Planet Atheism » Allen Small

Success without winning – the Ron Paul Evolution

Allen Small — Thu, 17 May 2012 00:31:00 +0000

I've run in three election campaigns in recent years, but I'm really new to politics. What I've learned about politics is that it's a lot like high school in some ways.

In high school students quickly sort themselves into groups by a number of factors, almost all of them superficial.

First you sort by age and grade, then by gender within the first sorting. Then you may sort by ethnic origin, skin colour, and religion. Those are all fairly superficial factors that really don't say much about the individual, except that s/he can be sorted along those lines.

It's not until you start sorting by personality, interests, abilities, and intellect, that people are given their due, and those are often overlooked because of the superficial factors. It's the superficial factors that usually lead to a hierarchical structure within a student population.

Take a look at Mitt Romney or Barak Obama, forget the skin colour and the money. Both of these men sort out well, superficially by their appearance, and because of their personalities, and abilities, I'll bet they were very popular in high school and in the upper parts of their hierarchy. They didn't have to be deep thinkers, or super intelligent, in fact that may have hurt them because they would become marginalized. That is the unfortunate truth in politics and high school, the thinkers and those that think differently become marginalized.

In fact thinking itself often becomes marginalized in politics. The truth of that statement becomes apparent whenever a politician, with perfectly good intentions, makes an economic decision based on those good intentions. Every economic decision is at the very least two sided. A decision that favours one side, always has a negative effect on the other even if its just tiny.

In high school, the popular students had little impact on the entire school body, but they ran the show, or at least the part they were permitted to run. They were admired and followed, but only controlled things like dances and some events.

It's not always the popular students that become the politicians and power-brokers, the problem is that the electorate acts as though they were back in high school. They admire and follow the politicians and the powerful based on the same set of superficial criteria they used in high school. They aren't looking for deep thinkers or the super intelligent, they're looking for the superficial person that has been properly sorted to make decisions for them based on good intentions, you know, for the common good. It's a lot like high school except its life, and not just a dance.

Dr. Ron Paul may or may not be a deep thinker, I don't know, but he does think differently. Because of that he has been marginalized since his first efforts to change government in 1988. Yet here he is near the end of his political life, and according to Brian Doherty, Dr. Paul is succeeding without winning.

The Biology of Trust – a biological basis for free market economics

Allen Small — Tue, 15 May 2012 00:26:00 +0000

Ever wonder why some people are trusting and generous, others not so much? It may have to do with a molecule that is normally released in people during sex or breast feeding. The molecule is oxytocin, and it might help explain trust in an economic sense.
Paul Zak is a neuroeconomist, interested in finding the biological foundations for human behaviour. Since human behaviour (Mises called it human action - praxeology) is essential in economics, well, you can see why this is interesting work.

Zak says his work builds on work done by Vernon Smith, also an interesting guy. Check out this interview of Smith on ReasonTV last year. That Smith has based much of his work on another Smith, Adam Smith.
Here is Paul Zak explaining his very interesting experiment, and how it might help understanding economics.

For Mother’s Day….End the War on drugs.

Allen Small — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:17:00 +0000

Repeal the laws for non-violent drug offences. The war on drugs here in Canada, in the US and around the world has failed. It should not have started in the first place, but the evidence is clearer than ever for those who can see.

Would you use heroin if it were legal?

Allen Small — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:34:00 +0000

That is just one of the questions that Ron Paul is famous for. Ron Paul is making a serious run for the GOP nomination. He might even control 30 - 40% of delegates by the time of the GOP Convention in August. Here is very good interactive Google Delegate map that shows how things are going now.

Will Ron Paul be able to have another go in 2015-16? He has been doing this for 24 years now, a generation. If not, the question I have is who will take up the fight after this election campaign is over?

Here is a short piece from ReasonTV on Dr. Paul's popularity amongst the young.

John Stossel shops his new book….

Allen Small — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:50:00 +0000

Always interesting to hear a top notch libertarian communicator, enjoy.

May Day! Mayday! M’aidez!

Allen Small — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:50:00 +0000

The annual May Day shenanigans took place last week. Traditionally May Day was the beginning of summer in the northern hemisphere. It has since morphed into International Workers' Day (kind of a spring time Labour Day) for a variety of reasons.

Mayday is also the traditional distress call used by sailors and airman which comes from the original French: "m'aidez," literally "help me."

The idea of "help me" links the distress call, to the current economic malaise and to the indebted employed and unemployed worldwide, through International Workers Day (IWD). Whether one is lost at sea or deep in debt, assistance is needed.

May Day has offered the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement the opportunity to restate their case this spring. What is their case? That seems to depend where you're looking.

In the United States the OWS May Day protests are complicated. America seems to be in perpetual state of war and has been in an economic depression since the last days of Bush 2. This video link to ReasonTV is indicative of how complicated their protests are.

Many of my libertarian friends see OWS as a grassroots movement, one that we need to embrace and get in front of to help our cause. I don't think so. I think this story is like the early days of the Tea Party in the US.

American libertarians jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon, until it was clear that it was just a neo-conservative revival, and not libertarian at all. The Tea Party has blended into the GOP wallpaper.

I believe that will happen to OWS (they will blend somewhere), but calling OWS neo-collectivist may be a bit of a stretch. Collectivism is already the dominant political force in most Western democracies. The only thing that is "neo" about OWS, is that it seems to be led by the young. Their "new ideas" linked to International Workers Day last week, still clings to the Marxist idea that workers of the world are oppressed somehow by capitalists, and that the workers can break their chains and demand their rightful position as rulers of themselves (and the capitalists). OWS claims that they are the majority (99%), and by virtue of that fact, deserve a bigger share of the wealth owned (they say) by the 1%. It's an old idea.

So far in Canada, Occupy protests are relatively peaceful, though some of the protests have become more violent in the States where the economy is worse.

The Soviet era May Day Parade picture I've included, shows that Marxism was never benignly peaceful, and OWS by extension is not either. The occupation of someone else's property is a violent act, even if it is "public" property. No one should be under any illusions that somehow OWS is benign, or that they are on the side of liberty. They are still a confused rabble, but I believe they will be brought to heel at some point, and show themselves as the collectivists they are, despite the confused press they are getting.

The three month old "student strike" (oxymoron anyone?) in Quebec is a demonstration of the neo-collectivism in action. Post secondary students in Quebec have the lowest tuitions in the country. They have been given a cheap ride for many years. A Quebec budget proposal of small incremental increases in tuition prompted violent demonstrations in recent weeks. For the students in Quebec the cheap ride was not enough, they have demanded the keys and the entire car too. So it is with collectivism, once the moral argument is accepted that we are all responsible for the "wants" of one another, then property is irrelevant and what's yours is also mine. M'aidez is no longer a request for assistance, but a demand.

Big time tax avoidance

Allen Small — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:20:00 +0000

In Canada your taxes are due today, or else be prepared to suffer penalties if you happen to owe money.

Avoiding tax is one of the most popular games on the planet. The more tax you are required to pay, the more incentivized you are to avoid taxation. That is true for individuals as well as corporations, and what is also true is that wealthy individuals and corporations generally find ways to pay the least amount of tax.

Apple Corporation is one of the largest (if not the largest) companies by market capitalization in the world. But Apple has found ways to avoid billions of dollars in US corporate tax legally. More ammunition to support the Laffer Curve.

A Lesson for taxpayers and government

Allen Small — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:35:00 +0000

Its tax time in Canada, again.
The fact is there is a constant stream of tax revenue that flows into the Canadian Federal government pot each and every minute of everyday. The flow of revenue increases during the waking hours as daylight marches across the country, but it reaches a torrent towards the end of April every year.

