How to win libertarian converts and influence voters

There is an old saying, something to do with catching flies with either honey or vinegar; honey works better. Of course people aren't flies, but like flies they are attracted if they are treated "sweetly." By that I mean, if they are treated like individuals, listened to, respected, and made to feel that they matter; they will be more apt to listen to you. People don't like being lectured to, admonished and frightened. I am as guilty as any one of doing just those things with respect to my libertarian beliefs. So, when I came across this blog post by accident, I knew I had to repost it.

Josiah Schmidt was the writer, an American, wise beyond his years and generous enough to allow me to repost it. It has been translated into a couple of European languages. Its long, and it's not a panacea, but if it gets you thinking on how to be a better communicator, it was time well spent.

We are at a crossroads in history. People are increasingly unhappy with the State and are losing faith in its ability to solve major problems. Yet, at the same time, those Americans who say they want limited government are also the ones who want Social Security and Medicare to be untouchable. Support for government spending on defense, health care, anti-poverty measures, and pork for the home district is just as high as it was ten years ago, and in some cases even higher.[1]

Libertarians have a real opening here, but we need to acknowledge that our current strategies are just not cutting it. The liberty movement has made great strides in the past decade, thanks largely to Ron Paul and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. However, when we look at the unrestrained growth of government over the past century, what do we as libertarians have to show for ourselves? We have more Austrian economists around today than ever before, but can we name one government program that we have been able to get curtailed or abolished? One significant liberty that we have fought for and won?

We have a marketing problem.

The first step to improving our strategy is by admitting that our present tactics really aren't working.

We've become very good at engaging in high-minded academic debates and writing wordy articles and treatises, but we have utterly failed in making the ideas of liberty popular and accessible to the average person.

I'll be offering some suggestions in this article, and much of what I have to say takes inspiration from a classic book entitled How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie. I've come to the conclusion that this book may be the single most important piece of literature for the liberty movement.

I believe this is one of the fundamental paradigm shifts the liberty movement requires: we need to view everyone--and I mean everyone, including the Glenn Becks and Keith Olbermanns of the world--as a potential friend. Rather than being an angry, cynical, disgruntled movement, we need to be a movement that reaches out to people and makes people want to be a libertarian.

1. Let's understand people, not criticize

We libertarians have a nasty habit of talking down to people and scolding them. But all this does is put people on the defensive and cause them to strive even harder to justify themselves. At the end of the day, we only incur resentment because of it.

Instead of calling people taking government assistance "welfare queens," or calling people working for the government "bureaucratic leeches," we need to understand that these individuals are people, just like us. They genuinely feel like they're doing the best they can. People on unemployment or food stamps are fathers and mothers trying to provide for their children on a limited income--an income that they might scrounge up after working long hours at multiple jobs.

We can recognize the fact that the welfare state is a totally counterproductive mechanism for helping those who are struggling to provide for their families, but we can recognize this fact without treating these people like scum.

When we encounter people with whom we disagree, instead of calling them "shills" or "sheeple", let's understand why they think the way they do. The vast majority of people who support the War in Iraq or think Social Security was a good idea don't do it because they just love destroying other people's lives. They do it because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing and looking out for the best interests of others. Instead of being angry with them, let's make a sincere effort to truly understand where they're coming from before we offer them our take on the issues.

We libertarians pride ourselves on being a smart bunch, but it takes a lot more intelligence to understand and sympathize with people than it does to look down our noses at them and scold them. We need to brand ourselves as the political clan that hears people and understands them, not as the one that sits in ivory towers and merely preaches to them.

2. We need a message that makes people feel good about themselves

Instead of making people feel stupid or lazy or evil, let's appeal to their sense of self-respect. Instead of trying to goad people into doing what we want them to do by pointing out their every flaw, let's find where people are going in the right direction and heap praise upon them where praise is due.

All too often, I'll come across someone who calls themselves a "conservative," and when I ask them to explain their political philosophy, it will go something like this: "I'm tired of all the pork and welfare spending, and we need to have a strong, well-funded military, and we need to make sure the politicians don't cut our Social Security or Medicare, and we need to stop trading with cheap goods producers like China." Of course, the last three things they support (an expensive military-industrial complex, loads of entitlements, and trade protectionism) are all forms of "welfare," which they claim to oppose.

But instead of snarkily pointing this out, we should strengthen our common ground with them and pat them on the back for understanding that so much of the money that Congress spends on various projects is all about winning re-election and not about really benefiting taxpayers, and for understanding that programs like unemployment insurance only serve to incentivize poverty and that what people really need is a hand up, not a hand out. These are important principles that not everyone understands, and rather than angrily inquiring why this person is too "retarded" to apply these same principles to other areas, we should lavishly praise the fact that they adhere to these principles in the areas where they do, and encourage them to continue to apply these principles consistently in all areas.

3. Make people WANT to be libertarians

In How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie makes the point that although strawberries and cream may be his favorite food, he doesn't put strawberries on the hook when he goes fishing. He attracts fish by putting worms on the hook, because that's what fish like. We as libertarians must take this lesson to heart. Instead of talking about the issues that we think are most important, we must practice speaking in terms of what the listener wants.

Often, we libertarians will rant to people about the Federal Reserve and inflation and bond bubbles and what-have-you. But the average person doesn't normally care about things like that. And can we blame them? Most people probably don't even understand what we're talking about. But what everyone understands is the rising prices at the gas pump, or the rising price of food at the grocery store, or the fact that something you could get for a quarter as a kid may now cost five or ten bucks. These are things that people can relate to, in terms that real people can understand.

One person who is an absolute master at talking to people in their own terms is Judge Andrew Napolitano. One of the most famous examples is when the Judge brought Sarah Palin on the June 12th, 2010 episode of his FOX Business show, Freedom Watch. He spent the whole show building up common ground with Gov. Palin on issues like personal responsibility and fiscal discipline and lean government.

He then recounted to Gov. Palin the experience she had during the 2008 campaign, when a hacker infiltrated her email account and exposed all sorts of personal messages, without her knowledge or permission. He sympathized with her and agreed how terrible it feels to have one's privacy compromised, and then asked her if she thought the Patriot Act should allow the federal government to do the same thing. "No, of course not," she answered. Bam. By simply making the issue applicable to her personally, Judge Napolitano had gotten Sarah Palin to criticize a key component of the Patriot Act--a sacred cow for Republican politicians. (He also did the same thing with the marijuana prohibition, getting her to call for de-facto decriminalization!) [2]

Judge Napolitano could have criticized Gov. Palin and argued with her all day about the Patriot Act, and she probably would have never budged from the standard neo-conservative line. In fact, she probably would have gone even farther into the neo-conservative corner in an attempt to defend herself, and likely would have left the show full of resentment for Judge Napolitano and his annoying questions. Yet, instead, he called attention to her inconsistent views indirectly, and got her to take stances far more in the direction of libertarianism than many other major Republican figures would be willing to go.

