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?    

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

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.

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.

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.     

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H/T Claude Lesperance

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

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

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

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

Over the years, libertarians have created a variety of different organizations each with its own niche (many you will find on this page). Some organizations specialize in economics, others in politics, still others in education. With the advent of the internet, access, popularity, and usage of these organizations has multiplied. One them, The Advocates for Self Government is concerned with the best practices for communicating the ideas of liberty. Many of you may be aware of the Nolan Chart which is at the centre of the World's Smallest Political Quiz, that is one of their tools. The Advocates have taken on the niche of persuasion by selling books, tapes and CDs, plus providing training. Over recent weeks I've been listening (mostly while driving) to a CD set titled The Essence of Political Persuasion and I've learned a great deal about using language to sell liberty, I recommend it. In it, there are several techniques, easily learned with practice, that can help anyone vary their own particular attempts at persuasion.

Its very difficult to sell the idea of liberty to people who are constantly told and who already believe that they have freedom. Governments routinely use their powers to usurp more and more of our personal responsibility, that's how they continue to grow. They have grown so large, and we are so inured to their presence now, that some freedoms are even considered to be destructive to our best interests. For example, as John Stossel suggested in a recent article that applies just as much to Canadians as Americans:
"Lots of Americans oppose free trade and free markets. It takes some knowledge to realize that the seeming chaos masks underlying order. The benefits of freedom are not intuitive, and when you go against people's intuition, they get upset.
The benefits of freedom are largely "unseen," as the 19th century French liberal Frederic Bastiat put it. He meant that rising living standards and labor-saving inventions don't appear to flow from freedom. But they do.
It's one of the ironies of life that people need not understand freedom for it to work, and because of this, there is the perennial danger that they will give it up without realizing the disastrous consequences that follow."

So this year I am determined to learn some new tricks of persuasion, and use them so that I can become as good a politician as I think I once was a teacher.

To all reading this, I wish you a Happy, Healthy, Prosperous 2012.

By the time the Jetsons cartoon series came to television in September 1962, I already had great anticipation for the future. Manned space flight was a reality after Yuri Gagarin's one orbit in April of 1961, then came Alan Shepard's flight weeks later.
The Jetsons' cartoon world showed freedoms and possibilities that were only heard of in the pages of Popular Science at the time. Mundane household tasks were carried out by robots, and as Jeffery Tucker writes:
"— people work only a few hours a day, travel at 500 miles per hour in flying cars that go as fast as 2,500 miles per hour, and the main job is "pushing buttons."
The galaxy is their home. Healthcare is a complete free market with extreme customer care. Technology was the best (but of course it still malfunctions, same as today). Business is rivalrous, prosperity is everywhere, and the state largely irrelevant except for the friendly policeman who shows up only every once in a while to check things out."

It's a Jetsons World from Mises Media on Vimeo.

Since the 2011-12 school year began, the Ontario Ministry of Education is "committed to making schools healthier places for students" after instituting Policy Memorandum 150. Parents are no longer fully responsible for what their children may or may not eat, the McGuinty Liberals have prescribed some fairly stringent rules about nutrition. How stringent? Well, in-school fundraisers like a weekly "pizza day" or the ubiquitous chocolate bar sales are now verboten.

The Ministry has divided up foods sold or served in schools into three categories:

1. Foods that can be sold or served at least 80% of the time or more.

2. Foods that can be sold or served 20% of the time or less.

3. Foods that must never be sold or served in school. 

The 80% or more category contains things like salad, vegetables, fruits, bread, pasta, cereal, meat, and fish as long as they all have low salt, low sugar, and  low fat content. So, pizza does not qualify because it has too much salt, and likely too much fat. Here is the multiple page appendix that stipulates the new nutrition standards in Ontario schools.

Of course proper nutrition makes sense. French fries and gravy, common lunchtime fare when I was a student, are not healthy foods to be eaten regularly. But is it the job of the school to teach this or should parents have final say? Why don't schools just concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing (and often not that well) and let parents make personal and societal decisions?