Aside from my feelings about taxation, like, its legalized theft, its immoral, I don't support this or that, but I'm forced to pay for it anyway, why can't I at least pick and choose where I want to spend my money - aside from all that, it's a pain in the ass to do.

I've talked about a flat tax form before, here and here. Yes, I know its still a tax, still coerced, but think of the hours saved and the stress avoided? One piece of paper, how much did you make? Pay 15%, or whatever, end of story.

But a flat tax would create huge distortions in the tax industry and economy in general. My Turbotax software would be unnecessary, all those people toiling to minimize the pain would need to find other employment. Thousands of accountants, lawyers, and other tax preparers have become huge businesses that depend on the stacks of arcane rules that exempt this or that, and whose primary purpose is to avoid payment. Entire lifelong careers have been created for so many. Think of the government lobbyists these guys must have? You may be assured, flat taxes are not on their agenda.

I'm not going to ignore our law makers, who sit in various legislature buildings in every provincial capital and Ottawa, dreaming up new ways to tax and of course spend. "Spend" is the real issue, isn't it? It was the spending during World War I, that created the need for a "temporary" income tax in 1917. Yes, temporary; but once the precedent was set, well, here we are 95 years later, some "temporary." You can thank Robert Borden, he's the guy on the $100 bill, the new plastic bill.

Its true, our democratic governments have never had a problem collecting money. Governments have learned to use brute force in such subtle ways that some people actually don't think they are taxed enough. But those people should be asking why not spend less? How refreshing is that? Here is an interesting spin on revenue and spending.

Earth Day "Fail"

Allen Small — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 02:20:00 +0000

Today is Earth Day 2012, a manufactured event allegedly celebrating nature. Nothing wrong with celebrating nature, I try to do that every day.

But Earth Day was started by well intentioned people that thought somehow Planet Earth was being exploited by humankind. The truth is, the difference between exploitation and survival is in the eye of the beholder.

If you are impoverished, cold, starving and exposed to the elements, is capturing and killing a deer for food, exploitation? Who would argue that? Some might, but they would be arguing from comfort.

I believe the person that kills for food or uses Earth's natural resources has an agenda, to survive. I also believe Earth's resources should be used responsibly, not wastefully. If used responsibly then it is justifiable, not matter what is being used or how much.

I also believe that many of the people who mindlessly support Earth Day and oppose exploitation of Earth's resources also have an agenda. Their agenda is not noble and not justifiable. It is in fact anti-human.

Scroll down this page to a logo I keep on the right hand side: "EXPLOIT THE EARTH OR DIE, It's not a threat it's a fact." I believe that is true, I believe nature is only benevolent, if it is made so by human action.

So as a tribute to justifiable exploitation of Earth's resources, watch this short video. I'm not American, but this is not an American problem, it's a global problem, it's a matter of survival. May all your days be Earth days.

Is creativity squelched by enforcing copyright?

Allen Small — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:54:00 +0000

Do copyright rules allow for greater creativity and more wealth producing jobs or does it stifle creativity and suppress job creation?

Is breaking the copyright rules the same as theft of property?

Will creative producers stop writing songs, or books, or movies, if copyright protection was limited to just 14 years?

Has internet piracy stifled creativity?

Should governments protect intellectual property in the same way that it protects (allegedly) other forms of property?

All good questions, and this copyrighted video from ReasonTV, suggests some answers.

One of the first, and the last hurrah for the Space Shuttle program

Allen Small — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:28:00 +0000

Science fiction meets science fact when the TV crew of the Starship Enterprise saw NASA’s space shuttle prototype Enterprise. From the left are then NASA Administrator James Fletcher and Star Trek cast members (several in leisure suits) DeForest Kelley (Leonard McCoy), George Takei (Hikaro Sulu), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), Nichelle Nichols (Nyota Uhura), Leonard Nimoy (Spock), series creator Gene Roddenberry (brown suit), and on the right Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov).

Toronto: On an unusually hot and humid day in early June 1983, I went up to the rooftop of my workplace to see the prototype Space Shuttle Enterprise fly piggyback atop NASA's first 747 shuttle carrier aircraft as in the picture.

Why was it flying over Toronto? Canada was a stakeholder in the project, the Canadarm was designed and built in Toronto by SPAR Aerospace. The overflight was part of a trip by the Enterprise to the Paris Air Show. NASA decided this was good PR.

The Enterprise never flew in space, it was used to practice landings on earth and verify the flight worthiness of the design, and it was retired in 1985.

Over the years I have had a great interest in space flight, manned and unmanned, the shuttle was an amazing achievement in many ways, and a total disaster in others. I'm sure you've heard the comment that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, well the space shuttle was obviously designed by a committee. A perfect example of how a government institution (NASA) compromises to achieve a mission that might have been done much, much cheaper, and safer. I'm not going to detail what was wrong with the design, suffice to say that two astronaut crews were killed directly because of known flaws in the design. A quick Google search will give you much more expert opinion.

The fiscal crisis in the United States, has spawned a for profit private sector space industry. It's about time.

ReasonTV has their own take on the past, the recent final flyover, and the future of manned space flight.

Let’s be optimistic…

Allen Small — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:06:00 +0000

My family will tell you that I walk around with a fairly negative outlook on government, the economy in Canada, and just about everywhere else. That may be true, but deep down I'm optimistic. Why? Because history shows me that things have always improved for people.

Yes, its true their have been bad times, setbacks, and I'm certain there will be more in the future (ask my family). Nothing goes up in a straight line. So when I see a story, in this case about a book, where the author supports my long term worldview, I have to share.

Here is a book that I'm going to read, as soon as I get through all those I've already started. The author is Matt Ridley, and here he is being interviewed for ReasonTV:

The Libertarian Disadvantage

Allen Small — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:55:00 +0000

If you spend some time reading my blog posts you might think that government is the source of all that ails us. Of course that's not true.

In a pluralistic, relatively free country such as Canada, governments are only reflections of our society. Society is made of individuals, families, voluntary organizations, involuntary professional organizations, businesses, unions, and corporations as well as political organizations. All of them have a role in selecting the political party or person that wins an election and governs. This is true at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal.

In modern times the person or party that is elected has managed to cobble together enough support by various means to defeat other parties and candidates. It's the "various means" that I want to address.That's interesting to me because I lead what most will call a minor political party in Ontario. One of the reasons we remain minor, is precisely why the major parties have become major.

In virtually every modern democracy, political parties have learned to cater to some of the societal groups mentioned above in some way. For example if a political party achieves power with the help of a group (help like monetary donations), that group may expect in return special privileges backed by legislation. Privileges may range from monopoly positions in certain areas of employment, or monopolies on services available to the general population, often including special bargaining privileges for salaries and benefits. While that may sound illegal, it's not, it is a reality of politics. All of the major political parties have made these kinds of alliances, that's why they are major political parties, they have tapped into economic resources that have allowed them to seek and gain power, or more precisely the potential of gaining power.

In Ontario, each of the major parties, the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives (oxymoron?) and the New Democrats have held power in recent times, and the potential for a return to power for any of them, exists at every election.

Elections Ontario requires all registered parties to disclose their funding including sources. The PC's and Liberals get more than half of their funding from organizations in various industries. Its all been outlined here for the most recent election campaign which was Oct. 2011.

If you follow that money you can fill in your own reasons about why parties receive support from donors. One of the largest donors is the Carpenter's Union . Might that be because governments are always granting contracts for infrastructure?

Few if any of the minor parties in Ontario (or Canada) receive donations from organizations of any sort. I know the Ontario Libertarian Party receives donations from individuals only, all of them voluntary, nothing is coerced. Can that be said of Union funds collected from unionized workers for the major parties? Certainly not!