By spending the whole first half of the interview praising her commitment to individual liberty and fiscal responsibility, he gave her a good name to live up to--and she preferred to try to live up to that good reputation he had built up for her, even if it meant going out on a limb and saying things a normal Republican politician might not be expected to say.

Another aspect of making people want to be libertarians is being enthusiastic. Why should people want to be libertarians when they see us constantly moping around, making snide remarks, wailing about the dismal future of the country? Regardless of the truth of our statements, no one wants to believe things that are going to make them miserable. Nobody wants to get involved with a group of cynical mopers.

If you were a non-libertarian, which of the following approaches would make you more likely to investigate Austrian economics and libertarianism:

A). "Leviathan is out of control, the country is headed down the tubes, and if you want to have any chance at surviving hyperinflation, you need to pick up some Rothbard and buy some gold. Watch this video of Peter Schiff's terrifying predictions if you want to know just how screwed we are."

OR

B). "Do you want to know how to prosper and provide for your family, even during rough times? Check out the amazing track record of this financial analyst named Peter Schiff! He thinks that East Asia is a new land of opportunity, and he's been saying for decades that storing your savings by buying gold would be a great way to hedge against rising prices. Boy, was he ever right on the money!"

Yeah, my wording of B isn't perfect, but wouldn't you be far more interested in learning Austrian economics if someone approached you with B, rather than A?

4. Become interested in other people as human beings

When I was helping drum up support for Ron Paul's HR 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve, I called my Representative's office a few times over the course of a couple months. The first time, I made a point to sound serious and stern. I was an upset constituent and my Congressman needed to listen to me! The voice of an older woman was on the other end. She sounded tired and weary. "Good!" I thought. She must be getting lots of angry calls from people like me! I told her I supported Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill and wanted to make sure my Congressman did also. She said she wasn't sure and that she'd let the Congressman know how I felt. I rolled my eyes, certain that my message would never really get to my Congressman, thanked her, and hung up.

After a few weeks and no news from my Congressman, I called back again, this time angry. The same older, tired woman picked up. I demanded to know where my Congressman stood on the issue. She sensed the anger in my voice and got snippy as well, telling me curtly that he hadn't taken a position on it.

Another few weeks later, still with no news from my Congressman as to his stance on the Audit the Fed bill, I decided to call again. But this time, a different voice picked up. Tired and weary, but a slightly younger sounding woman. I decided I would try something different. She began with the standard office greeting. I introduced myself, told her I was calling about HR 1207, but then asked "How are you?" There was an immediate change in her voice. After presumably listening to hundreds of angry calls all day, she sounded relieved to hear someone who treated her like a human being.

"Oh, you know," she said. "About what you'd expect."

I chuckled a little and teased, "Yeah, I bet you've been dealing with angry citizens like me all day."

"You have no idea," she said, and began to relate to me a couple of the more ridiculous calls she had taken earlier that day. I laughed with her and empathized with her and listened to her. I treated her like a real person. Our little tangent conversation only lasted for a minute, but by the end of it, her voice sounded lighter.

"You were calling about the Audit the Fed bill?" she asked.

I responded in the affirmative, and asked if she could pass along a message of my support to the Congressman.

"Of course!" she responded, as though I were an old friend of hers, asking for a small favor. She took down my name, address, and email, and asked me again to make sure she was writing down the bill number correctly. "I'll write him a note and personally hand deliver it to his desk."

I thanked her enthusiastically, wished her a nice evening, and hung up. I didn't really think much of the conversation. The next day, I was astonished to receive a personal email from my Congressman. And not just one of those generic form emails, thanking Constituent's-name-here for expressing their concerns and blah-blah-blah, either! It was an actual, personal email from my Congressman, stating that he had decided not only to support Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, but to become a cosponsor. I was thrilled!

I don't know how much influence I personally had on my Congressman's decision to cosponsor that legislation, but it's clear to me that it's much easier to get somebody to do something if you treat them like a real human being.

5. How to argue with people

We libertarians are typically of the opinion that all we have to do is argue with everyone and headbutt them with our impeccable logic over and over again, and surely they will eventually agree with us, because, well, we're right. Unfortunately, the vast majority of arguments end with both parties more convinced than ever that they are correct. The person with whom you are arguing will probably never be swayed by your arguments, and even if he is, his pride and his fear of losing face will prevent him from admitting it.

The best way to start out an argument is by not arguing. Instead, ask the other person what they think--and be genuinely interested in it. Try to see things from their point of view...honestly. Be respectful of their opinions and hold your tongue for just a little while, even if they say things you think are just flat-out wrong or idiotic. Let the other person do the majority of the talking and choose your words wisely. Don't say much, but when you do say something, make sure it's very well thought out and full of humility.

When it's your turn to talk, don't immediately draw attention to the idealogical conflict(s). Rather, start out by finding the common ground you share with your opponent. The most helpful tool is one that the famed libertarian interviewer Jan Helfeld is known for using: the "Socratic method."

This can begin by getting the other person to say "Yes" to something, and then leading them on a trail of "Yesses," and letting them arrive at the correct conclusion on their own. They won't always allow themselves to come to agree with you. They may very likely realize where it is going half-way through, and end the conversation prematurely. But you will certainly have more success this way than you will be simply yelling your positions at each other over and over again, and more importantly, you will have made the other person think through your argument and see how you came to arrive at your conclusion. Your position will not seem quite so crazy or outlandish to them anymore, and if you're really tactful, you might even get them to adopt your position (often with them believing that it was their own idea to begin with--but hey, who cares, right?).

For instance: You could pontificate all day about how it's not an economic benefit when a war strikes a country and all the houses are bombed and must then be rebuilt. The person you're arguing with might simply respond by repeating a line like, "World War II got us out of the Great Depression! Just look at the statistics!"

Well, wouldn't it be more effective if, perhaps, you started out by asking, "If you're on a desert island, and you spend a whole lot of time building nets and spears and a hut, you would be poorer if a strong wind came along and knocked down your hut, wouldn't you?"

The other person will more than likely respond, "Well... yes."

"And if there happened to be another person beside yourself on this island, who was good at building huts? Let's say you catch the fish to feed the two of you, and in exchange he builds the huts to house the two of you. If a strong wind came along and knocked down your huts, you guys would be poorer. You'd be poorer because your friend has to work extra to rebuild the huts and you have to work extra to catch more fish so that he has the extra energy needed to accomplish this difficult task. Correct?"

"Yes. Sure."

"Well, what if the huts were destroyed by a bomb rather than a strong wind? That would make no difference, right?"

"Yes, okay."