The problem whenever government uses legislation to engineer habits, is that the legislation always limits choices and often creates conflict that would not have occurred without the bad legislation. Government run public schools, where most students in Ontario are educated, already come with numerous limitations on parental freedom. Many wealthy parents vote with their feet to keep their children out of the government school system, but even that is undermined, because the Ministry prescribes the curriculum taught in ALL schools.

My cartoon, suggestive of a black market in illicit junk food, may seem a bit over-the-top, but is it really? In many school districts in the American states and elsewhere, the intrusive regulations we have adopted in Ontario, have already been field tested. A recent posting at LewRockwell.com (below) shows how black markets have sprung up in Public School cafeterias:

Though the Los Angeles Unified School District has received accolades for its new, healthful lunches, the appearance of quinoa and whole wheat bread has created “an underground market for chips, candy, fast-food burgers and other taboo fare.”
At Van Nuys High, a Junior ROTC officer and an art teacher have been caught selling candy, chips, and instant noodles to students. And, as Hank Cardello, the author of Stuffed: An Insider's Look at Who's (Really) Making America Fat, and a former food executive with Coca-Cola, General Mills, and Cadbury-Schweppes, pointed out in the Atlantic, candy dealers have sprouted up wherever fresh food is sold:

• Last week, Van Nuys High School juniors, Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez told the LA Times, they considered the new school fare "nasty, rotty stuff," as they pulled three bags of Flamin' Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks – which they very well may have purchased from one of the junk food “dealers” on campus.
• Following the passage of the Texas Public School Nutrition Policy, which banned candy, enterprising students at Austin High began selling bags full of candy at premium prices, with some reportedly making up to $200 per week.
• Similarly, young entrepreneurs at one Boca Raton (Florida) middle school make runs to the local Costco and buy candy bars, doughnuts, and other high-calorie snacks in bulk. They then offer these goodies for sale in an environment that has supposedly eradicated such goodies.
• An eighth-grade student body vice president in Connecticut was forced to resign after buying Skittles from an underground "dealer."
• The U.K. has also seen its share of black market trade in banned foods, snacks, and beverages, with schools in Oxford, Dorset, and Essex reporting healthy underground markets trading in food contraband. The plots ranged from kids selling McDonald's hamburgers in playgrounds to bicycle-riding entrepreneurs hauling bags of soft drinks and milk chocolate for sale.

New on the curriculum at the schools mentioned above and coming to Ontario schools is: "flouting the rules" and getting away with it. The children will learn early that dumb rules create a criminal class of entrepreneurs that operate in the shadows, a black market in junk food. Again the leviathan state does what it does best.

  

In the most recent Ontario general election voter turnout was at an historic low, only 49.2% of eligible voters actually bothered to cast their ballots. This was despite a concerted effort by Elections Ontario to make voting easier and more convenient than ever.

We are left with a report, which I believe is truthful, that should send citizens running into the streets screaming because they are literally being robbed, but that won't happen, not yet anyway. I will have more to say. 

Of course like all Western governments, in order to stay in power for as long as possible, they buy your votes, they spend "future wealth," wealth that has yet to be created. They assume, things will go merrily on as before, and their over spending will somehow have no effect on the wealth creators.  

As Mr. Jonas points out, the McGuinty Liberals in Ontario are a quarter-trillion dollars in the hole. How can that continue without consequences? Will they be held to account? Most importantly, how did we let that happen and can we prevent it from happening again?

Mr. Jonas doesn't say it, but the implication is there, its time to change the way we do government. Government should be there to protect citizens, not to protect the jobs of politicians.

Are you still operating under the delusion that the Occupy Movement is more than just an attempt by the self-identified, downtrodden 99% to redistribute the wealth of the 1%?

As I have suggested before, something is wrong, but the "fix" is so complicated, so knotted-up and entangled with crony capitalism and government regulation, that one needs to be a professor of economics to provide even a smidgeon of clarity. Reprinted below (with permission) is an attempt at providing clarity written by George Reisman, Ph.D., and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University. The article is long because the topic is complex, but well worth the effort of reading. A lively discussion with several opposing views appears here.