Unionized workers are often forced to join a union as a condition of employment, fees are extracted from them and a portion is spent on political contributions. As a union member you may have voted PC, but your dues were used to support the NDP, and you had no say in the matter. That is political reality in Ontario, the major parties prostitute themselves so they may get power. Libertarians would refuse to grant favours of that sort to achieve power. That is our disadvantage, of all the parties we are principled and consistent. We will not BUY your vote. When will voters understand real politics?

How libertarian politics can fix what’s wrong with America.

Allen Small — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:37:00 +0000

Change is coming to America. No, not hope and change, it's clear to many that hasn't worked, and that particular lie won't be repeated. What are the changes? People are either not registering, or deregistering as Republicans and Democrats. People are realizing that there is no difference between the two.

Can that kind of change happen in Canada? Why not? How long will it take before people in Canada start to realize how similar the main parties are here? Not long, I hope.

This video is lengthy, these two are trying to sell a book, but it's an interesting view of politics and free markets in America.

Taxing people into prosperity? No way.

Allen Small — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:05:00 +0000

Economist Art Laffer says: "If you tax people who work and you pay people who don't work, don't be surprised when you get a lot of people not working."

Got you by the budget balls Dalton!

Allen Small — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:44:00 +0000

Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario NDP, is threatening to bring down the McGuinty Liberal government if her demands aren't met.

Ms. Horwath wants to tax the rich even more, and has a way to magically create jobs using taxpayers money. Hmm, wasn't that trick was used for GM and Chrysler?

Ms. Horwath is proposing that the McGuinty Liberal government redirect $250 million in planned spending on business subsidies (she has a point there, what a waste that would have been) to a new tax credit that ties government handouts to new hiring. Employers would be reimbursed for 10% of the salary paid to each new employee in the first year, up to $5,000. Genius, sheer genius. So, we get a new rule, making government even more complex than it is, and even more government intervention into the marketplace. Its win-win for the politicos!

You've got to hand it to her she has good intentions, but even the best of intentions often don't work.

Have a look at this excellent little video on minimum wage, a good intention gone awry.

Hyphenated-Libertarians – Searching for meaning.

Allen Small — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:10:00 +0000

The Facebook discussion forum that is associated with the political party (Ontario Libertarian Party) that I lead, must be one of the more active in Canadian politics. People who do not even live in Ontario join up because our discussion threads are often long and heated. If you are ever in need of an argument not unlike Monty Python, you'll get it in this group.

I mention this because one of the former members of that Facebook page, proclaimed the other day that she was a "communist-libertarian." This person was known to be one of the more opinionated on the page, often coming out with statements that are counter to the regular fare that might be expected when libertarians interact. As many people pointed out in the ensuing discussions on Facebook, communist-libertarian seems oxymoronic, I believe it is.

At Dictionary.com, the term libertarian is defined as: (noun) "a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct." And I would agree with each of the 5 definitions of "liberty."

A communist advocates communism, and communism is defined as: "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."

A libertarian advocates libertarianism, and interestingly, there is no analogous definition of libertarianism at Dictionary.com. Why not?

This is where the problem occurs, there does not seem to be a consensus on the meaning of libertarianism. Here is what I found in Wikipedia: "Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no consensus on the definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is general agreement that libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power."

So while communism is a system of "social organization" that, by definition, removes the right to property from individuals (as stated above), libertarianism is "voluntary association" that emphasizes individual liberty. Individual liberty implies the right to property, because the most important possession one can have, is their very own life. In communism property is ascribed to the community or the state, so what is "yours" really belongs to everyone, including your life, I guess. In communism, everyone has a claim on your life, or at least the fruits of your labour, and all your possessions. If you own nothing, and have nothing, and can create nothing for yourself, well, I hope you can see where that leads. It's not liberty.

To me the differences are stark, communist-libertarian is an oxymoron. Anyone who claims to be one really has not thought it through at all.

What about other hyphenated-libertarians? Again, there are many others and all likely exist because defining libertarianism is like nailing Jello to the wall.

One of the commonly seen hyphenated-libertarians is the "conservative-libertarian." I'm not sure what that means because the meaning of conservative, liberal etc. in the political context has become so fuzzy. I've written about this before.

Then there is the Bleeding Heart-Libertarian, note the link following, because they actually exist in the blogosphere and part of their "About" is: "Bleeding Heart Libertarians is a blog about free markets and social justice. All of us who blog at this site are, broadly speaking, libertarians. In particular, we are libertarians who believe that addressing the needs of the economically vulnerable by remedying injustice, engaging in benevolence, fostering mutual aid, and encouraging the flourishing of free markets is both practically and morally important."

I have some sympathy for that one, but their very existence implies that libertarians don't care about the economically vulnerable, and somehow they are not benevolent individuals. The implication is also, that libertarians are devoid of empathy and charity, and of course that's not true. Maybe that is the point of their blog - to show it's not true, I'm not sure. But the blog is very philosophical and not easily accessible to casual readers. It seems to me they spend much of their time and space searching for who they are. Nothing wrong with that I guess.

So, what is libertarianism and does it really need to be hyphenated? For me, if the word 'libertarian' is a part of the name of a group like: Ontario Libertarian Party, and that group has defined itself (like this), then the meaning is clear for all to see. As for hyphenation, I don't like it because it always diminishes the concept of libertarianism.

As a postscript for those interested, here is one libertarian's view of the different kinds of libertarian in the US context:

"Illegal foods" – Amish urine?

Allen Small — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:01:00 +0000

I'm not even sure what "Four Loko" is. A new drink? Not that new apparently! It's sold in most of the 50 States and in Europe, but not Canada. I guess we are being protected by our various provincial alcohol regulators. In fact, it's not that easy to enter their website, try it here.

I feel so much safer, don't you? Below, ReasonTV makes its point .

Sound Money for Canada & Canadian Liberty Fest

Allen Small — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:32:00 +0000

I'm happy to announce that I am one of the organizers (not affiliated with my party) of the Canadian Liberty Fest, which promises to be one of the largest gatherings of libertarians and people interested in Austrian Economics in Canada. I'm hoping it will be an annual event, so here is your chance to be at the very first one. I will post a link as soon as we have one.
We already have some excellent speakers lined up, Stefan Molyneux among them, and there will be display areas, books for sale etc. from several liberty-minded groups, all for a very low price for the day - lunch included.

It will be centrally located in the heart of Toronto and attendance will be limited. Tickets will be on sale probably in early June. Stay tuned.

Thoughts on School Choice

Allen Small — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 19:31:00 +0000

Are you worshipping the wrong god? HAH2012!

Allen Small — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:49:00 +0000

If you are reading this, you should be quietly saluting the people on this list, from Ampere to Watt.

They were some of the people that changed the world.

They are some of the people that took humanity from the darkness, from poverty, from scarcity, from the cold, and slowly through their efforts, their discoveries and achievements, brought humanity into comfort, convenience, and global communication. So that you can now sit in front of your computer or tablet device and read this.

Those people made affluence accessible, so that even the poorest people in Canada have luxuries that royalty could not have imagined 100 years ago.

Yes, the planet is where we live, but it does not give us anything that we do not first take from it for ourselves.

There is no need to thank the planet. The god Gaia will kill you or support you, but that is entirely up to you, and Gaia doesn't care.

Thats right, we must actively build our homes, stock them with food, keep ourselves warm and dry, because the alternative is a short brutish existence. As the writer of this article suggests, nature is there to be visited, not worshipped.