"And what if instead of 2 people on the island, there were a different number of people on the island? Perhaps 3 people, or 10 people, or 1 million people? That would be irrelevant to the fundamental nature of the issue, correct?"

"Yes, I suppose that's correct. I see your point now."

Now, the dialogue might not go that smoothly, but by helping the other person along in a friendly and respectful manner, aren't you more likely to get the other person to truly understand where you're coming from, rather than if you just stand there and pontificate to them? And a word of caution: if you should succeed in converting someone to your point of view, don't gloat: "Nya nya nya I told you so" or "Ugh, why couldn't you recognize something that simple in the first place?" Let the other person save face.

6. The best way to sell something is to give it away for free

This has come to be known in libertarian circles as "Tucker's Law," named after Jeffrey Tucker, the editor of Mises.org. Mr. Tucker took a page out of Leonard Read's playbook. When most other libertarian theorists were struggling to sell their books and literature, Leonard Read decided to just give his away for free. It is no surprise, therefore, that Read's literature spread like wildfire and he became one of the most well-known and respected libertarian writers of his time. Likewise, Jeff Tucker has been getting a hold of classic libertarian and Austrian School texts, putting them into the public domain, and posting them on the Internet for anyone to download for free.

To this I owe everything I know about Austrian economics. It is because of Mises.org's loads of free literature that I was able to go from knowing nothing about anything about economics, to having devoured literally hundreds of books on economics and political theory, including Ludwig von Mises's Human Actionand Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State.

One of my most inspiring memories from the Ron Paul 2008 campaign was when a group of Ron Paul supporters stood outside a local Republican gathering on a blistering cold night and offered free hot chocolate to attendees as they exited. They also offered Ron Paul for President leaflets. Warmed by the generosity of these Ron Paul supporters, Republicans who might have otherwise quickened their pace to avoid being proselytized by one of those crazy libertarian people actually stopped to chat friendly politics with these Paulites. That group of Paul supporters ended up making tons of connections and doing a world of good for the Paul campaign that night. Let's face it: people love free stuff. Especially when it's honest-to-goodness free stuff, with no strings attached.

If you want someone to read Economics In One Lesson or America's Great Depression, don't just hector them into buying it. Lend them your copy, or better yet, give them your copy. Don't worry about when they'll return it, just be happy they've agreed to read it, even if they don't get around to cracking it open right away.

Conclusion

We libertarians need to come to terms with the fact that the cards are stacked against us. The tentacles of the State reach everywhere, and the nature of the State is to constantly seek more power and glory for itself. Trying to convince people that the State is not the solution but the problem pits us in direct opposition to many of the most powerful organizations in the world. We are going to have to use better tactics than other schools of political philosophy.

We've been at work for a long time now, and to be brutally honest, we have little to show for it. It's not that we haven't been putting forth enough effort. We don't have a quantity issue; we have a quality issue. Our efforts don't just need to be increased. Our efforts need to be of an entirely different nature than they currently are.

We need, in effect, a compassionate libertarianism. Not a libertarianism that compromises our principles, but a libertarianism that makes a better effort to understand other points of view, that makes it clear that we see people as real, good-intentioned human beings, that builds bridges rather than creates enemies, that makes people enthusiastic to be a libertarian, that--instead of just arguing with people all the time--helps people understand libertarian theory on their own, and a libertarianism that is approachable and down-to-earth.

There's no easy way forward in our battle against the State, but with a major attitude readjustment and a more emotionally intelligent presentation, we can be a lot more successful at winning libertarian converts and influencing voters. We only need to be brave enough to first admit that a change in strategy is long overdue.

Sources:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/09/AR2010100903308.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoiwXJCdX_A

Enemy of the State? FOX caves in.

"Does the Government work for you or do you work for the Government?"

That is typical of sound-bytes that one would hear watching Freedom Watch. Judge Andrew Napolitano was host of Freedom Watch until it was abruptly cancelled by FOX News late yesterday. Rating were not an issue, what was? Well, one can speculate about many things. Complaints from disaffected Republicans, I can see that. How about this story from Reuters?

Is FOX News trying to cover their ass by dumping some of the more rabid adherents to the US Constitution? Napolitano is a Constitutionalist, not unlike Ron Paul. 

A new law came into effect recently, adding to the alphabetical morass that makes up much of the American government and legal system. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) gives the government and the President sweeping powers that cast such a wide net, it might include libertarians. At least thats what a writer on LewRockwell.com thinks:

"Those who refuse to pay or even those who oppose taxation, those who defy government environmental regulations, and those who believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard, are now all considered to be extremists!" 

The article goes on:

  ".....any real libertarian is opposed to forced government taxation, is opposed to government mandated environmental regulations, and all real libertarians fully understand that the creation of the Federal Reserve and the destruction of the gold standard have bankrupted this country. Or is losing 97% of the value on our money not considered bankruptcy?"

So, here we have this new law (NDAA) AND the blatant freedom monger Andrew Napolitano, railing against big government everything, cancelled unceremoniously by FOX. Coincidence? 

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

Superbowl 2012: not seen at half-time.......

If you haven't seen this parody of the Clint Eastwood Chrysler ad, have a look, its closer to the truth:

Religion for Atheists - Guidance for the Godless

Always interesting scrolling through Planet Atheism because its populated by idiosyncratic individuals that share some of my beliefs. It's a global aggregator, so I see viewpoints from everywhere, unfortunately many are just rants against religion, and that becomes tiresome - in the 'preaching to the choir' sense.

Religion certainly deserves to be ranted against, but it's not going away, because it obviously fulfils a basic human need. So I was impressed by an article in my morning paper about Alain de Botton (AdB) and his new book (see photo).
The article says that AdB is critical of the so called new atheists, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and the late Hitchens, because they have allowed their militant aggression toward religion, to cloud their imaginations.
“So opposed have many atheists been to the content of religious belief that they have omitted to appreciate its inspiring and still valid overall object: to provide us with well-structured advice on how to lead our lives,” Botton writes in Religion for Atheists.

Thats right, religions, as practiced worldwide have a purpose and its time to admit that fact. If they had no purpose, added nothing to peoples lives, they would have disappeared long ago.

In a clever turn of phrase the author of the Post article says that one thing that Botton suggests is "to save the baby of ritual from the bathwater of supernatural belief." That's part of the structure that religion offers automatically and that atheists sometimes dismiss too lightly. Marriage, birth, death, and other life events are covered by all religions, and atheists are left to fend for themselves with impromptu ceremonies that may or may not satisfy them or their families.

So, AdB suggests that atheists cherry-pick the faiths, choose what works from the buffet of religious practices available, incorporating those that are appropriate into the new atheism. Through millennia of trial and error, the major religions know how to keep their flocks faithful, and, like children we humans need authority, our knowledge needs to be re-enforced with frequent formal repetition like the major religions do, and our deepest emotions need external validation. That is the insight on which Botton bases the entire notion of religion for atheists. It's not as crazy as you might be thinking right now. He explains some of those ideas in the video you should watch below.