Putting aside the hyperbole in the movement’s claim, it is true that a relatively small minority of people does own the far greater part of the wealth of the country. The figures “one percent” and “ninety-nine” percent, however exaggerated, serve to place that fact in the strongest possible light.

What the protesters do not realize is that the wealth of the one percent provides the standard of living of the ninety-nine percent.

The protesters have no awareness of this, because they see the world through an intellectual lens that is inappropriate to life under capitalism and its market economy. They see a world, still present in some places, and present everywhere a few centuries ago, of self-sufficient farm families, each producing for its own consumption and having no essential connection to markets.

In such a world, if one sees a farmer’s field, or his barn, or plow, or draft animals, and asks who do these means of production serve, the answer is the farmer and his family, and no one else. In such a world, apart from the receipt of occasional charity from the owners, those who are not owners of means of production cannot benefit from means of production unless and until they themselves somehow become owners of means of production. They cannot benefit from other people’s means of production except by inheriting them or by seizing them.

In the world of the protesters, means of production have the same essential status as consumers’ goods, which as a rule are of benefit only to their owners. It is because of this that those who share the mentality of the protesters typically depict capitalists as fat men, whose plates are heaped high with food, while the masses of wage earners must live near starvation. According to this mentality, the redistribution of wealth is a matter merely of taking from the overflowing plates of the capitalists and giving to the starving workers.

Contrary to such beliefs, in the modern world in which we actually live, the wealth of the capitalists is simply not in the form of consumers’ goods to any great extent. Not only is it overwhelmingly in the form of means of production but those means of production are employed in the production of goods and services that are sold in the market. Totally unlike the conditions of self-sufficient farm families, the physical beneficiaries of the capitalists’ means of production are all the members of the general consuming public who buy the capitalists’ products.

For example, without owning so much as a single share of stock in General Motors or Exxon Mobil, everyone in a capitalist economy who buys the products of these firms benefits from their means of production: the buyer of a GM automobile benefits from the GM factory that produced that automobile; the buyer of Exxon’s gasoline benefits from its oil wells, pipelines, and tanker trucks. Furthermore, everyone benefits from their means of production who buys the products of the customers of GM or Exxon, insofar as their means of production indirectly contribute to the products of their customers. For example, the patrons of grocery stores whose goods are delivered in trucks made by GM or fueled by diesel oil produced in Exxon’s refineries are beneficiaries of the existence of GM’s truck factories and Exxon’s refineries. Even everyone who buys the products of the competitors of GM and Exxon, or of the customers of those competitors, benefits from the existence of GM’s and Exxon’s means of production. This is because GM’s and Exxon’s means of production result in a more abundant and thus lower-priced supply of the kind of goods the competitors sell.

In other words, all of us, one hundred percent of us, benefit from the wealth of the hated capitalists. We benefit without ourselves being capitalists, or being capitalists to any great extent. The protesters are literally kept alive on the foundation of the wealth of the capitalists they hate. As just indicated, the oil fields and pipelines of the hated Exxon corporation provide the fuel that powers the tractors and trucks that are essential to the production and delivery of the food the protesters eat. The protesters and all other haters of capitalists hate the foundations of their own existence.

The benefit of the capitalists’ means of production to non-owners of means of production extends not only to the buyers of the products of those means of production but also to the sellers of the labor that is employed to work with those means of production. The wealth of the capitalists, in other words, is the source both of the supply of products that non-owners of the means of production buy and of the demand for the labor that non-owners of the means of production sell. It follows that the larger the number and greater the wealth of the capitalists, the greater is both the supply of products and the demand for labor, and thus the lower are prices and the higher are wages, i.e., the higher is the standard of living of everyone. Nothing is more to the self-interest of the average person than to live in a society that is filled with multi-billionaire capitalists and their corporations, all busy using their vast wealth to produce the products he buys and to compete for the labor he sells.

Nevertheless, the world the protesters yearn for is a world from which the billionaire capitalists and their corporations have been banished, replaced by small, poor producers, who would not be significantly richer than they themselves are, which is to say, impoverished. They expect that in a world of such producers, producers who lack the capital required to produce very much of anything, let alone carry on the mass production of the technologically advanced products of modern capitalism, they will somehow be economically better off than they are now. Obviously, the protesters could not be more deluded.