Earth Hour is the celebration of ignorance, poverty, scarcity, pestilence, and it's distressingly political. Worse yet, it's the wrong kind of politics, read this.

Leave your lights on, and go see a movie tonight, because you can. HAH2012

The penny dropped…..

Allen Small — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:01:00 +0000

Or should I say the penny was dropped in the 2012 Canadian Federal Budget, tabled March 29, 2012, the first by a majority Conservative government. The penny will be phased out this fall.

The idiomatic phrase "the penny dropped," literally means "I finally understand."

In this case, the Conservative government along with a slew of businesses that were lobbying them, finally understood that our money has devalued to such a great degree, that the penny was not only worthless as a currency, it cost more to make than it was worth.

Copper prices, like all commodities have experienced a boom, and copper is such a useful and important metal, governments have long ceased using it as coinage. The Canadian Mint last made pure copper pennies in 1996, a long time hold out.

In the US that happened in 1943, but they made bronze pennies up until 1982.

Canadian pennies are now made of copper plated steel with a bit of nickel, and US pennies are copper plated zinc.

The graph seen here, illustrates what has happened to the value of the Canadian fiat dollar over a very short time, and therefore the penny, all of it in just part of my lifetime (graphs for US dollars are very similar).

A fiat dollar, like any fiat currency, is only worth something because a government regulation says it is.

Paper currency once upon at time, represented or was "backed by" some amount of a real metal, like gold or silver. The metals were too heavy to carry around, hence paper.

I can recall that the penny once had value. It took 3 pennies to buy a daily newspaper when I was a child in Toronto. Penny candy, was just that, candy that cost a penny or two.

Today, most people would not even stoop to pick up a lost penny on the ground. Most view pennies as an annoyance. What happened? Well, it's a long and complicated story, here is where you can start if you really want to find out.

Not only is this an end for an historic coin in Canada, but a large hole is left in Canadian English, though it may take years to phase out. My young grandson will grow-up and he will be mystified by phrases like:

Penny Pincher, penny wise and pound foolish, pretty penny, penny for your thoughts, a penny saved is a penny earned, without two pennies to rub together, penny ante poker, and on and on. Here is an interesting article. It's a sad day.

Ontario Budget 2012 – Austerity?

Allen Small — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:20:00 +0000

Cuts? Not so deep really, they should have been different cuts, but the Liberals just don't get it yet.

The Ontario Budget released March 27, 2012, mostly affected the one million or so public sector workers in Ontario's government. Thats a lot of voters and their families to antagonize, and believe me they are voters.

All the public sector unions are gearing up for the election battle to come. It may not be for a year or so, but it will happen sooner than later.

For the public sector employees, the Liberal budget has frozen salaries, grid moves, pensions and these things are definitely going to happen, for sure, because they said so.....or else.

The Ontario PC's have already decided they will not support the budget. I'm not certain why, the budget calls for less spending than the PC's wanted in the recent election. So it sort of looks like a start toward fiscal sanity, maybe.

That puts the ball in the court of the NDP, who seem to be non-commital, they will let the people decide. Right. You may have your say by contacting the NDP, and giving them an earful. It's a good publicity ploy anyway. Some time next week they will say: "you know, nobody really wants another election." They will hold their noses and vote with the Liberals to pass this thing, OR maybe just "sick out" a few MPP's (just three sickies are required I think). But they need to somehow court the public sector unions for the inevitable election fight. I'll let them worry on that.

Meanwhile the Liberals will keep their pet projects, all day kindergarten, subsidized but GREEN power generation, build more and larger LCBO stores to better monopolize the market for booze, and they are getting deeper into the gaming industry.

These are effectively additional taxes. Why? Because many people drink liquor, beer or wine, and the markup is high because the government has a monopoly. Think of it like a tax on bad habits.

Similarly, more casinos in more populated parts of the province will fleece the gamblers, increasing the odds of taxing the stupid. I will include myself in that group, because I do buy the odd lottery ticket, really stupid.

This neat little graphic at the Globe & Mail, shows how the deficit will deplete (they hope), and how the cuts help the decrease and the added revenues help too.

The video and text below it, represents my 5 minute response to this budget.

Ontario is in financial trouble, that's according to the proposed budget tabled yesterday by Finance Minister Dwight Duncan.

Less than six months ago, during the provincial elections, none of the major parties made the debt or deficit an important issue.

No one but us, the Ontario Libertarian Party; the record is there for everyone to see.

Ontario didn't get into trouble in just six months. This trouble has been building for decades and was greatly aggravated in recent years.

The Liberals have doubled the Provincial debt and deficit since coming to power in 2003, doubled in less than nine years.

Finance Minister Duncan blames the global recession, and the stimulus spending, that the government chose to do, for creating the current problem.

But the spending problem began in their first budget, well before the recession. The Liberals raised taxes, pulling more money out of the pockets of families, and increased government spending.

Their spending problem was aggravated by an economic slowdown and a reduction in government income.

So, what if your family runs up a large credit card bill during hard times? Would you continue spending lavishly, or consider cutting back on some frills? Would you decide to take on more services, or consider doing with less, and paying off your debt?

I’m not the only one criticizing the Liberals; their own people have been their greatest critics.

The provincial Auditor General in his last report pointed to excessive spending and poor management in adding heavily subsidized wind turbines and solar panels to everyone’s electricity bill, and also increasing government debt.

Don Drummond, in his recent report on reforming the public service, echoed the Auditor’s criticism, and came up with 362 recommendations to balance the budget or the deficit would balloon to $30 billion in five years.

To add to the criticism, Moody's, a financial rating agency warned Ontario that it's credit rating would be in jeopardy if its lavish spending habits don't change.

And what does balancing the budget actually mean? To compare it to your family credit card bill again, it means just making the minimum payments without paying back what is owed. And worse, the government has said it won’t balance the budget for another five years, so debts will continue to increase.

So, what have the McGuinty Liberals done in this budget? They have decided use the coercive powers of government to freeze the salaries of all public sector employees. The public sector will take the brunt of the cuts, in salaries and pensions, but many of the items recommended by the Drummond Report were ignored.

Many of the frills are still in place and the government has chosen to increase its income by doing things like building more and larger LCBO stores, and more casinos, both of which act like taxes on consumers.

The budget does not address the debt. Servicing the massive debt is Ontario's third largest annual expense, and that assumes that interest rates will remain low.

The Liberals have also cancelled a proposed cut in corporate taxes.

Libertarians would not cancel the cut in corporate taxes.

We believe that jurisdictions that have the low corporate tax rates attract more business and industry. These will create real jobs that would ultimately improve Ontario’s economy.

Libertarians would choose to eliminate or amalgamate entire ministries and many agencies that provide little or no value to the province, and where the free market could do a far better job.

We all want Ontario to be the best place to live, I’m sure that is true of the government. I believe that their intentions are good, however, sometimes-good intentions have very bad results.

This is what has happened here. The government has a spending problem that it does not want to admit; I have no confidence in this budget solving that problem. I believe its time to change the government.

Phasing out of entitlements

Allen Small — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:34:00 +0000

It's hard for people who think that government is the solution to all that ails us, to imagine what things would be like if the government just protected your natural rights.

In the video above, Yaron Brook explains why people will need to come to grips with the coming crisis in entitlement payments. This issue is already affecting some European countries, notably Greece. But its will affect Americans and Canadians in due course, Brook explains why Americans will be affected.

In Canada the difference is just in degree, it will affect Canadians, and in many ways is now, because our medical care system is already being rationed. Brook offers some general solutions that will solve the problems in an orderly way.