The problem of course is much of what is taught in the major religions, deals with affirming belief in the existence of, and praying to, the particular non-existant deity in question(no contradiction there). Not exactly helpful and well-structured advice on how atheists should lead their lives. If one searches around the major atheist groups, I don't think there is much help there either.

Take the Center for Inquiry (CFI) in both Canada and the US. They think society should be based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. Well, science is a process, not a way to live ones life, it's a way of determining truth.....eventually. Science cannot tell us the way to live our lives in a moral or rational way. Science is mute (or should be) on ethics, values, and politics. There is much more to disagree with at CFI. Humanist values tend to be Judeo-Christian values (the default position) with a Marxist collectivist twist added. Using science, reason, and evidence, one sees that collectivism is failing everywhere it has been attempted. From the former Soviet Union, to China, to all of the so-called "free market" economies in Western Europe and here in North America. To the extent that collectivist ideas have been adopted, that is the extent these economies and their peoples are in trouble, economically, morally, spiritually, and by any measure.
How about the Bright's (see the name of this blog), what do they offer? They offer a worldview free of mystical and supernatural elements, not much help there. Richard Dawkins is a Bright, I share similar views on evolution with him, not much else.

Are there other places to look? Maybe, but most atheist groups are not significantly different from the aforementioned. But there is one other, its Objectivism.

Now I don't know what Alain de Botton had in mind for well-structured advice on how atheists should lead their lives. Maybe he would suggest many forms of atheism, each with its own structure and different advice on how to live, different philosophies. But why reinvent the wheel? Objectivism, in my view satisfies all the requirements of AdB's idea. It's a coherent, consistent philosophy that gives instruction on the proper way people should live, and interact with others. It even goes further than most religions in suggesting proper economic and political views. Now I may not agree with every detail, but it is very good, and has served me well for most of my life. A bit of ritual and repetition to help me, and others like me, keep on the straight, and narrow path of objectivist virtues, would not be a bad thing if it were done properly. Ayn Rand's birthday was Feb. 2, wouldn't it be better to celebrate that fact, then whether a groundhog sees its shadow? I think so.

Of course I am sensitive to the idea that Objectivists don't like it to be called a religion. It's the opposite of a religion though. I know Ayn Rand is often referred to as a high priestess in the popular press, and that is wrong too. Objectivism uses most of the ideas espoused by the major atheist groups above MINUS the collectivism.
Now all we need is someone to organize some structure and ritual. Volunteers?    

Signs of Freedom

Entering a court building these days is not unlike boarding an airplane, similar security, but you get to keep your shoes on. It was the Ontario Court of Appeal at Osgoode Hall in Toronto, and Courtroom 10 was crowded with supporters of Jean-Serge Brisson and Howard Galganov.

We were there to listen to opposing lawyers slug it out orally in front of a tribunal of judges. At issue was the appeal of a business owner and his right to post a sign in the language of his choice, or, submit to a town bylaw that dictates language. The bylaw requires new signs to be bilingual French and English, with equal font size for both.

Mr. Brisson is the business owner with the new unilingual sign, and Mr. Galganov is a Quebecer and former talk show host, providing moral and financial support.

Lawyers for these appellants spoke first arguing that: "language is content," thus, dictating language, contravenes Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression." Furthermore, forcing business owners to have bilingual signs implies that two languages are spoken within the business, often not true.

Of course the broader question is, what are the responsibilities of the municipal (or any level) government to its citizenry? The lawyer for the Township of Russell that created this bylaw, argued that the protection of linguistic minorities is one of the major challenges of our time, and that municipalities should have the leeway to pass laws like this. Further, anyone who disagrees with such laws can rectify the situation at the next municipal election. The lawyer used the hackneyed argument that French is vulnerable in Canada, and without such legal protections Francophones will be assimilated. It's a weak argument, and not supported legally in Ontario.

But I thought the lawyer for Russell Township was the best presenter of the day. He used his voice and his mannerisms in an almost theatrical way to present his position. I hope the judges see past that, to his weak and sometimes humorous arguments. Humorous? For example, he argued that this hearing and the entire legal process is a financial burden on the municipality (no kidding), and that if this challenge to the bylaw stands, it will dissuade other municipalities from passing future bylaws for fear of challenges. Well, I glanced over at my colleagues in the courtroom and almost chuckled. Later one of them whispered to me "oh dear, how will they rule?" How indeed?

Do we really need laws for everything that politicians can conjure? The lawyer of course viewed the possibility of fewer bylaws as a negative, on the contrary, silly laws such as this one may be nullified by the threat of challenge.

Another young lawyer from the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) that had intervener status at the hearing, made a brief presentation that got to the heart of the entire day. He asked why the Township wouldn't just allow free choice for business signs? The fact is, 71% of the signs in the town are already bilingual, no law was required, its just good business sense. Some 28% of the signs are unilingual English, and 1% are unilingual French, is that really a problem?

The lawyer for the Russell Township stressed that "deference" is owed to municipalities, and that freedom of expression is not jeopardized because you can say whatever you want on the signs, BUT, you must say it in two languages. No coercion there, right?

The decision of the court will be weeks or months off. Whatever happens it is likely this case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

A self defence test - call the police? Think again.

You are roused in the early morning by men shouting death threats outside. They hurl firebombs onto your home injuring a pet dog and setting part of your property ablaze.
You happen to be a trained firearms instructor, so you retrieve a properly registered .38-calibre handgun from storage, load it, and fire three warning shots causing the men to flee without injury to anyone.

You hurry to douse the flames, see to your dog, then get another loaded handgun to put by your bedside, in case the men return. You call the police.
Police arrive, survey the scene, take your testimony, then they charge and arrest you.

What did you do wrong?

You.....
a) pointed and fired a gun as a warning.
b) defended your life and property.
c) were in possession of an improperly stored and loaded weapon.
d) did all of the above.
e) called the police.

The answer depends on who you are. If you are the police in this situation, the answer is "d". From my point of view the answer is "e". Unfortunately this story is true. It happened in Port Colborne Ontario in August of 2010, and the trial of the man that was attacked began on January 30, 2012. Ian Thomson, the accused "defender," may be wishing he didn't call the police.

One would think that the right of self defence is fundamental in a free society, I think it is, so does this column in the National Post. This is not the first time that the victim of a crime has been charged by police. This story in Toronto's China Town less than two years ago, did not involve guns but the police felt somehow that the victim needed to be charged. It boggles the mind, as does the story in Port Colborne.

Just a few days ago a fellow blogger wrote this regarding respect for the law. It cut right to the point. When was the last time you had an encounter with "the law," where you felt justice was done? When was the last time that you thought the police were serving and protecting you? When?