In addition to not realizing that the wealth of the so-called one percent is the foundation of the standard of living of the so-called ninety-nine percent, what the protesters also do not realize is that the “greed” of those who seek to become part of the one percent, or to enlarge their position within it, is what serves progressively to improve the standard of living of the ninety-nine percent.

Of course, this does not apply to wealth which has been acquired by such means as obtaining government subsidies or preventing competition through protective tariffs and other forms of government intervention. These are methods which are made possible to the extent that the government is permitted to depart from a policy of strict laissez-faire and thereby arbitrarily reward or punish firms.

Apart from such aberrations, the way that business fortunes are accumulated is by means of the high profits generated by the introduction of new and improved products and more efficient, lower-cost methods of production, followed by the heavy saving and reinvestment of those high profits.

For example, the $6 billion fortune of the late Steve Jobs was built on a foundation of Mr. Jobs having made it possible for Apple Computer to introduce such new and improved products as the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, and then heavily saving and reinvesting the share of the profits that came to him.

Two closely related points need to be stressed. First, the fortunes that are accumulated in this way generally serve in the larger-scale production of the very sort of products that provided the profits out of which their accumulation took place. Thus, for example, Jobs’ billions serve largely in the production of Apple’s products. Similarly, old Henry Ford’s great personal fortune, earned on the foundation of introducing major improvements in the efficiency of automobile production, which brought down the price of a new automobile from about $10,000 at the beginning of the 20th Century to $300 in the mid 1920s, was used to make possible the production of millions of Ford automobiles.

Second, the high rates of profit earned on new and improved products and methods of production are temporary. As soon as the production of the new product or use of the new method of production becomes the norm in an industry, it no longer provides any exceptional profitability. Indeed, further improvements again and again render earlier improvements downright unprofitable. For example, the first generation of the iPhone, which was highly profitable just a few years ago, is or soon will be unprofitable, because further advances have rendered it obsolete.

As a result, the accumulation of great business fortunes generally requires the introduction of a series of improvements in products or methods of production. This is what is required to maintain a high rate of profit in the face of competition. For example, Intel’s ability to maintain its high rate of profit over the years has depended on its ability to introduce one substantial improvement in its computer chips after another. The net effect has been that computer users have gotten the benefit of improvement after improvement not only at no rise but a drastic decline in the prices of computer chips. Insofar as high profits rest on low costs of production, competition drives prices down to correspond to the lower level of costs, which necessitates the achievement of still further cost reductions to maintain high profits.

The same outcome, of course, applies not only to Intel and microprocessors but also to the rest of the computer industry, where gigabytes of memory and terabytes of hard drive data storage now sell at prices below the prices of megabytes of memory and hard drive data storage just a couple of decades ago. Indeed, if one knows how to look, the principle of ever more and better products for less and less applies throughout the economic system. It is present in the production of food, clothing, and shelter as well as in the high tech industries, and in virtually all industries in between.

It is present in these industries even though the government’s inflation of the money supply has caused the prices of their products to rise sharply over the years. Despite this, when calculated in terms of the amount of labor the average person must expend in order to earn the wages needed to enable him to buy these products, their prices have sharply fallen.

This can be seen in the fact that today, the average worker works 40 hours per week, while a worker of a century or so ago worked 60 hours a week. For the 40 hours he works, the average worker of today receives the goods and services comprising the average standard of living of 2011, which includes such things as an automobile, refrigerator, air conditioner, central heating, more and better living space, more and better food and clothing, modern medicine and dentistry, motion pictures, a computer, cell phone, television set, washer/dryer, microwave oven, and so on. The average worker of 1911 either did not have these things at all or had much less of them and of poorer quality.

If we describe the goods and services received by the average worker of today for his 40 hours of labor as being 10 times as great as those received by the average worker of 1911 for his 60 hours of labor, then it follows that expressed in terms of the amount of labor that needs to be performed today in order to be able to buy goods and services equivalent to the standard of living of 1911, prices have fallen to two-thirds of one-tenth of their level in 1911, i.e., to one-fifteenth of their level in 1911, which is to say, by 93 1/3 percent.