Regulating the price of gasoline in a free market

Allen Small — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:00 +0000

Everyone has a theory to explain the fluctuating and rising price of gasoline. But considering ALL the factors that influence the price, it's virtually impossible to actually come to a simple answer. But the simplest answers are often the ones that most people discount.

What if there were a free market in Oil and Gas?
What if the price of oil and gas were entirely dependent on supply and demand?
What if all taxes were removed from the price of oil and gas?
What if road construction and repair was entirely financed by the users through tolls?
What if oil companies were actually allowed to find new oil reserves on government lands that are excluded from the search?
How might things change?
Check out this very interesting column by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post.

The Reason Rally 2012

Allen Small — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:33:00 +0000

There may have been some "non-human" animals at this march, but I'm sure they were treated well.

Sunshine, lolipops and Ornge

Allen Small — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:35:00 +0000

No, that's not a spelling error in the title; this posting is about Ornge, the Ontario government's pet air ambulance service, and government spending in general.

An air ambulance service, like any other service, is a business. There is a business model for the company, there are employees, equipment, management, in fact all the things that businesses are required to do to offer good service, and still try to make a profit. In the real world of business there are also competitors that might offer the very same service. In that same real world, customers, people that need or want to use that service have choices. Customers often choose the company that offers the best service at the most affordable price. In this way, the business practices, salaries, and profits of companies are best regulated by the free market.

Yes, its true, that unfortunate moment you personally may need an air ambulance, will likely not be the best time to shop around for one. But a regional trauma centre or hospital, if allowed, and on behalf of its patients, might be able to contract an air ambulance service from a list of available competitors. Presumably the hospital would choose the most reliable and affordable transport methods to serve its needs, including air ambulance, to best serve potential patients/customers.

But not on Ontario!

In Ontario one person and a staff, are charged with the task of selecting THE air ambulance service for everyone, in fact overseeing the entire health care system.

Currently that person is Deb Matthews, the Minister of Health and Long term Care. Here is the overview for this Ministry from the government website: The ministry is responsible for administering the health care system and providing services to the Ontario public through such programs as health insurance, drug benefits, assistive devices, care for the mentally ill, long-term care, home care, community and public health, and health promotion and disease prevention. It also regulates hospitals and nursing homes, operates psychiatric hospitals and medical laboratories, and co-ordinates emergency health services. And of course Ornge. This is a daunting task to be sure. Imagine, this Minister, and her staff are responsible for seeing to the medical needs, wishes, and desires of everyone, everyone in the province; there is no other choice, if its medical, its them. That is a weighty responsibility, I would have trouble sleeping.

Let me stay focussed on Ornge. Ornge has been in the news lately, not surprisingly when there is only one such service available, with no competition to regulate their business practices, there may be a tendency toward corruption. Ornge is a classic case, if you don't know the story read this, and this.

In a few days the budget for the Province of Ontario will be made public. Just six weeks ago, the Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services (Drummond Report) was made public. The Drummond Report recommended 362 ways, that Ontario's spendthrift McGuinty Liberal government, might curtail spending, and balance its budget by 2018.

I say spendthrift because the release of Ontario's "$100,000 per year club" shows that members of this vaunted Sunshine List has increased by 10% in one year, this, while the drones of the public sector have had their salaries frozen. The Liberals have no control on spending. Why should they? It's not their money to begin with, they don't care.

Back to Ornge for a moment, just to show how corrupt it had become, the former CEO Chris Mazza was fired in February 2012, when it was discovered he made $1.4 million in 2011 and he wasn't even on the Sunshine List last year.

What is the moral of this story? First, no single person or group best knows how to care for your medical (or any) needs, and second, when they try, they invariably screw up.

Housing crisis….Coming to Canada soon?

Allen Small — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:21:00 +0000

Maybe. But this video proves that one man's castle is another man's dump. Some dump! I wish I lived in one of those dumps.

HomeSchooling? Real competition for government run schools

Allen Small — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:01:00 +0000

The graphic below is from an American homeschooling organization. It seems to be a direct response to the perceived inadequacies of American State and local government school systems. I'm not aware of any Canadian analogues, but if you know of one please post in the comments below.

Created by: College At Home

The real and painful effects of Climate Change on Ontario Part 2

Allen Small — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:05:00 +0000

In my last posting I discussed the erroneous prediction made by a consensus of weather forecasters from across North America for the winter of 2011 - 12.

Suppose you were a retailer in Ontario this past winter and you actually took seriously the prediction that the winter was going to be brutal, cold, and snowy. You acted on that prediction and pre-ordered extra snow blowers, shovels, snow-boots and other wintry paraphernalia. The erroneous predictions were based on computer models used by forecasters. Now your decision has left your business with a surfeit of winter stock and a cash flow problem. Too much cash is tied up in too much stock, and not enough cash is on hand to restock for the new season.

That very situation may have played out for retailers recently. Should they liquidate the excess stock at fire-sale prices and accept losses, or hold it until next winter while borrowing money for the new season? What to do?

This problem of course is mostly confined to the retailers, wholesalers and their employees. It is a risk of doing business. The general public may be advantaged by the potential fire-sale prices, but presumably they will not be affected by the problem because those businesses operate mostly in a free and voluntary market.

Unfortunately that is not the case with regard to the production of electricity in Ontario. The government of Ontario operates Ontario Power Generation (OPG) as a near monopoly for the production of electricity in Ontario.

When the McGuinty Liberals became the government in 2003, they completely accepted the United Nations IPCC forecasts for future catastrophic global warming (AGW) due to "excessive" carbon dioxide gas (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels. These forecasts were determined by a consensus of researchers using long range computer models and data that was collected.

Despite our normally cold winters and comparatively meagre population, Premier McGuinty's government ordered the shut down of most of the coal burning power generation stations in the Ontario. The purpose was to replace these low cost electricity producers with alternative high cost wind, and solar generators that do not produce CO2 (that was key). The McGuinty Liberals even offered inducements (FIT and MicroFIT) to landowners to construct these generators on their properties across the province. It worked, OPG now produces less and less electricity though the price of production continues to increase because of the high cost producers. Check out this recent column which details what is happening.

So, much like my hypothetical retail story above, and based on long range climate predictions that may or may not be correct, the McGuinty Liberals have made a decision that affects all Ontario consumers now, and into the foreseeable future. It wouldn't be so bad if we had the choice today of opting out, but that's not the way things work in Ontario. Unless you are self-sufficient in electricity production, you are paying more and more because of McGuinty's actions and that trend will continue.

Interestingly the IPCC's predictions of five years ago can now be compared to reality. That is what the graph below shows.

The graph is taken from here. The graph's author contends that while the climate is currently warming slightly, there are other cycles unrelated to CO2 that cause variability. The blue area denotes the range of the variable cycles, the red and blue line denotes actual data, and the green area shows the IPCC 2007 projections for temperature. The yellow line shows the author's projections based on his theory (which is more in agreement with the real data).
It's a bit more complicated than that, but that is the gist of the graph. There is now a divergence between the real data and the IPCC projection that may increase with time. If it does, it just confirms my case that the McGuinty Liberals have acted prematurely and rashly. Ontario will suffer real economic pain from global warming, whether AGW is real or not. And because there is no free market in electricity production, we have all been coerced into this situation.

You might be asking how can I be certain that the McGuinty Liberals are assuming that CO2 is the cause of climate change? Watch this short video:

Is there any doubt now? The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, the Provinces' INDEPENDENT watchdog for environmental issues, has no doubt! Did he sound independent? Can you imagine a more bullshit job than this in government?

If you want more information about how your Ontario government is wasting tax revenues and borrowed money go here.