I can't recall being helped by the law in the form of the police.....in years, maybe never. Encounters with police have always been adversarial, a ticket, a warning. I just know that they watch that I and others obey the rules, like no speeding on empty roads where they hide themselves to entrap the unwary. I always get nervous when a police car pulls up behind me while I'm driving. Shouldn't I feel safer, protected somehow, because I'm paying part of their salary (whether I want to or not)? I think so. It seems the police are best at harassing and entrapping. I won't even talk about the G20 debacle in Toronto, or the tasering incident in Vancouver.

In my neighbourhood the local bank has been robbed several times this year. It's a quiet suburban neighbourhood, thats why the crooks like it - easy to hide and get away. Rarely do I see police in the neighbourhood, except of course on the main road, hiding, with a radar trap. That local bank branch has hired a security company to allay the fears of its customers, the guard wanders around all day. Where are the police?

Police are a microcosm of government, often unrestrained in power and too often irresponsible in its use. Just like government, the people prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, because they mean well.

As for Mr. Thomson's trial, after two days it has been adjourned until early May. It seems the lawyers need to figure out what is entailed in the proper storage of ammunition. Lawyers!

Is it "Inscription des entreprises" OR "Business Sign?"

Does a legally operating business within a community, have the right to choose what language is preferred on exterior signage? Not in Canada!

Disputes over language issues have a long history in Canada, where the Federal Government is Officially Bilingual French and English, much to the consternation of many citizens. Only one province, New Brunswick, is also officially bilingual. The rest of the provinces and territories have a hodge-podge of rules where English is the de-facto language of government operations (but not officially), and other languages have some status. Only Quebec is officially unilingual French, but that is another story.

Though most of Canada operates in English, there are pockets of French throughout the country (outside of Quebec). Local governments and businesses seem to cater to the language(s) commonly spoken by residents without any need for regulation.

Where I live, there is a growing South Asian community. The local municipalities accommodate the new immigrants in their own language whether it is Urdu, Mandarin, Cantonese or Hindi. Business signs in my town and those neighbouring, are printed in a variety of languages to communicate with customers. This is as it should be, business owners should be free to communicate with their clientele in any way they wish, as long as no one's rights are violated.

But what if a town decides to impose a rule (a bylaw) on its citizens that dictates which language must be used on exterior signage? Such is the case in the Ottawa region. Ottawa, being the Capital, is available to citizens in both French and English since 2004. That might seem reasonable because it is a Federal town but within Ontario. The Ontario government offers French where warranted to its citizens, mostly in government building and services. What about private business in surrounding towns?

In 2008, the town council of Russell, on the South eastern border of Ottawa decided to make it mandatory for signs to be bilingual French and English. Of course this violates the freedoms of business owners and potentially could affect their business. Then there is the question of other languages as occurs in my own town? That issue, arguing the constitutionality of the bylaw, was brought to the Ontario Superior Court. The court found that the bylaw does not violate freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter, the bylaw stands.

In 2011the Ontario Court of Appeal granted permission for the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) to act as a friend of the court and appeal the previous decision of the Superior Court.  The CCF "will argue that the impugned bylaw infringes freedom of expression because it compels and coerces individuals to express themselves in a language not freely chosen, and in only French and English."


I have an interest in this story because one of the appellants is a colleague from the Ontario Libertarian Party, Jean-Serge Brisson.

Jean-Serge has a long history of defending liberty in Canada and is one of the few Canadian Libertarians ever to have held public office. The appeal is this week in Toronto at The Court of Appeal for Ontario located in historic Osgoode Hall, Toronto.

The hearing is open to the public: 130 QUEEN ST W, Toronto, Ontario - Courtroom 10 at 10:30 am Thursday Feb. 2, 2012.

Case Number C52704 Galganov, Howard v. The Corporation of Twp. of Russel et al

Signs of Hope & Change 2

Change:
There is trouble ahead on the labour front. Why else would two of Canada's largest Unions consider merging, for efficiencies or added clout? I'm thinking clout. The Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW) and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union,  (CEP) have a total of more than 320,000 members, and have been in discussions for weeks. They are circling the wagons, it won't be long before other unions do the same thing. We may be headed back to the era of general strikes in Canada, 91 years after the Winnipeg General Strike.
In Ontario, after eight years of spending like a drunken sailor, Premier Dalton McGuinty, is threatening to implement austerity measures because he has doubled spending and the provincial debt. The Province received a credit rating warning from Moody's, and he noted this week that half of all government spending (about $55 billion a year) goes to wages. His target will be the public sector unions. You can almost see the large chess pieces moving into place for the battle ahead, it will be epic.

In the US, Obama gave the State of the Union speech or should I say, the kick-off to his re-election campaign. This President is bankrupt, of both ideas and money. No more will Hope & Change be the mantra, we have moved into the era of envy and resentment. Equality and fairness will be Obama's new slogan. "A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy." Forget the American dream, tax the rich, the Buffett Rule, that will solve America's problems, and give numerous tax credits to incentivize everyone. Looks like the IRS, will be the arbiter of wealth creation in America. And I loved this line: "I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more." Right. That's why there are so many laws, and Obama will not hesitate to add to the pile.
All the while Mitt and Newt are duking it out for the GOP nomination, and are nothing to look forward to. I hope Ron Paul sticks it out to the end, and maybe brokers a deal for his support.

Hope:
Just for fun, and because it would be cool, two 17 year-old boys from a high school where I was once a teacher, sent Lego man into near space and recorded the entire adventure. They even managed to retrieve Lego man, the recording equipment, 1500 photos and two videos from the landing spot 122 km away, without much of a search. They did this with no government help, no incentives but the pure joy of doing and discovering. Check out the video:

The not so dog eat dog world of competition

Toward a sensible policy on prohibited drugs

"Do we stop fighting the war on death?" that was a quote from one of the three panelists during a seminar I attended this week on Drug Policy sponsored by the Institute for Liberal Studies. The speaker was comparing the struggle in the medical community to stave off disease and death, with the struggle by governments around the world called "the war on drugs." Don't worry if you don't see the analogy, I don't either. The quote was made during the Q & A near the end of the seminar after most in the room accepted that the war on drugs has failed. But the quote gets to the heart of who the first speaker was, a caring and concerned women, not an expert, but someone that has researched and written on the issue of prohibited drugs, and is convinced that legalization or loosening the rules, will increase drug use, addiction and crime. In the Canadian context, this woman espouses typical authoritarian Conservative values, and in fact she was a Conservative partisan for many years.

The second speaker was an expert, who has written on drug policy and is associated with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto. While she was no libertarian on drug policy, her views are probably more in line with many Canadians. She admitted that the war on drugs has failed but was convinced "controls" needed to be in place, because of the risks to users. She was willing to consider legal regulation of certain drugs for the purposes of public health. Her goal was harm reduction.