Capitalism—laissez-faire capitalism—is the ideal economic system. It is the embodiment of individual freedom and the pursuit of material self-interest. Its result is the progressive rise in the material well-being of all, manifested in lengthening life spans and ever improving standards of living.

The economic stagnation and decline, the problems of mass unemployment and growing poverty experienced in the United States in recent years, are the result of violations of individual freedom and the pursuit of material self-interest. The government has enmeshed the economic system in a growing web of paralyzing rules and regulations that prohibit the production of goods and services that people want, while compelling the production of goods and services they don’t want, and making the production of virtually everything more and more expensive than it needs to be. For example, prohibitions on the production of atomic power, oil, coal, and natural gas, make the cost of energy higher and in the face of less energy available for use in production, require the performance of more human labor to produce any given quantity of goods. This results in fewer goods being available to remunerate the performance of any given quantity of labor.

Uncontrolled government spending and its accompanying budget deficits and borrowing, along with the income, estate, and capital gains taxes, all levied on funds that otherwise would have been heavily saved and invested, drain capital from the economic system. They thus serve to prevent the increase in both the supply of goods and the demand for labor that more capital in the hands of business would have made possible. They have now gone far enough to have begun actually to reduce the supply of capital in the economic system in comparison with the past.

Capital accumulation is also impaired and can ultimately be turned into capital decumulation, through the effects of additional government regulation in raising the costs of production and thus reducing its efficiency. This applies to practically all of the regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Food and Drug Administration, and the various other government agencies. The effect of their regulations is that for any given amount of labor performed in the economic system, there is less product than would otherwise be produced.

Now anything that serves to reduce the ability to produce in general, serves also to reduce the ability to produce capital goods in particular. Because of such government interference, any given amount of labor and capital goods devoted to the production of capital goods results in a smaller output of capital goods, just as any given quantity of labor and capital goods devoted to the production of consumers’ goods results in a smaller output of consumers’ goods. At a minimum, the reduced supply of capital goods produced serves to reduce the rate of economic progress. A reduction in the supply of capital goods produced great enough to prevent the addition of any increment to the previously existing supply of capital goods, and thus to put an end to capital accumulation, brings economic progress to a complete halt. A still greater reduction, one that renders the supply of capital goods produced less than the supply being used up in production, constitutes capital decumulation and thus a decline in the economic system’s ability to produce. As indicated, the United States already appears to be at this point.

The problem of capital decumulation has been greatly compounded as the result of massive credit expansion induced by the Federal Reserve System and its policy of easy money and artificially low interest rates. This policy led first to a great stock market bubble and then a vast housing bubble, as large quantities of newly created money poured into the stock market and later the housing market. Between these two bubbles, trillions of dollars of capital were lost. In both instances, vast overconsumption occurred as people raced to buy such things as new automobiles, major appliances, vacations, and all kinds of luxury goods that they would not have believed they could afford in the absence of the effects of credit expansion, often incurring substantial debt in the process.

In the one case, it was the artificial rise in stock prices that misled people into believing that they could afford these things. In the other, it was the artificial rise in home prices that produced this result. The seeming wealth vanished with the fall in stock prices and then again, later, with the fall in housing prices. In the housing bubble, moreover, millions of homes were constructed for people who could not afford to pay for them. All of this represented a huge loss of capital and thus of the ability of business to produce and to employ labor. It is this loss of capital that is responsible for our present problem of mass unemployment.

Despite this loss of capital, unemployment could be eliminated. But given the loss of capital, what would be required to accomplish this is a fall in wage rates. This fall, however, is made virtually illegal as the result of the existence of minimum-wage laws and pro-union legislation. These laws prevent employers from offering the lower wage rates at which the unemployed would be reemployed.

Thus, however ironic it may be, it turns out that virtually all of the problems the Occupy Wall Street protesters complain about are the result of the enactment of policies that they support and in which they fervently believe. It is their mentality, the Marxism that permeates it, and the government policies that are the result, that are responsible for what they complain about. The protesters are, in effect, in the position of being unwitting flagellants. They are beating themselves left and right and as balm for their wounds they demand more whips and chains. They do not see this, because they have not learned to make the connection that in violating the freedom of businessmen and capitalists and seizing and consuming their wealth, i.e., using weapons of pain and suffering against this small hated group, they are destroying the basis of their own well being.