The real and painful effects of Climate Change on Ontario Part 1

Allen Small — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 23:00:00 +0000

The snowdrops and crocuses are blooming in my yard, weeks earlier than I've ever seen them. It has been a strange winter. Normally, the park abutting my yard is covered in snow from December through to March, even longer some years. This year it has been winter green, punctuated by brief periods of whiteness that melt in just days. There were no extended cold spells, I mean really cold spells, where it hurts just to be outside for too long. The local pond near my house, never did freeze up for skating.

Predictions for the winter of 2011-12 were way off (see picture above). Most weather offices predicted this winter was to be colder and snowier than usual, they predicted a winter of yesteryear. It didn't happen. So much for long range predictions.

This may be the mildest winter in my memory, I know we're not done yet, but how bad can it get at this point?

Apparently winter was absent from much of the country according to the latest issue of MacLean's (The year that winter died, March 26/12). They viewed it as a concern. What if there are no more backyard hockey rinks? Where will we nurture our future Gretzky's and Crosby's? Oh woe is Canada, what will happen to our national identity, hockey? Despite that, no one around here is complaining, quite the contrary.

Why was everyone so wrong? Weather people are blaming (thanking?) something called the Arctic Oscillation for this anomalous winter behaviour. Indeed winter was brutal in some places, ask the Europeans. Much of Europe and Asia was gripped in the kind of weather we expect here.

Of course one winter, does not a trend make, so I'm not selling my snow shovels or snow tires yet. But I am convinced that winters around here are getting milder, and have been for some time. How do I know? It's not that I keep meticulous records and can recall past winters, its that I can see evidence in the plants and animals of southern Ontario. I have seen changes, subtle changes in the indigenous wildlife, for example: Turkey Vultures were once rare visitors this far north. No longer, they now range into Central Ontario (that video link is a clue as to how rare they were) each summer, they regularly soar over my town near Toronto, and have done for years now. Opossums, once rarely seen in the Toronto area, are now becoming a nuisance and can be found north into Central Ontario. Robins are found year-round in Central Ontario, and this year tree pollen was detected in Pittsburg in February, earliest ever. Yes, these are subtle changes, and the truth is change has always occurred. This area was once covered by a continental ice sheet, and my house is just south of a large moraine leftover by the glacier's retreat.

There is nothing painful about these changes, they are easy to adapt to. Even the temperature changes are on average minor. Next year is libel to be as cold, snowy and as bad, as the winter of 2008 - 09.

What I found remarkable this winter were the lack of claims by the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd that our strange weather is a direct result of what they call "carbon pollution." They have been strangely quite. It may be because they have been embarrased, like here. Or because the theory of AGW caused by greenhouse gas emissions is falling into disrepute, as more and more scientists support the theory less and less like here. Its clear that the dire predictions of the IPCC are not in line with reality (see graphic below).

This graphic comes from an article published in Forbes magazine, where Warren Meyer compares the AGW theory with observations, and finds the theory to be alarmist and unrealistic. Meyer does not dispute the warming or even the possible insignificant impact of CO2, he just argues that the predictive models are hyped far in excess of the actual observed data. That alone should be enough to sink any theoretical model, but this theory, like a zombie seems to cling to life.

Here is where the problem occurs. Belief in that theory and the actions taken as a direct result of it, has caused and will continue to cause the people of Ontario unnecessary grief and expense. The real and painful effects of an erroneous theory are right now taking their toll on the economic freedom of all Ontarian's.

"Liberty is not Intuitive" – John Stossel

Allen Small — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:16:00 +0000

Things are changing.......

Preaching to the choir is not challenging

Allen Small — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:10:00 +0000

Do you ever ask yourself what would you be doing if it weren't for the internet? Something useful maybe eh?

If you use Facebook, then you know its another way that the whole internet thing steals time. But you will also know, and I'm not exaggerating, that Facebook and the other social networking tools, are changing the world in ways we can't yet imagine.

What would be the state of the libertarian movement were it not for these tools? Would there be such a movement? I doubt it, at least not to the same extent. With Facebook I can interact with libertarians around the world, sharing thoughts, ideas, stories, pictures, you name it, and do it in real or delayed time, it's absolutely remarkable. That's the good news about these tools, and the bad. Bad, yes bad? Most of my "Facebook friends" are libertarians or liberty-minded, we form little groups and cliques where we share common likes and dislikes among ourselves, just like in the real world. By and large we have common views on many issues, and any discussions while lively, are frequently philosophical in nature and minor in the bigger picture. We are preaching to each other much of the time, and that's fine. We humans crave re-enforcement of our ideas and we do that a lot on the social networks.

I use the internet mostly to peddle ideas. But to be most effective its best to get into a group which is not homogeneous and not necessarily in line with my thinking even though that can be uncomfortable.

Below I have taken a comment from a Facebook thread that dealt with the cartoon you see above. Most libertarians with some knowledge of Austrian economics, like me, look at that cartoon and will agree that shifting the burden of taxes from individuals to corporations doesn't really lift the burden of taxation, it just shifts it. It may not be exactly as indicated in the cartoon, but corporations don't pay tax to their own detriment, they just add the tax to their cost of doing business, and we all end up paying more. Government spending requires tax revenue, everyone agrees with that. So the discussion on my non-homogeneous Facebook group revolved around this issue, and one person, let's call him James, who wrote the following:

"Alright. Where does the money come from? The consumer wants their social benefits. The consumer wants their pension plan. The consumer wants green jobs which only can come with government subsidization. The consumer wants unlimited free healthcare with a low wait time. The consumer wants state day care programs.

Well guess what, all those programs cost a lot of money. It's either cut those programs or raise business taxes. I've been in small business literally all my life, and I am pro small business. At the same time, the same politicians who advocate on a stronger economy don't have the balls to cut social programs relentlessly so that business' can actually work efficiently. Large corporations will not be hurt by tax increases, there's always ways around it - I work in that industry. Will it be passed on to the consumer? Not really. Prices will stay marginally the same as business' find new ways to stay competitive. This means firing a few people and keeping the innovative ones to find ways of keeping the bottom line strong. So, like minimum wage, more taxation will probably mean a few people could potentially be cut.

I'm not for raising corporate taxes as corporations provide jobs. What I am all for is raising taxes on the bracket of tax payers who make 1m or more, at least in the US (where the rate is at its lowest in 50 years). Basically the government raising taxes on business' is a spineless move. Politicians don't want to lose votes of a majority of society who will complain when they make social programs more efficient through cost benefit analysis, so they raise taxes instead.

At the same time, the massive government programs we have provide a great deal of work to the private sector, so cutting those programs will have a backlash to.

As I said, more complicated than this. This comic is actually more incorrect than correct. Why? Because the alternative is to cut social programs which will see a lot of government workers without a pay cheque which will lower their purchasing power affecting all small business. No matter what the government does to cut the debt, it will affect the consumer most likely negatively. Why? The last 40 years we mortgaged the future, and now our interest and principal are due."

Its difficult to respond to comments like that from a free market viewpoint with short pithy retorts. This person has practical knowledge of business economics, the implications of tax cuts, and the popularity of entitlement programs. So where to start?

In the first paragraph James outlines "consumer wants." The fact is consumers want many things, fortunately not all of them are provided by government, unfortunately many are. So my first issue is why is government involved in, pensions, green jobs, healthcare and daycare? Can government do a better job providing these services than the free market? If that were true than why doesn't government provide ALL of our needs? One of the reasons that doesn't happen is that consumers also prefer choices. Government rarely offers choice and almost always creates monopoly situations. In fact government does nothing better than the free market in my experience. But James is correct, money for these services must come from somewhere or the services must be cut. Politicians are reluctant (James says: "spineless") to make the cuts so they either raise taxes or worse, borrow the money. In either case, the economic freedom of citizens is affected.