The final speaker did have a libertarian view, again not an expert on drugs per se, but her efforts toward a doctorate in Latin American studies made it impossible for her to ignore the impact of the gang related drug warfare raging in that area. Victoria Henderson thinks that drug policy needs to be approached from a transnational view because that's how various authorities are prosecuting the war on drugs. Ms. Henderson pointed to the "balloon effect" in Latin American, where the US government has, alone or with help from local authorities tried to squelch drug production in say Peru or Bolivia, only to see production pop-up in Columbia like a balloon under pressure. Of course its primarily US drug consumption that funds the black market in drugs and the gang wars in Latin America. The simple fact that prices of illicit drugs have dropped while purity has increased, is testimony to the simple economics of supply and demand. Usage has increased while prices have dropped, meaning supply is plentiful and the restrictions imposed by governments don't work.
Ms. Henderson pointed to the Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy that begins with:
"The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed." It doesn't get much clearer than that, and they don't stop there. Their recommendations are equally blunt, starting with:
"End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence." 

Practically a libertarian view, if only it were so simple. But as I indicated above, there are well meaning people that have diametrically opposing views.

But things might be changing. In recent weeks, the inappropriately named Liberal Party of Canada, has adopted a policy that involves legalizing marijuana. Not quite what was recommended by the Global Commission, but a move in the right direction. This is what might be called moving the Overton Window on the issue. Putting what was once unthinkable, into the realm of discussion, possibly at the next election. Nothing to get too excited about, but there is evidence from Portugal, here and here, that suggests decriminalization may have positive results, ammunition for future discussion.
Ms. Henderson displayed and described the horrific impact of the war on drugs in Latin America, tens of thousands willfully and accidentally (see video below) dead and she ended with this quote: "If you can't control drugs in a maximum-security prison, how can the government control drugs in a free society?" (Anthony Papa)

Guatemala, victim of the balloon effect in the war on drugs.

"I blame the war on drugs in the United States for what is happening here in Guatemala." -- Giancarlo Ibarguen

The graph above left, comes from Wikipedia on Substance Abuse: Legal drugs are not necessarily safer. A study in 2010 asked drug-harm experts to rank various illegal and legal drugs. Alcohol was found to be the most dangerous by far. The data comes from the UK, and may not be entirely transferable to North America. But even in the Global Commission report, alcohol is fourth behind heroin, cocaine and barbiturates, cannabis is tenth. Alcohol is not controlled in the same way, yet causes almost as much harm, more if you believe the UK graph above. On top of everything, there is hypocrisy in harm reduction and the war on drugs.

The Buffett Rule: comparing apples to oranges

Also read this from CATO: Class warfare in the State of the Union

Signs of Hope & Change 1

Three years ago this week Mr. Hope & Change, Barak Obama was installed as POTUS. It was historic, a black President in the White House! For anyone like me that lived through the race riots of the sixties, it was stunning. But I had no illusions that this guy was going to change anything, and here we are three years later and I'm fairly certain that whatever hope there was, has evaporated too.
The cartoon that I snatched really puts an exclamation point to Obama's election promises. I don't really care if Canadian Oil is refined in the US or China or even in Canada (why not?). The Keystone pipeline decision is a perfect example of how governments position themselves in places they do not belong. This decision was entirely political, aided and abetted by misguided environmentalists who protected nothing but their own political turf.
I suspect at some point the pipe will be built - but not until the 2012 US elections are done. Democrats will say this is a good move for Obama and his re-election, it shows how different he is from his GOP counterparts. Sure he is. In Washington its politics as usual, nothing has changed. While free markets enable the economy and wealth production, politics and government disable the economy and wealth production. Obama and all his brilliant advisors have no clue how wealth is created and no idea of how America became he wealthiest country ever.

Unfortunately Obama's slogan of "hope and change" now has the connotation of failure. Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize just for the "hope," but it should be removed for the reality.

I believe that the slogan "hope and change" should be revived, I think there is plenty of hope that things will change for the better, in the long run, they always have. I'll do this periodically, here is an example of a tiny bit of hope.

SOPA & PIPA: Best explanation of the dangers

Yesterday if you tried to use Wikipedia, you saw that message (photo) on your screen, it was "closed," unless you knew the work around.
These two laws that are before the American Congress and Senate, are designed to stop piracy on the internet, and protect intellectual property. On the surface these appear to be good things, good laws, that help writers and creators etc. I've already heard a talk radio host try to defend them on that basis, and this host is often against government regulations that restrict freedom. So my first inclination was to try and explain to him why these are draconian laws.
My mind works like this: why bother trying to do something if someone else has already done it, AND done a better job of it. Thats why if you come to my blog, you will note that I like to "share" stuff that is already available. That could get me in trouble with these laws, not that I am stealing material, I'm just trying to show people where to find good information. Laws like this in the US may eventually come to Canada, I guess that too is sharing and very worrying.
Let me share with you the best explanation I have seen thus far for these two laws. Its on a site I have mentioned before: The Khan Academy, it's absolutely excellent. Look here.
  

Ron Paul on Kudlow Report Jan 13/12

‎
"It is unlikely to see growth derailed by the housing market." --Ben Bernake, 2006

Kudlow: The federal reserve system has hundreds of PhD economists - how is it possible that they completely missed the worst meltdown since the 1930's?


H/T Paul S.

Not on the fringe anymore: the Ron Paul Effect

Persistence has paid off for Ron Paul. That's rare in politics, usually repetitive attempts at election create fatigue of one sort or another.

The fact that Ron Paul is still in the thick of things after his second place finish in New Hampshire, and a strong third in Iowa, is evidence that his message resonates with many Republicans. Why not, of the six candidates remaining in the GOP race, he is the only one that has policy ideas significantly different from those of the incumbent Democratic President Obama. That is an insult to those five other GOP candidates, but welcome to the world of collectivist, mainstream thinking.

In the US, a deep and never ending recession seems to have a grip on "main street" even though government statistics show that weak growth is occurring in some parts of the economy. Jobless rates are still high, many American workers have given up.

The housing market has yet to recover from a collapse that Rep. Paul and other "Austrians" predicted some years ago.

The price of gold has hit new highs as the American dollar continues to lose value, again, as predicted by Ron Paul and other Austrians.

The endless, pointless and expensive wars that Americans are entangled in, has made Ron Paul the darling of soldiers and combat veterans alike because of his anti-war stance.

This time Ron Paul is playing an important role in the election cycle because “he’s giving American voters a choice – for much smaller government, much lower taxes, eliminating government debt, bringing our troops home – choices the Republican and Democratic Party have refused to give them,” says Carla Howell, executive director of the US Libertarian Party.

Most importantly, Ron Paul can no longer be dismissed as 'fringe' by establishment Republicans because of his message of constitutional limited government.

Give a listen to what these two libertarians said about Ron Paul this week after New Hampshire:

Most importantly in the States, Ron Paul has succeeded in uniting some of the disparate factions of libertarianism. This despite recent attempts to discredit his cause by dragging up yet again, the newsletter scandal of years ago.

Because libertarians everywhere focus on principles rather than pragmatism, they have had the tendency to 'shoot themselves in the foot' during US elections. Though most libertarians agree on 95% of the issues, they get hung up on the 5% that they disagree on, and never seem to unite. To get a feel for what I mean, the video below does a pretty good job of describing historical differences in the American conservative and libertarian community, and what Ron Paul has done to unify them. Have a look:

 
Of course for Canadian libertarians, like me, living beside the American media elephant, Ron Paul is, and has been a blessing, in the non-religious sense of course. Not just here in Canada, in Australia, in Europe, everywhere libertarians exist, a new awareness in the media and the population has taken root. The spillover effect could be considerable and positive for all libertarians everywhere, if we capitalize on it; and we must.

A well know conservative writer even credits Paul with a remarkable achievement. Charles Krauthammer refers to Ron Paul's second place finish as the biggest story coming out of the New Hampshire Primary. He goes on to suggest that if Ron Paul stays in the race until the GOP Convention in August: "Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party." And, "the Republican convention could conceivably feature a major address by Paul calling for the abolition of the Fed, FEMA and the CIA; American withdrawal from everywhere; acquiescence to the Iranian bomb — and perhaps even Paul’s opposition to a border fence lest it be used to keep Americans in. Not exactly the steady, measured, reassuring message a Republican convention might wish to convey. For libertarianism, however, it would be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last." 

That could be the legacy of the Ron Paul effect, and 2012 could be a new beginning for libertarians and classical liberalism. I'm reminded of a great line from one of my favourite movies, Inherit the Wind: "An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral!" Ron Paul has been instrumental in exposing the libertarian idea.

Screwing up Education and shafting the poor too

"Our elementary schools really need to focus on the basics, on the foundations of learning for all students…..we need to have high-quality, consistent, inclusive programs." That's the view of a school board trustee for the York Region D. S. B., a large Ontario school board that is considering cutting specialized arts and sports programs because they might be elitist. Another trustee counters with: "How could everybody learn the same way? We don't think that (way) educationally, and here we're trying to do it." At the same time Annie Kidder, the Director of People for Education a non-profit lobby group, says specialty schools attract wealthier students. Ms. Kidder fears "social polarization" in the specialty schools but then goes on to admit that, "Choice is open to those with the capacity to choose." Apparently she has no fear of polarization there, wealthier families can give their children an enriched and varied learning experience, because they are wealthier. 

But aren't the schools Ms. Kidder supports, the government public schools, supposed to ensure that education is equally available to all, rich or poor? Shouldn't parents and children of poor families have the opportunity to choose the way they want to learn and have some choices at least? Apparently Ms. Kidder is more interested in homogeneity in the school system rather than catering to the needs of students. Let the children of poor families get the one-size-fits-all education, right Ms. Kidder?

 

Contrast the YRDSB story above to the stated policy of the largest Ontario School Board, the Toronto D. S. B. Almost two years ago the TDSB proposed the creation of specialized schools to give free market private school opportunities to children within the government public school system. In my view, since we are currently forced to have government public schools, at least provide some choice within them. Who knows, all the remaining TDSB government schools might need to improve in order to compete with their own specialty government schools. It could be win-win for TDSB students.

Meanwhile at the other end of the educational spectrum in Ontario, the McGuinty Liberal government is offering a 30% tuition  reduction to the majority of post-secondary students. I say majority even though there is an income qualification. The student's family must have a gross income of less than $160,000. Since the average personal income in Ontario is less than $38,000, qualifying for this rebate should be dead simple unless your parents are really rich. So, as Ken Coates points out in this column:
"Clearly this social program was targeted, for political reasons, at middle- and upper-middle-class families, whose children already attend university in large numbers. The 2011 Ontario election was vacuous. There were no defining issues, little public interest. All three parties worked extremely hard to avoid controversial positions. The tuition rebate was transparent. Vote Liberal, those of you with university-aged children, and the cheque will be in the mail." Exactly right, buy some votes. McGuinty is spending money that the province must borrow, because there is already a $16 billion deficit, and a debt close to $250 billion. Things are so tight that, Moody's the rating agency, has issued a warning on Ontario's credit rating. Can we afford this rebate? Are you kidding?

Again, poor families with less capacity to choose are being shafted. If you are going to have an income qualification, make the cut off $75,000 and increase the rebate. At least the lower income families will be targeted and maybe helped. 

Having said all of that, I would prefer a competitive system of schools, with as little government interference as possible, but we are in very deep with a system that serves teachers, and administrators, best of all.     

Taking the Red Pill....

Your worldview is shaped by the sum total of the events and people that have impacted your life thus far. By the time you reach adulthood your life rolls along down a rut of your own creation, and its very difficult to dislodge most people from their worldview rut. Because of this, arguing worldview with people is difficult or pointless. It's the reason I don't argue with theists anymore. At some level in their thinking they do not accept reason and evidence in the fundamental things, the way I do. But even these people can be moved if they harbour any doubts at all.
Its true in politics as well. Generally arguments are pointless and only deepen the ruts if beliefs are firmly held.
People that drastically change their views may have been hiding something that allows them to make the change abruptly. Some good advice given in Shakespeare's Hamlet works here, "To thine own self be true." 


In the movie The Matrix the hero, Neo, takes the red pill to affirm his hidden suspicions and finally accept reality as it is. He was true to himself, but he was likely halfway there already.

So it is with the announcement this weekend by a veteran Toronto newspaper writer and editor who came out of the closet, as he put it, and declared himself a libertarian. Like Neo he was finally true to himself as well, it was just a matter of announcing it.
Of course this still takes courage, maybe less so when you are established in your career, but never underestimate how such a declaration seems to make horns sprout from your head in the view of some people.
Over the years, the generally held view of members of my party has been to seek out those people who are already leaning toward libertarianism, and help them screw their courage to the sticking post, to use a Shakespearean metaphor (this time from Macbeth). Literally, to help them take the Red Pill by offering it to them. I think this is a good time to come out, the lines are being drawn and closets tend to be stuffy.       

Put your books away, its time for a quiz!

It has been a while since I said that. Of course the line students wish for that follows my heading is: "but it doesn't count!"
So relax, this one doesn't count either, but you will learn something.
The questions in this quiz were used some years ago as part of a Zogby International survey to gauge "economic enlightenment" among Americans based on questions of basic economics that were intermixed among other questions.