However much the protesters might deserve to suffer as the result of the injury caused by the enactment of their very own ideas, it would be far better, if they woke up to the modern world and came to understand the actual nature of capitalism, and then directed their ire at the targets that deserve it. In that case, they might make some real contribution to economic well being, including their own.

Copyright © 2011 by George Reisman. Permission is hereby given to reproduce this article via electronic transmission, including republication on other websites.
George Reisman, Ph.D. is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics, a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute, and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996). His website is http://www.capitalism.net/ and his blog is georgereismansblog.blogspot.com.

The DVD is available at Amazon.ca or here.

Here is Stefan's review:

  

For the past month I've been watching and negotiating my way through the Ontario healthcare system on behalf of my elderly mother. Fortunately the initial problem was not that critical, but when one is injured in a fall, at 92 years of age, even little problems get magnified.

For all of its faults, and there are so many, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan or OHIP system seems to function, but at such a poor level of service and timeliness, that no one would tolerate it if it were in any other service area. In healthcare, most Ontarians choose to ignore or excuse the long worrying waits, or the pain endured before treatment is available because somehow, they view the system as part of their definition of what it means to be Canadian.

I think Mr. Corcoran's editorial was not widely read or discussed, because I've barely heard a peep out of the rest of the media, but it is worthy of your time to read it. 

There was nothing more confusing than a Star Trek story where time travel was used as a plot device, and there were lots of them. 

Of course TV and movie screen plays and books don't need to conform to reality. So the idea of time travel has been very common in science fiction plots from the days of Jules Verne to well, the other night on TV.

This is an example of reality that doesn't conform to theory. A major scientific group discovered that neutrinos "seem" to travel faster than light, that seems to break some "theoretical rules" discovered by Prof. Einstein over there.

Relativity theory predicts that things that approach the speed of light develop infinite mass. Neutrinos aren't very heavy to begin with - mass is non-zero, so, that leaves lots of room for speculation. 

This discovery, if its true, is not yet support for Star Trek's warp speed, but it makes you wonder about neutrinos getting kicked out of taverns they have not yet entered, and it upsets most of modern-day physics.

Well, after three different schedule updates, the CBC free time broadcast of my Libertarian message happened rather unexpectedly. I was ready to record the broadcast so that I may post it to my blogs, but as I did that guess what? There I was on TV (at 1:03 am), so I quickly hit the record button but missed the first part of the message. With the magic of some editing, and the little bit I've learned about video making, I present to you the entire message, optimized for audio volume.

The important part of the message is, we need government monopoly less, and competitive choices more. Whether that change comes from a libertarian legislator, or one from another party, is of no consequence. What's important is that governments move toward controlling our lives less and less, and giving people the economic freedom to choose what is best for themselves and their families, more and more.

The question of government involvement in Healthcare for Canadians, is never asked during a political debate or during and election campaign.

It is the "elephant in the room," that no politician wants to acknowledge because doing so will make him/her unelectable. So to be elected, the proper approach to take is to agree, yes health care has some problems, but throwing more money at it while eliminating wasteful practices will fix the problems and everything will be wonderful in the future. But the plain facts in Ontario's current election are, that the health care budget will become the largest component of the budget and health care will not improve because demands on it will only increase from here on in.

What's the solution? Clearly something needs to be done, and this video excerpt points to a new beginning.

There is the issue that the CBC is a publicly funded broadcaster, but as taxpayers, we are coerced into paying for this service too, why not make the best of it. So, a quick poll of the executive, and I was chosen to do this.

It's surprisingly difficult to get a clear message across given 2 minutes on television. I have a learned great deal respect for advertisers, hucksters, etc. Anyone that can sell an idea in 2 minutes deserves whatever they are paid. But I crafted a message with the help of my daughter, a former CBC journalist. So, here is 2 minutes that should make sense. 

