Rahn Curve

From The CATO Institute here is a video that correlates the size of government to economic performance. Canadians should be reminded that the size of government in the mid-1990's was over 50% and that the Chretien/Martin austerity cuts of the mid-late '90's brought that down to a smaller (but still unacceptable) 42-44% in recent years. Relatively speaking that has made Canada look like a model for economic achievement compared to other Western democracies during the Great Recession.
Dan Mitchell of CATO explains the Rahn Curve:

Ideology vs. Ideology - How I celebrate my freedom.

Happy Canada Day!
By now most people have heard about the new "conservative" SUN TV NEWS channel slated to begin broadcasting on cable in the new year. It is owned by Quebecor Media Inc. and it will broadcast from downtown Toronto under the leadership of Kory Teneycke once of the PMO in Ottawa. Media pundits have already dubbed it "Fox News North", and I'm certain Quebecor would be thrilled if it was as successful as its supposed American version. Of course the website of the new station says nothing about "conservative" just "straight talk opinion journalism at night". I guess thats code for conservative. I'm not even sure what conservative means, - would commentators advocate the status quo? Does that mean that other broadcasters are liberal, socialist or don't advocate the status quo? While I welcome the new station I have real doubts that it will be any different then the others.
If Sun News reflects conservative values, does that mean it supports Harper's gang in Ottawa? If that is true how would it give a new ideological spin to news that differs from CBC, CTV or Global? Does that mean Sun News would advocate fiscal conservatism? That would be good but in my view Harper's Conservatives are less fiscally conservative than Jean Chretien's Liberals. Or is it going to be socially conservative, is it going to rail on gay marriage, abortion, drugs and gambling? That will not get me to watch. So you can see my problem, their ideological spin would likely be pretty much the same as the ideological spin I get every day in the supposed neutral news broadcasts on the other networks.
There is a prevailing ideological bias in the Canadian media and it colours all the broadcasters almost all the time. A good way to describe the pervasive ideology is to contrast it to mine, not that mine is the "right" (no pun intended) ideology but it is the only one I've got and it is my blog so here goes. I'll write a topic or issue in no particular order, first give my view of the prevailing media propaganda, then follow that with my own propaganda or bias.

The G8/G20 talks in Muskoka and Toronto:
Media propaganda: Important to get the leaders together to solve the world's problems with concerted action and unity of purpose.
My bias: A huge waste of money, an anti-democratic exercise of "back room boys" playing at sorting out the world's problems. These pseudo-governmental bodies (Gx) have no mandate from individuals in the representative countries, and have the ultimate effect of wasting resources and reducing freedoms around the world.

The G20 Protest Mess in Toronto:
Actually I can't argue with the media bias here. Most of them saw it for what it was, and it wasn't pretty. The bottom line is that our police act like police everywhere and it is most certainly not to protect the rights of citizens. It seems that civil rights are most often jeopardized during stressful events, just when they need to be protected the most.

The Queen arrives in Canada:
Media propaganda:  Wonderful to have her back "home", isn't that a nice hat?
My bias: Ugh! A huge waste of money, talk about anti-democratic; it's 2010 and time to shed the concept of "royalty" except in its economic meaning. The lesson taught to our children is that a privileged birth entitles one to be treated with special rights. This is not the lesson that should be taught in a society based on liberty and individual rights, not a Canadian value.

The Afghan War:
Media propaganda: For Canada a NATO obligation, necessary to prevent the resurgence of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, plus an attempt to create a democratic situation in Afghanistan (so they can be just like us). Many in media would advocate staying beyond 2011 and "finishing" the job. 
My bias: I was not against the initial "Get Osama" reaction in 2001, but since then too many lives have been lost for too little gain. At least 150 Canadians have died "defending Afghanis" - a waste of lives and money. We have done nothing lasting in Afghanistan but piss-off the natives, prop-up a corrupt government and there is no way to fix the problem or any reason to, so we should leave NOW.

The World Economic Crisis:
Media propaganda: The world was on the edge of disaster in late 2008 and quick government action saved us. The stimulus money/bailouts saved us and the economy is recovering slowly but surely and the future in bright. Canada is in pretty good shape in all this mess because we have relatively low deficit/debt problems.
My bias: How could Canada be in "good shape" if all its "customers" (we are a trading nation) are in dire straits with huge deficits and bigger debts? Who are we going to sell to? Are they going to purchase on credit and how can we trust them to repay? Several European countries are on the verge of defaulting, their bonds are junk, they must cut their costs likely resulting in mass (government worker) layoffs and unemployment or at best reduced salaries for many. All this austerity will sharply reduce consumption/trade and a recessionary or deflationary situation is likely. The same is true in the States (our biggest customers), if individual States default (or need bailouts) their situation mirrors the European countries. The bottom line is that the medicine must be taken or federal banks will print money to "fix" the problem resulting in future inflation which is a silent stealth tax on us all.

Climate Change/Global Warming:
Media propaganda: An urgent global problem that must be addressed before it is too late with concerted world action effectively creating a new world psuedo-governing body that tracks and trades carbon production with the intent of saving the planet for the future.
My bias: The planet has been warming since the most recent ice age (10-12,000 years ago), and if we are in any way aggravating the rate of warming, we certainly cannot and should not fix the problem without huge costs in money and freedoms. Let the future deal with any problems that may arise if and when they arise.

An article I read by Mark Steyn in MACLEAN'S a couple of weeks ago prompted me to write this piece. Steyn's article (worth the read) talked about  Don Newman's (CBC) view of FOX NEWS, and how biased it was. Of course bias works two ways as I hope I've pointed out.
One other little note. You may know Penn Jillette, illusionist and libertarian host of one of my favourite TV shows: Penn & Teller's BULLSHIT (seen in Canada on TMN). Well, there is an article in a mid-June issue of Vanity Fair where Jillette is interviewed by an obviously biased reporter, it too is worth a look.
Enjoy your freedom, Happy Canada Day!

G20 Fallout - J.M.Keynes Lives

Want proof that the G20 meeting was money well wasted?
Harper got the G20 members to sign off on cutting their deficits 50% by 2013. So slow their rate of borrowing to half in three years. Neil Reynolds thinks they are operating under a delusion here.

Return of the Maunder Minimum?

Last January 11 I posted an article called "Can scientists be AGW Skeptics" where I showed a satellite photo of the UK covered in snow top to bottom. It was a very cold winter over there and in much of Europe.
This week Neil Reynolds writes an interesting little piece about the "little ice age" of the late 17th Century which held the British Isles and  a good chunk of the continent in its icy grip. This was a real event for which historical writings exist, along with historical corroborating weather data from the UK which tracks back 350 years.
The little ice age corresponded with a solar anomaly called the Maunder Minimum which was an extended period of low sunspot activity. Sunspots (cooler areas on the sun) vary in cycles of about 11 years (give or take) and our sun is currently at a low in sunspot activity. All this of course suggests to me that the sun varies in its energy output over time which should have profound effects on Earth's climate and maybe a more satisfactory theory explaining climate change. There is good evidence that the sun is a variable star and that its energy production seems to follow cycles both long and short. If that theory explains climate change (even partially), than it is unlikely to gain support from the scientists of the IPCC because there will be no funding for their terrestrial research into anthropogenic causes of climate change; so solar variability is ignored or played down. Who can blame them?
Reynolds' article suggests that Britain and Europe may experience another prolonged cold spell and of course the University of Reading physicist who makes this prediction says it has no relation to the ongoing global warming which is caused by humans. Of course it doesn't. Or maybe global warming is caused by one of the longish solar cycles, who knows?   
  

Running out of other people's money

Summer seems to make it difficult to get concerned about anything. All those important causes whether personal or work related will wait for September. That's always been my attitude anyway and it seems to be true of the stock market and everything else as well. The media often sets the tone for what should be at the top of our collective agendas. Right now the World Cup is the big story here, but close behind is the impending G8/G20 traffic disruptions and security costs in the Greater Toronto area. Close behind that is the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, but all of it does not seem that important because its summer.
Everyone has forgotten the economic crisis of 2008/09 that created market turmoil, job losses, portfolio losses and on and on. Most people think the problem has been solved, the bailouts worked, good times are just around the corner, the governments of the world have things under control. The coming G8/20 meetings will be the icing on the cake and will demonstrate to the world that everything will be hunky-dory. Some people think that this apparent pause the economic crisis is just the calm before the real storm.
Johan Norberg is a Senior Fellow at CATO and he sounds like that TV ad Canadians are accustomed to viewing from the ING guy "Fredrick" who cautions people to "save your money". Norberg has some sobering comments in this CATO video from last month:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WEwy-uGKoI&NR=1

 

Obama is ready to kick BP in the ass

ReasonTV thinks Obama should be kicking himself first. The BP oil disaster is another clear example of how corporations can be vilified for their blunders. This is a shared blunder, it's not just BP.  The US Federal government is up to it's elbows in sticky brown goo because it is their fault almost as much as it is BP's. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quk0tb2qUwY

Cutting Government spending...where to start.

Here is a nice piece of research done by Dan Mitchell at CATO: "There Are too many Bureaucrats and They are Paid too Much". Of course this refers to the American situation but we in Canada should not feel smug. I don't need to add anything except that the same goes for Canada's Federal, Provincial, Regional, and Municipal bureaucracies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xzd3puYmiM

Who is Ayn Rand? by Charles Murray

A daily email from CATO@LIBERTY (you should subscribe) prompted this posting. It comments on the fact that two biographies have recently appeared describing the life and times of Ayn Rand. Apparently neither of them were particularly complementary (I have not read either) to Rand and I was aware of that.
Rand is reviled in most academic and philosophical circles possibly because her philosophy of Objectivism seems so simple (it's not really) and compelling. Her books have sold very well in the past 50 years and are selling even better these days possibly due to the economic crisis around the world (I'll wager they sell better than any other philosopher).
Some would say the books, especially Atlas Shrugged, are even prophetic. I don't think there is any prophesy involved, I think what is happening (and will continue to happen) around the world is a logical consequence of many bad decisions by many people in power over many years. If economics is a science (which I think it is) then certain actions will lead to undesirable  and unintended consequences, much the same as crashing a car into a concrete wall will cause damage and worse.
Anyway, Charles Murray wrote an interesting piece "Who is Ayn Rand", where he talks about Rand and the new bios and I'm thinking its time to reread some of her stuff. Despite her negative portrayal by modern-day academics, her popularity runs circles around any other of her kind, and she remains a positive and important influence on me and millions of others.