Other important data was collected data as well, including: each respondent's 2008 presidential vote, party affiliation, voting participation, race or ethnic group, urban vs. rural, religious affiliation, religious participation, union membership, marital status, membership in armed forces, NASCAR fandom!, membership in the “investor class,” patronage at Wal-Mart, household income, and gender. Thorough eh?

For your amusement, I present to you just the eight salient questions involved. Give them a shot and I'll discuss scoring later.

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

1. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
  1. Strongly Agree  2. Somewhat Agree     3. Somewhat Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree       5. Not sure

2. Rent-control laws lead to housing shortages.

  1. Strongly Agree  2. Somewhat Agree     3. Somewhat Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree       5. Not sure

3. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.

  1. Strongly Agree  2. Somewhat Agree     3. Somewhat Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree       5. Not sure

4. A company that has the largest market share is a monopoly.

  1. Strongly Agree  2. Somewhat Agree     3. Somewhat Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree       5. Not sure

5 .Third-world workers working overseas for American companies are being exploited.

  1. Strongly Agree  2. Somewhat Agree     3. Somewhat Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree       5. Not sure

6. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the price of those services.

  1. Strongly Agree  2. Somewhat Agree     3. Somewhat Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree       5. Not sure

7. Overall, the standard of living is better today than it was 30 years ago.

  1. Strongly Agree  2. Somewhat Agree     3. Somewhat Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree       5. Not sure

8. Free trade leads to unemployment.

  1. Strongly Agree  2. Somewhat Agree     3. Somewhat Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree       5. Not sure 

Remember the Occupy movement, way back last year? One of the criticisms of that group that I supported, was their obvious lack of economic knowledge which was apparent because of their demands. This type of quiz makes that assertion more credible as you will see.

The Zogby researchers Zeljka Buturovic and Daniel B. Klein discovered that of the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) in their survey, there was a clear association of enlightened answers and self proclaimed political persuasion. The researchers asked the respondents to state their political leanings as either: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; or libertarian. Rather than looking at correct answers, the researchers looked at answers that were clearly "unenlightened."
So, look at the first question above. Minimum wage laws set a floor below which employers are not permitted to pay their employees any less. That means employers either pay that amount to employees, and reduce their own profit, or as often happens, not hire more people and push the extra work onto current employees. So the enlightened answer is to AGREE with question one. When scoring, both "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree" were considered unenlightened or incorrect. "Somewhat agree" was accepted as correct in case the respondent thought the question was ambiguous, and "not sure" was not counted.

The researchers discovered that the incorrect responses from 0 to 8 are as follows: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26. The last two groups were the MOST UNENLIGHTENED.

This is a dramatic difference, and it supports my contention that the economic knowledge of so called "leftists" or better "statists," needs to be upgraded. Libertarians, as I would have guessed, are fairly well grounded in fundamental economics. The Occupy movement, that I believe consists largely of people who think government intervention is the solution to economic disparity, likely belongs to the poorly scoring statists.

One of the researchers, Daniel Klein, wrote about his work in the Wall Street Journal, and did an analysis of the questions which is interesting:

"To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.
Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%)."

Check your own score - Enlightened answers:

1. AGREE, 2. AGREE, 3. AGREE, 4. DISAGREE, 5. DISAGREE, 6. AGREE, 7. AGREE, 8. DISAGREE

H/T Claude Lesperance

Canadian Healthcare - Waiting Your Turn

There are nights when there is nothing worth watching on television and a few like last night. There were the results from the Iowa Caucuses, disappointing, the Canadian Juniors playing Russia, disappointing, and an interesting spin on Canadian healthcare, all going on at the same time.

Radio talk show host Jerry Agar was doing a substitution stint for Ezra Levant on the SUN NEWS channel, and the entire show was devoted to Canadian healthcare. Mr. Agar elaborated on two myths about healthcare:

• Government is the only entity caring and efficient enough to offer health care to Canadians.
• Canada provides the same healthcare service to the poor as to the rich.

He used a report produced by the Fraser Institute recently, titled Waiting Your Turn, and pointed out that monopoly services are controlled by making customers wait. Who can forget the long lines for bread and toilet paper in the former Soviet Union which monopolized the production and distribution of goods? In Canada, healthcare is a monopoly, and too many Canadians suffer from a nationalistic, chauvinistic attitude that somehow our healthcare system makes us better than our American neighbours. Its past time to stop that silliness. 

Watch the video here and then you may want to watch HEALTHCARE HULLABALOO, afterward with Dr. Roy Eappen, familiar to many of us, as he comments on this issue.   

Ron Paul on to New Hampshire

Funding faith-based schools, good?

Conflicted, that was my initial reaction when I read that the Government of Saskatchewan has decided to fund faith-based schools this year. I have several conflicts about that.
I'm not a fan of religious anything (except maybe foods), let alone education, and governments shouldn't be funding education or even involved in it. Of course when governments do fund education, as they do in most jurisdictions, there is also the conflict that religious teaching should not be something that taxpayers are forced to support - that's the church and state conflict. So you might be surprised with my considered opinion on this issue. I think this new funding is a step in the right direction. Why?

Where I live in Ontario, the provincial government funds the public system and since the mid-1980's it also funds all Roman Catholic Schools. Of course this is controversial, but it's a constitutional issue that goes back to the founding of Canada. That doesn't make it right, thats just the way it is. Why not fund all religions?

In an editorial today the Globe and Mail disagrees with Saskatchewan's decision. Its chief concern is that this new funding emphasizes the "separateness" in the schools, in what is becoming a very diverse population. This is very typical of the statist view in Canada. On the one hand Canadian governments encourage bilingualism, and multiculturalism because diversity brings new ideas, and new viewpoints to the Canadian population - its good. On the other hand the statists, including the major political parties, advocate 'sameness' in education to unify the country. As the Globe suggests: "A diverse population needs strong core institutions. It needs rallying points and meeting places, especially for its young people." So, separate schools are bad....unless of course they're Catholic...in Ontario. Confused yet? I am.

Why wouldn't it be a good thing to have diversity of choice in the schools, with competitive curriculums? Wouldn't that encourage schools to develop best practices that maybe produce better students and maybe give parents more options for their coerced tax dollars? I think it might. Would atheist/secular schools be funded?

It seems to me that if diversity of the population is good, so is diversity of the educational institutions, unless there is an ulterior motive, and of course there is. The state may not want competition of thought in the younger population, it wants unity, sameness of thinking. That is the best way to keep the ship of state from being rocked in the future. Or am I wrong? Why should their be more freedom of choice when the state can arbitrarily create less? That's really the issue isn't it, more freedom or less. The Globe suggests in the final line of its editorial:    "Diverse public schools are a multicultural society’s best way to promote unity, while still preserving difference." That almost sounds like Newspeak.