Imagine Niall Ferguson doing an impression of countryman Sean Connery. Well, watch the TED video below and you will see that and so much more. Ferguson presents the 6 killer apps that allowed the West to diverge from the rest. They are:
1. Competition
2. The Scientific Revolution
3. Property Rights
4. Modern Medicine
5. The Consumer Society
6. The Work Ethic
Ferguson thinks the Great Divergence is over, but does that mean the decline of the West?
The video is 20 minutes, but really worth your time.
Thanks to Matt Bufton.

This morning I saw a clever cartoon in the National Post by Gary Clement, so I re-engineered his idea to what you see on the left, and I got to recycle my "change-a-head" graphic. I'm not much of an artist, but I saw Clement's idea and realized it could apply to the Ontario election, in fact any election in the so-called free world.

Politicians love to take credit for job creation, and Dalton McGuinty is as guilty as any of them. And the media are so stupid that they actually reinforce the politicians' position. The truth of course is that the politicians are most interested in their own jobs, but lets be generous for a moment.

Also in today's Post is an article about Dalton McGuinty's visit to a solar panel plant. The plant is idle because of insufficient demand, and the article goes:

Last year he was dead last at 29.7 out of 100. Deficit Dalton has improved to Ninth spot this year, losing only to Robert Ghiz's PEI for worst performing Premier. This was published in an annual study: Measuring the Fiscal Performance of Canada's Premiers, 2011. That's encouraging but still a major drag on the Canadian economy because of Ontario's size.

A column in todays Financial Post by some of the authors of the study claims that: "during McGuinty’s tenure, program spending has grown 7.1% annually — more than twice the average rate of economic growth (3.2%). If an Ontarian family managed its budget the same way — that is, by increasing spending at double the rate of income growth — it would be on a quick path to ­bankruptcy."

The column continues: "in power, the McGuinty government has accumulated $41-billion in deficits with plenty more to come over the next six years ($68-billion)..........(Premier) McGuinty (is) quick to blame the economic downturn for (the) deficits, the reality is (the) current fiscal woes are primarily the result of excessive spending well before the recession." So will McGuinty change his ways if re-elected? You can bet he will be forced to by our increasingly precarious fiscal position.

Sick of the Liberal ads yet in this oppressively short election campaign? I am. Especially the ones where Doubtless Dalton stands alone spouting....well, untruths. OK, they're lies.

Lie #1. Ontario has North America's First Full Day kindergarten. Not quiet, this article from the New York Times in Sept 1996 shows it's not really a new idea nor is Ontario the first jurisdiction to try it. It's also not really a good idea, check this and this.

Lie #2. If you watch the entire 30 second YouTube video, each statement is "supported" by "footnotes" in the lower right hand corner. Most of the "support" is from the Ontario Ministry of Education about the good job it's doing as the department responsible for education. Hmmm, kind-of-like self appraisal, giving oneself high marks for doing a good job. I would always give myself high marks, especially if I wanted to keep my job. Good support, eh? Another of the supportive footnotes is from McKinsey & Co. an independent word-wide consulting firm. This company had as one of its Canadian consultants one Jim Coutts. Who is Jim Coutts? He was a Secretary to Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, both well known Liberals, you remember. Is it possible that the Canadian arm of McKinsey & Co. that ranked Ontario schools among the best in the world has anything to do with the Liberal Party of Ontario? Like maybe some of the staff are Liberals? No! I'm sure that's not possible.....

The GTA has recently been declared as the area with the longest commute to work in Canada and it is a top concern for residents, including those in the Thornhill riding .

I have first hand experience with commuting issues and can relate to the concerns of my fellow commuters.

I have lived in Thornhill this past 20 years and in North York the previous 25 years. Since 1978, I have been a regular TTC subway rider. While public transit has been “the better way” for me than commuting by car, I have also run to work, rode my motorcycle to work, taken the bus, and I occasionally drove my car to the office.

Today, people have many options for commuting. These include: walking, running, cycling, using a scooter or motorcycle, car and car-pooling using public roads as well as toll roads (407ETR), bus, street car, subway, commuter train.