But where I disagree most with James is his contention that: "the massive government programs we have, provide a great deal of work to the private sector." Is that true? It is, if only one side of the story is examined. Look at the government monopoly in healthcare. Government together with various professional organizations agree on a compensation packages. The government takes on the responsibility of payment. The private professional organizations regard the government treasury as a bottomless pit. The government arrangement eliminates free market competition between the various healthcare providers, and as a result costs always go up in healthcare.

The bottomless pit characterization holds true in many areas. Whenever government puts out tenders for construction or any sort of purchase, they may accept the lowest bid, but the bidders know who they are dealing with. Not to mention that virtually every government worker is ensconced in a labour union, and their demands depend on the bottomless pit idea too. It's no wonder that government workers have some of the most generous compensation packages around. No one asks why should the unions be the sole providers for government services?

So yes its true, lots of work for the private sector, but are we getting the best value for the money spent? This avoids the moral question, is it reasonable to make everyone pay for services that they may not even use? Governments create uncompetitive, overpriced, over regulated services that everyone pays for whether they use the service or not. The entire process depends on coercion administered by government and mostly unchallenged by citizens. At some point, the citizens will wise up. I hope it happens soon. There will be short term pain, yes, but all successful surgeries require healing.

The Cato Institute?

Allen Small — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:08:00 +0000

The Cato Institute needs to be an independent, APOLITICAL, libertarian, think tank. I hope it stays that way.
The Koch brothers have launched an extraordinary campaign to take control of America’s most respected libertarian think tank. Will they destroy it?

Signs of Hope & Change 3

Allen Small — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:03:00 +0000

This month marks the beginning of my fourth year blogging online. I have over 500 blog posts, coming up to 41,000 page-views, and I'm still learning how to use this wonderful tool.

Why bother? Only because I believe, perhaps naively, that I can make a difference, I can help change things for the better. That's why I've jumped into politics after spending most of my life being apolitical.

Politicians and their antics seem to dominate the news media in North America. While I haven't done a survey, I'm sure that's true. Even though I've become political, I don't really want to be in the news, I just think our lives have been manipulated by political agendas for far too long, and that has damaged individuals and society as a whole. There needs to be a counteracting force.

The world is run by busybodies that inhabit various political offices, legislative assemblies, parliaments and congresses. To justify their own existence, these political entities are forever busy dreaming up new legislation that almost always adds to the cost and size of government, while at the same time removing money, freedoms and responsibilities from individuals.

Most interesting to me is that with all the political shenanigans that have gone on and are going on, very few if any of them have an impact on improving our lives, our living conditions, or anything else of value. On the contrary, think about it, when was the last time a political decision had a significant positive impact on your life?

But our lives have improved despite governments, how? Peter Diamandis explains in the TED video below that things are getting better. If you have heard of the X-Prize, then you may know Dr. Diamandis. The X-Prize, does what governments around the world notoriously appose, it incentivizes human competition, governments of course, do the opposite. The X-Prize leverages the human mind and the free market and gives us all reason to be optimistic and hope for better things.

Political Irrationality

Allen Small — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:20:00 +0000

Are you politically irrational? In the TED video below, Michael Huemer points out two of the more glaring politically irrational policies that exist in the present day United States. These policies exist in most Western societies to some degree, Canada is no exception. Libertarians will agree that BOTH of the examples that Huemer uses are indeed irrational. Conservatives will agree with one of them, Socialists will likely agree with the other one.

I know generalizations are dangerous, but Huemer does suggest that a different group of people may agree with one or the other. For those of you that don't understand libertarianism, maybe those examples will help?

Huemer goes on to suggest that the reason policies are often irrational, is because most people are politically ignorant. In my experience that is a fundamental truth of politics. I think Huemer gives a good explanation and then he surveys his audience to validate his explanation.

Huemer then goes on to explain why people are irrational. Being rational is costly, his first point. People will be rational if they believe the rewards exceed the cost, but most people understand that they have just one vote to affect change. So why bother thinking rationally? At this point, Huemer suggests that its easy to persuade most people, that most people are irrational about politics, absolutely true.

So why do we need people to be rational about politics? Well, you should watch the video, he seems to spend the least time on that, but it's the most important point in the story.

Stossel at Students for Liberty

Allen Small — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:40:00 +0000

In this video clip, John Stossel explains that he has discovered that liberal progressives are closed minded and impossible to talk to, with respect to liberty compared to social conservatives. I happen to agree, having experienced the same thing.
Nick Gillespie offers hope.

Gay marriage, soon to be everywhere.

Allen Small — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:06:00 +0000

Maybe they are? Whose business is it?

North American Public Transit still sucks

Allen Small — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:55:00 +0000

In Toronto, the "transit wars" are ongoing.
Once upon a time ago, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), was the envy of North America, clean, efficient, and accident free by comparison with American cities. That was back in the 1970's, American cities were rotting, from racial strife, urban flight, and other things. The rot had not yet reached Canada. That kind of rot still has not affected Canadian cities, the rot in Canada, is caused by other things, almost all of them to do with government at some level.

Most urban dwellers in Canada see public transit as strictly a government responsibility. Of course it should not be so, I have written about this before, for example here. The issue of public transit has become wrapped up in environmental issues like, urban sprawl, greenhouse gas emissions etc. Both politicians and the voters they pander to, believe that there are too many cars, or rather too many people using cars. So they go out of there way to make it more and more difficult to use cars and therefore encourage the use of public transit. Unfortunately most people, myself included, would rather avoid the deteriorating transit system. I have no need to be treated like a herd animal in a subway car, thats a common view. If transit were better, I and others might change that view, but for now the car is my preferred choice.

Add all that together in Toronto, and the result is a city with one of the worst commute times in the world. A recently elected Mayor in Toronto believes that the answer is subways, lots of them. To put it bluntly this Mayor suffers from tunnel vision. Unfortunately subways are very costly in a time of austerity everywhere, and in Toronto the population densities do not warrant the expense. it's a bad idea all-round, and additional government debt or yet more taxes will not make things better.

So what to do? Here is an American look at the same problem, and something we should think about:

What if it was all true?

Allen Small — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:11:00 +0000

In a recent posting I commented on the abrupt cancellation of Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch. There may have been many reasons, or just one, it doesn't really matter.

FOX NEWS owns the broadcast facilities that carried Freedom Watch, so I won't argue that they have the right to assert their ownership. Of course they do.

Andrew Napolitano deserves credit for having huge cojones, as you can see and hear in his rant below.

Do I wish there was a Canadian equivalent? Everyday!

You may be one of the 900,000 plus viewers to watch the following YouTube clip which may be why Napolitano was fired, but certainly shows a man with the courage of his convictions, and I believe what he says IS all true.

Junk food Jury COMING SOON

Allen Small — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:37:00 +0000

It's an Orwellian world when food can be redefined as being pathogenic - causing disease. But that's exactly what three experts from Alberta (of all places) advocate. They are redefining what we normally consider as "junk food" and calling it disease causing, not unlike having the action of viruses or bacteria.

Here is a quote from the story in the National Post: "It's really just a nomenclature to attract attention to the fact we have a problem here and something needs to be done about it," said Dr. Norm Campbell, a University of Calgary cardiologist and co-author of the paper. "It will hopefully ... result in an evolution of our food so it's again a source of health, not a source of disease."

Dr. Campbell thinks that government should be regulating the kind of food Canadians eat. He compares this to regulating highway speed limits or air traffic which he says are government interventions that Canadians tolerate. Campbell goes on: "Why regulate crime? 'Oh, it's a murder, they shouldn't be allowed a second chance.' Well, the food industry kills many thousands more than that murderer ever had a hope of doing."

I know, there are still many weeks until April 1st, but this is true, no kidding. I guess Dr. Campbell did not consider how many more people might die IF, there was no food industry. It's a broad and unfair accusation. It's exactly the same as saying the manufacturers of military equipment are guilty of the deaths caused by their products. Wait, don't bother writing to argue that one, I won't print it. It's simply not true.

Campbell's statement is just inflammatory, and amounts to posturing for the media. Driving on a highway and flying in an airplane are voluntary activities and regulation is required and accepted by the owners of cars, highways, and airplanes. Eating is not voluntary, it must be done to live. How is this similar? Who owns your body?

The Post story goes on to recall an article in last year's Journal of the American Medical Association that suggested some obese children be taken from their parents temporarily by child-welfare officials, and a more recent article in Nature that suggested age limits be required for the purchase of sugary soft drinks. Maybe a license should be required for having children? Oh, sorry, you say don't give them ideas, right.

Of course eating any kind of heavily processed food ALL the time, is probably not a good idea, though I have never seen compelling evidence that shows a direct correlation between 'hamburger - fries' consumption and longevity.

The scientific paper by the Albertans published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology does "not make clear" the role of junk food "in diseases ranging from heart disease to high blood pressure and diabetes." But the paper "recommends labelling ingredients such as saturated and trans fats, sodium and simple sugars as pathogens when their volume exceeds what the body needs." Hmmmm, volume exceeds the bodies needs, eh? I recall this horrible chemical, known to kill thousands, either alone or in groups. It's the volume of this stuff that does the killing, maybe it too should be labelled. I'm talking about the dread chemical, dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO), better know as water, definitely a killer.

All kidding aside, knowledge of proper food consumption does not spring into our minds at birth. It must be taught and learned.

Our primitive ancestors ate what was available to them. If it grew from the soil, or crawled, walked, flew or swam, and was edible, it was eaten. It mattered little what was eaten, just that it was. Humans are omnivores, their diets are functions of their environment and as diverse. Our primitive ancestors adapted to what was available and so did their bodies. They needed no knowledge, and no labelling, to advise them. What regulated their diet? Was it tribal rules, pronouncements by the experts? No, their diet was controlled by scarcity.

Abundance, the lack of scarcity, is the problem today and that's only true in parts of the world. Here in North America, abundance, convenience, laziness, and marketing have conspired on our population to create the so-called obesity epidemic. Do you really think someone biting into a Krispy Kreme donut is starving, or are they doing it just for the momentary bliss? That person might have chosen an apple, a carrot, but did not. It was choice. Do you think advising people of the fat and salt content of the donut will discourage the choice? Maybe, but must Big Brother supervise this, or can it be done with education? Should we also build barricades to keep people from jumping into road traffic, and nets to keep them from falling out of building windows? No, these things are taught and learned, and so to can proper diet be taught and learned. Even medical people will agree that a diet of junk food is tolerable if not desirable for an extended time. It's the AMOUNT of food consumed that is the problem. Should government also be regulating caloric intake? Is food rationing next?

Each expert that benignly suggests a new government regulation, forgets that a new bureaucracy needs to be created to enforce it. An on going expense is assured that creates a divot on the turf of the Canadian economy, sucking from the general treasury. This is how government grows and responsibilities are shifted from individuals to the collective. The end does not justify the means.

There are plenty of voluntary organizations that can and should use their resources to help educate the masses. Much as Lung Associations and Cancer Societies have and still are, railing against smoking, Heart and Stroke organizations can fight poor diet. Let people be responsible for themselves as much as possible.

Family sinking in debt? We told you so.

Allen Small — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:28:00 +0000

Suppose that nine years ago your family began a spending spree. There was no pressing need to do this, in fact, your family already had significant debt, but interest rates were low and you expected them to remain so. Your income was stable, and you expected it to grow over time, that way your debt would be manageable and your family would enjoy a better lifestyle.

Year after year, family spending increased and debt accumulated, your income was stable but economic conditions actually worsened. Your hopes for increased income did not materialize, but interest rates were even lower now, so debt was still manageable, though rising quickly.

Even with historically low interest rates, payments on the debt were becoming a significant portion of your monthly expenses and that was a worry. Family spending had almost doubled, so had the debt compared to nine years earlier. You needed help, so you hired a financial expert, to point out where cuts in spending could be made.

Sound familiar? Unfortunately that story is not that uncommon among Canadian families, many don't know better, and were/are enticed by the low interest rate environment. But when that story can be superimposed over the government of the Province of Ontario, which has expertise, and smart people who should know better, you begin to wonder.

This week the long awaited Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services, tabled its 540 page report. The very size of the report of course, is directly related to the size of the public service, its big, way too big. The comments in the next day's newspapers about tough medicine, drastic cuts, and grim diagnosis, makes it sound like spending restraint itself is the evil.

No, what is evil is reckless spending, that's what the Liberals in Ontario have been guilty of since coming to power in 2003. They have steered the Province into a rock and the ship of state is sinking in debt, unless spending is curtailed now. Essentially that is the message of Don Drummond who chaired the creation of the aforementioned report.

This issue of reckless spending was not a concern of the major opposition parties or the government during the General Election less than five months ago. Why not? Was it not clear as day that the course set by the government would lead to trouble? Where were the supposed fiscally responsible Conservatives? Did they not see the rocks ahead? Hard to believe.

There was one party that made this issue, the issue of spending and debt, the central theme of its campaign last October, the Ontario Libertarian Party. For example, the video that can be seen here, points directly to the problem and asks the important question: how much better off are citizens today with all the additional spending? Obviously not better off, in fact there is a problem and it's getting worse.

Mr. Drummond's report is barely a first step, but at least it's an acknowledgement of the problem, so that is a positive. The document itself contains 362 recommendations, almost one a day for a year. In the report, Drummond suggests that it needs to be enacted in its entirety, not just selecting some items and leaving others. The Liberals have already pronounced on that, they won't do it.

Drummond's mandate was to find a way to balance the budget. I repeat balance the budget. That does not mean reduce the debt, no sir. That means, just stop making the debt BIGGER. In government jargon that means eliminate the deficit by the 2017-18 year. That also means the debt continues to grow for the next 5 years. Citizens will continue to service the debt, which is now a significant portion of the annual budget, and everyone hopes interest rates stay at historic lows (not likely). The Drummond Report is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, of what the Ontario government needs to do (apologies to Churchill) in order to create the conditions for a prosperous future Ontario.

The Bright Libertarian: Toward a sensible policy on prohibited drugs

Allen Small — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:44:00 +0000

The Bright Libertarian: Toward a sensible policy on prohibited drugs http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

How to win libertarian converts and influence voters

Allen Small — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:10:00 +0000

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.

Allen Small — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:28:00 +0000

"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…….

Allen Small — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:05:00 +0000

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

Allen Small — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:41:00 +0000

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

Allen Small — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:43:00 +0000

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.

Allen Small — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:52:00 +0000

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?"

Allen Small — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:27:00 +0000

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

Allen Small — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:13:00 +0000

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

Allen Small — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:18:00 +0000

Toward a sensible policy on prohibited drugs

Allen Small — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:55:00 +0000

"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 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

Allen Small — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:58:00 +0000

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

Signs of Hope & Change 1

Allen Small — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0000

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

Allen Small — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:12:00 +0000

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

Allen Small — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:52:00 +0000

‎
"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

Allen Small — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:44:00 +0000

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

Allen Small — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:06:00 +0000

"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….

Allen Small — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:07:00 +0000

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!

Allen Small — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:32:00 +0000

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.