What does this tell you? It tells me that people will use the commuting option that best suits their needs and circumstances at any given point in time, and that the commuting issue will be resolved by there becoming available as many viable options as possible - 'viable' being the key word.

There will never be one "silver bullet" that government will find that will satisfy all commuters. Gridlock and long commutes have been top citizen issues for as long as I can remember - if our governments were able to provide the answers, then our commuting issues would have long ago been solved.

It is time for a new approach - one that involves the dismantling of the government monopoly in transportation services that exists today, and opening the flood gates to profit-motivated private sector ideas and solutions.

In simple terms, I would approach this transportation strategy in two ways:

Step 1: Identify the government-imposed deterrents to private sector investment in transportation services, and remove them to create a vibrant and competitive "commuting services sector" in the GTA . This must include the elimination of the many unnecessary transportation regulations that discourage and curtail the creative thinking and capital investments that are needed to address our complex and chronic transportation issues.

Step 2: Notify and engage the business enterprises who possess the know-how and resources to address our transportation issues, and proclaim boldly the Ontario GTA area is enthusiastically seeking businesses who can finally "put to bed" our commuting complaints. It will be very important that allow competition in this new "commuting services sector" to follow its natural course without government meddling so that the forces of competitive options and pricing will keep the costs low. In addition, unionized labour should not be allowed to operate in this sector so as to maintain competitive pricing and service levels.

Free-enterprise entrepreneurial businesses will always trump government monopolies in pricing, service, convenience and quality. Since the industrial revolution, almost all of our most significant technological achievements have come from entrepreneurs whose profit motive has driven them to seek and keep happy customers. Government has had its chance – now its time to let capitalism come to the rescue.

The meeting topics were: the economy, healthcare and longterm care, helping immigrants settle, education and tuition. There was enough time between each speaking turn for me to come up with a brief speech outline explaining a Libertarian position on each topic. All of the comments were translated into Cantonese in deference to the audience, and I know I scored some points. Culturally the audience, and all the politicians except me,  are attuned to statist solutions for many things. But many of these Chinese are private entrepreneurs and understand where money (wealth) comes from and abhor paying tax and being taxed. It was a good day.     

With just days to go before the writ is issued and the 2011 Ontario Election campaign officially begins, the Liberal incumbents are shoring up the immigrant Muslim vote. In the picture on the left Michael Chan, Minister for Tourism and Culture and my very own MPP, then Gerry Phillips and Bas Balkisoon on the right. What do these three have in common besides being Liberals? They all have substantial numbers of Muslim voters in their ridings and they are giving away money to a Muslim group. Not just any Muslim group, this one has some issues, but more on that later.
Just as the Liberals are pandering to the ethnic voter, the media, both local and national love pandering to the mainline parties.
Just last week I sent a letter to my local newspaper that was critical of the incumbent Liberals. A quick email response from the editor asked if I was "registered as a candidate?" "Yes," was the answer and I explained that my papers were not official yet. No matter, the letter was not published, too bad.
Of course in every recent edition of that newspaper was a story about the local incumbent Liberals doing this or doing that with tax dollars.
The Liberals have been high on OPM (other people's money) since they took office in 2003 and they have been assisted by the media. The print media in this area is dominated by a company called Torstar. Torstar produces the Toronto Star, often called the Red Star in my circles, and it owns the Metroland Group which coincidentally prints the local newspaper in my neighbourhood.
During elections, incumbent parties spend lots of their cash on ads in these local papers, my local paper has a Liberal ad on almost every page, thats OK, they are spending donations. But on those same pages are glowing stories of the good things that Liberals do and are doing, for this community with OPM, your OPM. My pitiful little letter may have swayed the entire election in my favour....right?
The national news papers are just as guilty of pandering to the main parties. Click this and it will bring you to an op-ed, conveniently placed with 3 days to go before the rules change, of the PC Leader giving his "prudent" plan for getting spending under control. He would slash spending by almost 1% by the end of his first term. Decisive!
Anyway, back to that Muslim group. Here is Ezra Levant on a bit of a rant (that rhymes!), on behalf of the new SUN NEWS channel which isn't exactly mainline media, yet: