2007 Archives (August – September)

Ontario Election Campaign

(Lost my first effort getting used to this software).  I intend to run for the Ontario Libertarian Party in the October General Election for my riding of Scarborough–Rouge River.  I ran in the by-election in 2005 and in the federal election in 2006 also.

Anybody who wants to get involved in pushing for a freer society, for example if you want to run as a candidate or volunteer in some other way for the Ontario LP or the LP of Canada, you can contact …

-Alan Mercer

August 22nd, 2007

Start of New Canadian Liberty Store

Support CanadianLiberty.com!   For books and other items that I recommend,   please visit the Canadian Liberty Store.

August 24th, 2007

Kick-off Practice Speech

A group of Ontario Libertarian Party candidates met today for the campaign kick-off party.  There are several new people.  I finished some mailing for the federal party so I can start the campaign now with a clearer slate.  The following speech is my first effort for this campaign.  It was twice as long as it should have been and I started getting bored with it myself towards the end.  It may be helpful in explaining some points about libertarianism from my point of view.  It explains my motivation in an emotional way and at least one person liked it.

—————

I’m going to tell you why you see a Libertarian running for office and why you’re going to hear more from us and more about the freedom message.

First of all, I’m here because I’m doing what I personally can to disrupt the agenda of the bureacratic and political class – the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Greens – these are the parties of the ruling class –who literally rule over our lives.

If some of you think the same way I do, if you believe in liberty, you should be speaking out also.

All I’m here to do is interrupt the same old conversation that goes on among those who deny personal and economic CHOICE to all – the ruling-class conversation of the main political parties.

If you have a problem with the smoking legislation, with the social engineering agenda, with your freedoms and property rights being violated by a centrally-planned state, who is going to stop it if you don’t speak out now yourself?

If you have a problem with the rights-destroying state interference of the Greenbelt Act and similar legislation, the mainstream parties aren’t going to stop it. The other parties entrench the power of the bureaucratic RULING CLASS, they entrench the system of privileges and subsidies and protectionist professional associations.

What motivated me?   I joined the Libertarian Party because I don’t want to be forced to place my fingerprints on my drivers’ license like I’m a slave or criminal.   This idea was floated by the Ontario Liberal government just a few years ago.   I’ll never accept that.  I don’t care if they already do that in the United States and if they already have their national ID system.   I won’t accept it here.    The idea of DNA databanks is being floated by CFRB and the established corporatist media.   I don’t care if they have it in Britain.  I don’t want it here.  Special rights-violating emergency powers were introduced in case of a flu pandemic.  These things I won’t accept.    I won’t accept increased police surveillance cameras.

I won’t accept kids being forced to stay in school against their will until they’re 18 – which is what the Liberals have done.  I won’t accept central planning and “smart growth” agendas.

It’s true that we were born into this system and we get used to the unjust property tax system and the controls on education and health care.   But I discovered the principles of liberty and realized that our government – which is supposedly our servant – forces us to pay taxes –and regulates us and forces us to pay for licenses and forces us to ask permission to do many things.

And I learned about how are choices are restricted in so many ways.  I realized how we have become used to this system, and how we have learned not to notice it or question it.

Instead we always bow to authority, and we hand over our entire lives to a ruling bureacracy.

I believe in the principles of individual rights, in self-ownership, and by extension the right to control my property, my privacy, the right to decide how I spend my money, the right not to be taxed and regulated into submission.

I believe in the right to make my own health care and educational and other choices that don’t hurt my neighbour, to live in a society based on voluntary choice and contract, and not to use government power to INTERFERE with my neighbour’s life.

So this is why you see me up here – because it’s my responsibility  as a citizen to say no to this system which is trying to control every last thing we do with our lives –and this is what it’s doing.   And it’s getting worse.

If you don’t agree with what is happening to your freedoms, the ones you still have or the ones you never had, then speak up now and get involved with the Libertarian Party.

Authorized by the Alan Mercer Campaign.

September 10th, 2007

Ontario Legislation – Making Kids Stay in School until 18

Reference: Legislative Assembly of Ontario Status of Legislation has a complete list

Bill 52, Education Amendment Act (Learning to Age 18), 2006

Received Royal Assent Dec 20, 2006

“An Act to amend the Education Act respecting pupil learning to the age of 18 and equivalent learning”

The preamble literally is full of hypocritical bunk about how these social engineers ”recognize” and “believe” and “understand” how school should be interesting and how pupils should be motivated and have a “real choice” before it proceeds to sharply reduce real choice for 16-18 yrs old:

5.  Compulsory attendance

(1)  Unless excused under this section,

(a) every person who attains the age of six years on or before the first school day in September in any year shall attend an elementary or secondary school on every school day from the first school day in September in that year until the person attains the age of 18 years; and

(b) every person who attains the age of six years after the first school day in September in any year shall attend an elementary or secondary school on every school day from the first school day in September in the next succeeding year until the last school day in June in the year in which the person attains the age of 18 years.

So students of Ontario have been formally sentenced by this law to be imprisoned against their will in some kind of school until they are 18, regardless of the fact and reality that many of them would be happier finding work and making money.   Public schools aren’t all bad, but not every teenager can make lemonade out of lemons.  This reduction in choice is destructive and the choices offered are different kinds of “equivalent learning.”   Whatever is equivalent to regimentation.  Better for some to pretend we have choices than believe we’re under someone’s thumb.

The philosophy of libertarianism advocates self-ownership (with recognition of parental rights as a limited temporary stewardship).  Libertarians don’t advocate state control of children.  This shocking libertarian concept of separation of school and state is a problem for people for different reasons.   They might believe the teens  will run around holding up convenience stores.  And they may also be terrified of the idea that everyone learns at their own pace and that true learning and education is not forced, but it comes through necessity and desire, and by the pressures of life and by the interests people develop on their own.   And not every child is going to care about the same things.

There are also establishment efforts to increase productivity to boost the economy.  All the time the political class repeats this utilitarian stuff in the media.  So from their point of view, education is literally just their form of social engineering to make sure their economy keeps humming along as if economic life comes from the top down rather than based on the choices and instincts of many individuals who own their own lives.

The parasitical class need workers to pay the taxes that support them.   Educational policy is where their desperation shows.

So the social engineers - everyone who supports the concept - think they know better than us what we need to learn.

Why they think they are more expert on the future than each individual – or why they take on the role of assuming responsibility for us  - is the great mystery of human submission.   Or just a bad habit people need to be slapped out of.

Evil is really creative, so let’s get back to the meat of the legislation.  You might wonder how they intend to make kids stay in school until they’re 18 – seems like such an impossible trick - and maybe it won’t succeed the way they want it to.

First of all, just the regular stuff for the duty of parents to force their kids to attend school if they are under 16 – which is bad enough and which should be condemned:

A parent or guardian of a person required to attend school under section 21 who neglects or refuses to cause that person to attend school is, unless the person is 16 years old or older, guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1000.

The court may, in addition to or instead of imposing a fine, require a parent or guardian convicted of an offence under subsection (1) to submit to the Minister of Finance a personal bond, in a form prescribed by the court, in the penal sum of $1000 with one or more sureties as required, conditioned that the parent or guardian shall cause the person to attend school as required under section 21 and, upon breach of the condition, the bond is forfeit to the Crown.

Anyone who employs during school hours a person required to attend school under section 21 is, unless the person is 16 years old or older, guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1000.

Habitually absent from school

A person who is required by law to attend school and who refuses to attend or who is habitually absent from school is, unless the person is 16 years old or older, guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to the penalties under Part VI of the Provincial Offences Act and subsection 266 (2) of this Act applies in any proceeding under this section.

So here, we’re starting to see changes to see the 16-18 yr old changes:

A person who is required to attend school under section 21 and who refuses to attend or is habitually absent is guilty of an offence and for that purpose the following apply:

1. Subsection 266 (2) of this Act applies in a proceeding under this subsection.

2. A proceeding under this subsection shall be conducted in accordance with Part VI of the Provincial Offences Act.

3. Every reference to “sixteen years” in the definition of “young person” in section 93 of the Provincial Offences Act shall be read as a reference to “18 years”.

4. A court may, on convicting a person of an offence under this subsection, impose any penalty under Part VI of the Provincial Offences Act

And here is where it gets creative for 16-18 year-olds:

Additional penalty: driver’s licence suspension

(5.1)  In addition to any other penalty it imposes on convicting a person of an offence under subsection (5), a court may order that the person’s driver’s licence be suspended and for that purpose the following apply:

1. The order shall specify a date on which the suspension ends, which shall be no later than the date on which the person is no longer required to attend school under section 21.

2. Once the suspension ends, the person may apply for the reinstatement of his or her licence to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles appointed under the Highway Traffic Act.

Explanatory Note:

This Explanatory Note was written as a reader’s aid to Bill 52 and does not form part of the law. Bill 52 has been enacted as Chapter 28 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2006.The Education Act is amended to raise the compulsory school attendance age from 16 to 18 and to enable the development of learning opportunities for pupils that fall outside the instruction traditionally provided by a board, termed “equivalent learning” in the Act.Certain other amendments are made to the Education Act that relate generally to the changes described above, such as the following:1. Regulations may be made prescribing circumstances in which a right or obligation that normally rests with the parent or guardian of a pupil who is under 18 will instead rest with a pupil if he or she is at least 16 years old.2. The Minister may establish policies, guidelines and standards with respect to equivalent learning and require boards to develop and offer equivalent learning opportunities to their pupils. The Minister may designate groups, organizations and entities and programs, courses of study or other activities that are approved for the purposes of equivalent learning. The Minister and boards may both enter into agreements with other parties regarding the provision of equivalent learning to board pupils.

3. The fines for offences related to non-attendance at school set out in section 30 are raised from $200 to $1,000.

4. When a person of compulsory school age is charged with being habitually absent from school, the proceeding is conducted in accordance with Part VI (Young Persons) of the Provincial Offences Act and, for that purpose, Part VI of that Act shall be read as if it applies to persons under 18 years old (it normally applies to persons under 16 years old).

5. A court is empowered to order the suspension of a driver’s licence of a person who is convicted of being habitually absent from school. The person’s licence would be reinstated no later than the date on which the person is no longer required to attend school under section 21 of the Act.

6. The right to become qualified as a resident pupil is extended in section 36 to persons who are 16 or 17 years old and have withdrawn from parental control and to persons who are at least 18 years old.

So this deals with the most basic libertarian issue when it comes to education – not so much state-funded education – but just the existence of mandatory education.

It has led to the most dangerous situation of our times – that of the obedient state-worshipping and indoctrinated child who grows up to become the submissive tax-paying servant of the system we serve – fake pseudo-”free-market”, corporatist, war-making, neo-imperialist system – a subservient hierarchy of nations bound together by common “democratic values” and mandatory education – that pays lip-service to “freedom” while it destroys freedom.

The Act was passed by the Liberal govt of Ontario.  I’d like to find out how many Tories opposed this legislation.

Authorized by the Alan Mercer Campaign

September 10th, 2007

14 comments to Ontario Legislation – Making Kids Stay in School until 18

• Chuck

December 4th, 2008 at 2:14 am

I am unfortunately greatly affected by this new legislation. I am 16 year old who is being robbed of six hours of my life on an almost daily basis and so far there does not seem to be anything that I can do to change this. I think that we, as a country and as people with any sort of morality, should be appalled at this blatant act of oppression and I’m relieved to see that there are like-minded individuals out there who are adults. It seems that authority figures, parents most certainly included, do nothing about this because in many ways they are not directly affected nor do they have the perspective of a young person. I am sure that a law requiring adults to spend large portions of their daily lives performing tedious tasks without any real benefit would be met with public uproar, but for some reason when it only applies to kids not a whole lot seems to be done about it.

• Anthony

February 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

I am unfortunately greatly affected by this new legislation too. I am a teacher who, on daily basis, has to deal with 60+ individuals who feel that they are being robbed of their lives at school, see me as a prison guard and try hard to make my existence as miserable as possible. The tedious tasks I am trying to make them to perform do not produce much benefit because most of them consider it just the tedious tasks and nothing more. You can make students come to school against their will (under threat of fine, license suspension, whatever) but you cannot make them learn!! This is pretty obvious idea but people upstairs just do not get it. They live in their pretend world, make ridiculous claims
(for example that Canadian students perform well at math olympics etc.(http://www.imo-official.org/year_country_r.aspx?year=2007&column=total&order=desc)).
and waste taxpayers money. They are the only ones who benefit from the situation.

• Laurie

March 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

I have a 16 year old son who refuses to attend school. Although we are working very closely with the school board, there is very little I can do to force him to attend. (He is 6?3?, I am 50 years old and 5?4?). Criminal charges and hefty fines have been threatened as well. We have also had physiological testing done through the school board which recommended a full psychiatric evaluation. Today the evaluation was completed and the psychiatrist highly recommends a long term in-house treatment program. I agree. It is obvious that my son’s refusal to attend school is part of a much larger issue. However, because of his age, the law also says that my son cannot be forced into treatment and would have to consent, which he will not do. Can you say ‘BRICK WALL’!! I am so mad I could spit!!!! In this case are these two laws not in direct contradiction to each other???? Wher do I go from here?????????

• Alan Mercer

March 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am

Just some thoughts. It’s an impossible situation because government is force and force puts us in these situations especially if we have the idea that it’s somehow legitimate.

Respecting your son’s wishes is key. This idea of forcing someone to do something is the fundamental problem – that’s what the law is for – to coerce people against their will – we don’t want to identify ourselves with the system that oppresses us.

And try to negotiate with your son to respect your concerns and recognize your dilemma – because of the dangers he faces and how you would like him to respect your wishes as he lives with you etc. Maybe you can work out a solution that makes sense to both of you.

Some people choose to be involved in civil disobedience or try to fight the system peacefully by conscientious objection or in court. This is a hard road that a some choose, but people may benefit from it and learn from it eventually. It sounds like he is already learning a lot about how the system works for example. It should open his eyes and the eyes of his friends and family.

The whole idea of treating it as a psychiatric problem is totalitarian. You should watch 1984 where Big Brother forces the man to believe in a simple lies. So trying to make your son to believe he is sick because he dissents is the ultimate wrongdoing. In the Soviet Union – a totalitarian society – which we’re already heading towards – they incarcerated dissenters in psychiatric hospitals. The real establishment find it convenient to treat dissenters as mentally ill. They have all the drugs for that which some corporations profit from. It’s a fascist structure, that’s technically what fascism means – “public private partnership”.

• CM

March 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

It’s correct that just because someone refuses to go school they are not necessarily mentally ill, but the previous poster did not say her son is sick because he won’t go, rather that he won’t go because he’s sick. I find myself in the exact same situation. I have a 16 year old daughter who is struggling with mental illness (anxiety and depression), and as a result will not go to school (just one of many symptoms). I can not force her to accept treatment, yet I am somehow capable of forcing her to go to school every day?? – I don’t understand how this makes any sense. My daughter is bigger than me, she would beat me up if I tried to physically remove her from her bed and drag her into school. My stress level is almost as high as her’s now and to add to the already unbearable family situation, I am now receiving threatening letters from the school.

Luckily, my child is willing to accept the medical help that I can not force on her, I don’t know what I would do if she wasn’t. Unfortunately, that help is excruciatingly slow in coming. Perhaps if they wanted kids like mine to finish school, they would invest the necessary resources into adolescent mental health services instead of continuing with this ridiculous notion that all children have the exact same educational requirements and all it takes is laws to force them into realizing it.

At least if she was allowed to leave school, we could concentrate on her health and trying to find a way for her to acquire some skills that will allow her to at least survive as an independent adult.

I fought against this legislation when the bill came up, my MP contacted me several times during the discussion and at one point asked permission to quote me on the floor. Ironic that at the time I was only opposed as a matter of principle, and now that it’s been passed am one of the many who have been personally damaged by it.

• Laurie

March 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Thank you for your input and CM, I m so happy that your daughter is willing to accept help with her emotional issues!!! I wish you both the best of everything! You are so right to say that the calls and threatening letters from the school add to an already high level of stress and I know my son feels bad that he is putting me (and himself) in this situation, which only makes his depression deeper. School is not the be all and end all of things and this law does not recognize that each person is an individual and there are unique circumstance in each case. It assumes that all teenagers are alike and lumps them all together. This is so unfair. It has taken along time to get to the point where the right kind of help was being offered and now because my son is a few days older than her was on our last visit, treatment requires his consent. How can the school hold me accountable for my son not attending school, which is, as CM stated, only one of many symptoms of a much more serious issue, when the medical won’t allow me the right to decide on my son’s medical treatment because he had a birthday? I am still discussing issues with my son and hope that eventually he sees that it would be in his own best interests to accept the treatment offered now, whether he decides to return to school or not. just wish the school would back off in the meantime! It’s not making our situation any easier!!

• shammy rahman

March 23rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm

Hi my daughter is 16 and has managed to get herself into the wrong crowd. she now refuses to go to school and her attitude towards us, her parents, has degraded to such an extent that she now resorts to swear words at us i.e f*%k you, that it is causing a major rift in our personal lives so much so that i am seriously thinking of divorce. Facs wont get involved becuase of her age and now i feel the only avenue left to me is to file a complaint with the police with the view that if it is an enforceable law then the police would have to take action and escort her to school if needed. Frustrated would be an understatement

• mrG

March 27th, 2009 at 8:56 am

This is so totally insane it is beyond description. I have it on good authority (an Ontario Principal) that the two-thirds drop out rate of Ontario males was “the lowest rate ever”, which means the rate must have been much higher in the past, which means when _I_ attended school, and in those days there were plenty of kids who did not want to be there and left (to take jobs usually), were today’s law in force, it would be only a very tiny minority of students in each class who’d be there actually interested and engaged in education! The rest would be “contained” and therefore “trouble”.

I guess this explains the recent rise in lockdowns for INTERNAL issues such as students with knives, probably explains the increased incidence of school violence, police in the hallways and the general depressed and frustrated mood of not only the kids who would be drop-outs, but also among those who would be graduates.

The only future scenario that makes sense is for those kids who want an education to abandon the schools and move into private schools (another curiously recently-popular trend) or religious schools, or home-schooling, thereby leaving the instition to those who do not have the economic or social resources to ‘escape’.

• Tony

March 30th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Hi, I am 16. I would like to drop out of high school in order to start working. The reason for this is so that I will have money to be able to afford aviation schooling. I plan to go and get my high school diploma online at age 18 after 2 years of working and saving. After that I plan on going into aviation. The main problem with this is that my parents do not support me dropping out. I have only positive intentions in dropping out that could really only benefit my life in terms of my career. Whether they have a right to their claim to want me in school or not, it should still be my decision. This is why I am curious as to what New York laws say about students at the ages of 16-17 who refuse to go to school. This obviously would be without the parents consenting to dropping out. I guess what I’m really trying to ask is; Can police force you to attend school at the age of 16-17 if one refuses to go school without parent consent of dropping out? Please help me out if any of you know or feel like looking for an answer to this question. I have looked moderately hard, but I found that the best way to know would be to ask someone who has had to deal with the situation themselves. Thank you, and please help me out.

• John

May 8th, 2009 at 1:19 am

One thing that I’m confused about and would like an answer for is can a student who is 17 years old in Ontario leave high school with the parents knowing and consent my child is many credIts behind and he is interested in leaving now and pursuing other possibilities and when he is 18 take his GED I really need an answer for this.

• Alan Mercer

May 8th, 2009 at 2:04 am

All I know is that the law is meant to narrow his choices and keep him in school until 18. These laws (there are more like it all the time) are for chaining us up so that we follow along with their agenda. Usually these things are not written to be clear at all but try scanning some of it. To me, it might as well be written by the Devil, and maybe some people would be better off not even having heard of it. Try asking your M.P.P. or the Premier what excuse they have for creating these shackles. There are email addresses at the Ontario Government’s website. It’s really something how much anguish this law is causing. Teens are naturally the way they are and this law is totally unnatural, so maybe it’s impossible to keep for some people. Good.

• Matt

June 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

I fully understand your concerns about the government implementing even more rules for parents to follow. However, in my case, this may be different.
I have joint custody of a 10 year old, where he stays at his mothers except for every other weekend. He missed 41 days of school in the 2008-09 school year and was late 36. The teachers can not even write a report card as he just missed too much school. with Bill 52, what rights do I have in making sure that my child can get an education?

• Alan Mercer

June 14th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Seriously I would look at homeschooling as a desirable option – it’s legal so far – and I would not look to government to force education on my child. He’s better off not going to school. It’s normal for children to not want to go to school. School is a confining indoctrination center where they train children to obey government and conform – which is what people are doing now as they bring in totalitarian measures worldwide. I would also complain to the local M.P.P. and the Premier about all the laws and ask them specific questions so they are put on the spot. If the politicians actually have any control of the laws (that’s the theory – not the reality), they should be held to account directly by as many people as possible. Everyone should complain loudly. The website for the Ontario legislature has contact info.

My Libertarian Platform – Scarborough-Rouge River & Bio

Elect Alan Mercer in Scarborough-Rouge River

The Ontario Libertarian Party has nominated Alan Mercer as the Libertarian candidate for the upcoming provincial general election in the riding of Scarborough-Rouge River.

Message from the Candidate

I urge anyone who opposes big government to contact me and get involved with my campaign in Scarborough-Rouge River. Please support the Libertarian Party. Vote Libertarian if you believe that government should stop dominating our lives.

If elected to the Ontario Legislature, I would represent the following goals based on the principles of individual liberty:

· Cut the size of government. Leave a minimal government that protects the basic rights of citizens.

· Reverse the course of the Ontario government’s central planning and social engineering programs.

· Get the government out of education. Ontario residents will no longer be forced to pay for public school indoctrination and “zero-tolerance”. Parents – not the Premier – will raise their own children.

· Abolish the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and every other law that regulates the personal and economic choices of Ontario residents.

· De-socialize Health Care so that there are no more shortages.

· Abolish the Greenbelt Act and similar laws that remove and restrict the rights of property owners. Property owners should have full rights to make decisions about their own property as long as they respect the rights of their neighbours. Victims of pollution should be legally able to stop polluters and require full compensation for damages.

· Encourage Rouge River conservation groups to purchase as much as possible of the land they want to protect instead of trying to use the government to control others. Public property should be transformed into private property so that ordinary people can take good care of their own resources and their own environment.

· Reform the courts and police so that they focus on protecting the public from real crimes – violence, theft, fraud – instead of victimless crimes. Move the provincial and federal governments towards a system based on restorative justice, where convicted criminals are made strictly accountable for the harm they have done to their victims.

· End subsidies and corporate welfare. End the forced transfer of wealth from one group to another, and let individuals decide how they spend their own money.

· Abolish or reduce all taxes. Taxes are wrong. Minimize taxes. Eliminate the provincial sales tax that burdens consumers and businesses. Eliminate the gas tax. Restricting taxation will lead to greater prosperity for everybody and allow greater generosity towards those in need.

· Convert property taxes to fees for municipal services, and introduce as much free market choice as possible. Homeowners should truly own their own homes.

· Encourage greater opportunities for everyone through allowing them the freedom – to start their own businesses without restrictions, to keep their own money, to make their own choices and to build their own lives. Encourage communities in which young people learn respect, personal responsibility, and accountability. Encourage independent communities in which people cooperate and help others without relying on impersonal governments.

About Alan Mercer

Alan Mercer has lived in the riding of Scarborough-Rouge River, in the Malvern area, for the past 7 years, and has been married to his wife Anne for 11 years. Alan is a Software Tester and has worked in Toronto’s software industry since 1994. Alan was born in Northern Ireland in 1967. Along with his parents and brother, he became a Canadian citizen while living in Barrie, Ontario. After attending a couple of schools in Scarborough, he graduated from high school in Lisburn, Northern Ireland, and completed a Bachelor of Science degree at the University of Toronto with a Major in Mathematics.Alan joined the Ontario Libertarian Party in 2004, and worked as a member of the Party Executive. He currently serves as a Member of the Board of Directors and President of the Libertarian Party of Canada.Alan ran in the 2005 provincial by-election and in the 2006 federal election.  He is committed to furthering the Libertarian philosophy of economic and personal freedom in Ontario.  Contact Information…

Some favourite quotes:

Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end. – Lord Acton

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis

That government is best which governs least. – Henry David Thoreau

The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer the people become. – Lao Tsu

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you. – Pericles (430 BC)

The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be. – Lao Tsu

Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to ensure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery. – Benjamin Disraeli, 1874

Ontario Libertarian Party www.libertarian.on.ca

Authorized by the Alan Mercer Campaign

September 12th, 2007

Registered and Nominated Status

Reason to celebrate.  I was able to get all my signatures on Friday night and handed in my nomination papers on Saturday, so I am very happy about this.

To determine your candidate, go to the Elections Ontario website and enter your postal code.

For Scarborough–Rouge River, my name is now listed “Alan Mercer  Ontario Libertarian Party” and both columns are marked.

The really good news for us in this election is that the Party name will now be on the ballot.  It was not the case in the 2005 by-election or in previous provincial elections.

You can see a lot of Ontario Libertarian Party candidates officially listed here and I think this means they are the ones who have filed their nomination papers.

The more or less complete list of candidates for the OLP is here and I hope they all make it by Tuesday.

We need as many new riding contacts and organizers as possible to join up while this election is running so we can build up our presence for the future.  So please get involved and one way to start is to offer support to the Libertarian Party candidate nearest you.  Tell your friends and family about the message of liberty.  Blog about it, talk about it and help build the Ontario Libertarian Party.

Authorized by the Alan Mercer Campaign

September 16th, 2007

Answers to Toronto Star Questions

I had a chance to make some statements to the Toronto Star, and my page and profile is posted here at the Star’s website.

POVERTY: What specific plans do you have to lower poverty rates in Ontario?

A free market economy would lead to incredible wealth and opportunity for everyone. Read “Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises in order to understand this better – http://www.mises.org/resources/3250.  Poverty is created by tax burdens and government licensing and controls on ethically legitimate economic choices.  The goal of a libertarian is to argue for the reduction of government interference in the economy except for the protection of personal and property rights.  Government is too large, and government spending should be reduced to a minimum.  I believe that all taxes, starting with municipal property taxes, should be eliminated or transformed into voluntary fees for services that the consumer chooses to use.  Minimum wage laws prevent the less skilled from finding employment and getting their start.   Rent control laws lead to shortages of low-income housing.   These two points are covered very clearly by Henry Hazlitt in “Economics in One Lesson” ( read http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf )   Also, monopolies on professional certification prevent access to new immigrant professionals – and others – whose qualifications should be open to judgment by consumers through competing standards associations.

CITIES: What would your party do to ease the financial burden on cities across the province?

The financial burden is on tax-payers.  Municipalities should justify their existence to consumers instead of claiming a right to be financed.  I would seek to change the municipal property tax system so that the cities can only charge fees for services which residents choose to make use of.   Cities should not be providing services that they can not afford, and they should probably also be allowed to split up into smaller units again (de-amalgamation).    The power of municipalities – and the provincial government – should be reduced so that they are not allowed to interfere with the legitimate use of property.   Contractual agreements should replace centralized zoning and planning.   And cities and the province should stop interfering with and preventing the free market provision of transportation services through licensing and subsidies.

HEALTH: What would your party do to improve access to family doctors and key medical procedures? And where do you stand on more private involvement in the public health care system?

Libertarians believe in health care freedom.    Restrictions on the provision of health care should be eliminated as they are immoral and dangerous.  Restrictions on insurance, on how doctors charge for their services, on advertising etc. should be eliminated.   Government monopolies on professional certification should be eliminated.  There should be more scope for private charity to help the poor with medical services.   Removing restrictions would lead to greater availability of services and more choices for everyone.

EDUCATION: What would you do to ensure our publicly funded schools can offer quality education to all children in Ontario? Do you favour extending public funding to all faith-based schools?

The issue to me is not “faith-based”. The issue is choice and freedom.   I believe in the separation of school and state.   One problem is that we are forced to pay for public schooling through our property tax – instead of public schooling being offered as a choice.  Parents should be able to opt out of that system and make any kind of arrangement for the education of their children, religious or otherwise.   A more serious problem is the long-standing presumption that the government should be involved in the regimentation and even, I might say, the indoctrination of children – either for economic productivity, public health reasons, or for other types of social control.  Ontarians would be better educated and better off in every way if they were free from the forced educational fees and allowed to create their own diversity through educational choice.   Another issue is the concept of mandatory education.  The whole idea that education needs to be expensive, formal and the same for everyone is false.  The Liberal government even passed the Education Amendment Act (Learning to Age 18), which imprisons 16 to 18 year-olds in school under threat that their drivers licenses be suspended.

ENVIRONMENT: What would your party do to improve air and water quality in the province?

The cycle of pollution was created decades ago by centralized government in Ontario by creating legislation that allowed industries to pollute and violate private property rights.   The greater economic “good of society” was the excuse for this.    Pollution of other peoples’ health and property – and of mismanaged public property – is allowed and permitted by government to one degree or another.  There is no true free market without property rights, and property rights include the use of air and water as it passes by people and property.  If water was polluted, in common law, the offender was required to cease and make restitution for the damage.   People should be fully protected by allowing the courts to operate according to customary common law to defend against pollution.   Ontarians should be free to do what they want with their own property – there should be no Greenbelt Act – but not with the property of others.  They should pay the free market costs for disposal of their waste, or make agreements with their neighbours regarding other kinds of pollution.  Read more here: http://www.libertarian.on.ca/platform/Environment.htm

ECONOMY: What would you do to protect manufacturing jobs and encourage development of leading-edge industries?

There should be no special treatment or protection for any industry.   The central planning of our society following the corporatist P3 (public-private-partnership) model is a long-time paternalistic and destructive practice of Ontario governments.  Resources should be left in the hands of those who have worked for them – the citizens of Ontario – and not transferred via government to subsidize research or  industries that should be responsible for their own risks.  Consumers and investors and their individual choices should decide the value of products.   Removing restrictions on trade and converting taxation into a more just system would empower the economy like no central planning ever could.

Personal Statement:

Government is out of control with its efforts at interfering in our lives, and I believe the situation is getting worse.   Examples of this include the incredible anti-smoking legislation it passed, its land management legislation and its “smart growth” agenda.   It is conceivable that the Ontario government will follow through on its idea of eventually requiring fingerprints and other biometrics to be on drivers’ licenses.  And it seems to love the opportunity of boosting its powers through its flu pandemic legislation.   Government is parasitic and opportunistic.  It is critical at this time for people who believe in human freedom and individuality to speak up and argue on behalf of liberty.  I would urge everybody who cares to get involved with the Libertarian Party provincially and federally.

September 21st, 2007

Rogers TV Spot

I was at the Rogers TV studios on Wednesday and got to say my piece.  Rogers will start airing candidates’ presentations on September 24th.

I was more nervous than I wanted to be, although I know you need to have some nerves. I spoke very deliberately and more slowly than during the federal election and tried to fit in the basic message and a couple of specific points in the 2 minutes I had and not cram in too much.  I think there are pros and cons to reading from a prepared text.  If it works to get the message across, then I feel it’s more valuable to be spell it out if I’m given time to do so than worry about the fact that I’m reading.    In interviews on the other hand, I learned I had to take a conversational approach.

Questions welcome.    I’m available for interviews and events if you want to invite me to speak to your group  – even after this election in preparation for a federal election some time in the fall maybe which the media is speculating about !     We need more federal candidates and organizers!!!

And again, if you live in Scarborough–Rouge River and are a libertarian, give me a call!   Or the other OLP candidates.

Hi.  I’m Alan Mercer and I’m running in Scarborough-Rouge River for the Libertarian Party.

In this election, the Libertarian Party is presenting the message of liberty, and this is the same type of message presented by U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul.

What would it mean to live in a society based on liberty?

Running your own life, making your own choices about education and health care, keeping your own money, controlling your own property. This describes a society based on liberty, freedom and choice.

It would mean you would not be forced to pay for services you didn’t want through unjust taxes such as property tax.   You would use your money to choose education for your kids based on your values and judgment.  It would mean CHOICE.

A big problem with the Tory plan for funding faith-based schools is that these schools would surrender their independence to the government.  The Liberals on the other hand passed legislation to force teens to stay in school until they’re 18.

But instead of all that, I believe there should be separation of school and state.   Education should not be an instrument of economic planning, regimentation and indoctrination.

I think there are legitimate fears we are headed in the wrong direction, towards an even  more authoritarian society.    If that’s the case, the need to reverse course is urgent.  It’s up to all of us to influence the kind of world we live in.

If you support the message of liberty,  then get involved with the Libertarian Party both provincially and federally in order to make people aware of the need for change and the possibilities of a society in which we are free to make our own choices.

September 23rd, 2007

Ontario Landowners Association

Questionnaire I answered from the Ontario Landowners’ Association last week and these are fundamental.  I answered YES to both.

Many issues have been identified by the Ontario Landowners’ Association as being of critical importance to the citizens of rural Ontario.  However, all of these have been reduced to their common denominators:

(1) nonexistent property rights, and

(2) the eradication/dilution of regionally representative municipal governments.

The following issues are non-partisan and are essential to a society that embraces freedom, justice, democracy and all of that good stuff which we were raised to believe was of critical importance.

QUESTION 1

“Will you act upon and support the Ontario Landowners’ Association demand for the immediate creation of effective property rights legislation that will “over-ride” existing laws and provide our citizens with full, fair and timely compensation for any restrictions of those rights?”

YES   _____     NO   _____

QUESTION 2

“Will you act upon and support the Ontario Landowners’ Association demand for the immediate creation of legislation that will permit the de-amalgamation or secession of those municipalities where voters have indicated their wish to do so?”

YES   _____     NO   _____

We respectfully ask that you consider these issues very carefully to ascertain if they conform to your philosophy and political platform.  Then, please select your answers to these questions then return this e-mail to the sender.

A press release will soon be publicly broadcast to affirm our support for specific candidates in the local press.

September 24th, 2007

Naomi Wolf on Corbert – 10 Steps to Fascism

Naomi Wolf interviewed on her new book The End of America.

September 24th, 2007

1 comment to Naomi Wolf on Corbert – 10 Steps to Fascism

• Doug Plumb

February 23rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Website is not up yet.

I am looking to distribute her speech on a DVD as part of my political camapin to run for office against these fascist b*stards. I’m running for Canadian Action Party Toronto Centre.

Can anyone contact her ?

doug@etfacoustic.com

Responses to “Save our Structures”

My answers are indented:

Website: www.saveourstructures.ca

“Dear Candidate,

“The Province of Ontario downloaded hundreds of dilapidated units of public housing onto the City of Toronto in 2001, with no capital funding to fix them. As a result, Toronto Community Housing now has a $300 million dollars shortfall in capital funding and cannot deal with the growing backlog of repairs. That means tenants in public housing are often forced to live in sometimes unhealthy and unsafe homes with crumbling walls, rotting countertops, leaking roofs, defective elevators and broken heating systems.
“Q1: Do you believe that tenants should have to live in conditions like this or that everyone in Ontario deserves a decent home?”

A:  Public housing tenants can live in dilapidated homes
Everyone in Ontario deserves a decent home

I should say “most people” instead of “everyone” and “deserves” is not the right word.  It shouldn’t be  necessary for the elderly, poor and disabled to have to live in homes that are so terribly maintained.  I think that taxes and restrictions on peoples’ economic lives are responsible for so much of this.  The City of Toronto through Toronto Community Housing is obviously incapable of providing decent housing, and the downloading was probably a mistake.

Instead of that, taxes should be reduced by the city or province and voluntary non-governmental independent agencies should be established and people who want to should be encouraged to fund out of their own free will an agency (or competing agencies) that provide housing for the poor.   As a libertarian I believe that taxation is wrong, that we should convert services to voluntary fees and that governments do not provide good welfare services for the poor and disabled, although I really appreciate the efforts of those individuals who work in the system to help the disabled as it has affected my own family.

Our society should be organized on a voluntary basis.   I need to emphasize that it is not possible to provide decent housing as long as there are rent controls.  Rent controls such as the recent tiny 2008 1.4 % guideline set by the provincial government – see http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page4907.aspx – based on the CPI (an alleged measure of inflation) – are utterly destructive to any landlord’s ability to maintain their property in good condition.    Note that the press release mentions that the first “rent increase guideline” (i.e. price control) was announced in 1975 – by the Tories – and what a disaster we have to live with today!!

If the government would stop transferring wealth involuntarily from the middle and working class to other interests – to bureacratic and political class, to corporations and to other special interests  – and if it would stop interfering in our economic lives and choices, we could have some chance of a true free market where everyone can benefit from the massive wealth that would result.

This is the problem with our society.  It’s based on compulsion and is fundamentally unjust.   I mentioned rent controls and Henry Hazlitt argues very forcefully against rent controls in: http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf You can read more of my positions here and here.

“Toronto Community Housing and the City of Toronto have invested almost $500 million in capital projects since 2002, but it isn’t enough. The backlog keeps growing and the City does not have the funding to address the crisis with current municipal funding.

“Q2: Do you believe that tenants be expected to continue to live in these conditions while the City of Toronto and Toronto Community Housing work through their current funding problems, or should this problem be addressed right away?”

A:   Tenants should be expected to live in poor conditions while the City’s
financial crisis is sorted out
Tenants deserve decent homes and this issue should be addressed right away

I think it is necessary to address the problem right away, but in a principled way that respects individual rights.  Please see my answer above to Q1.   The way to do this is to no longer expect the provincial or municipal governments to bungle housing for the poor, but to permit people to keep their taxes that go to these failing services and voluntarily direct that money to the housing agency of their choice to help the elderly poor and disabled.  Also rent controls should be immediately abolished.   Yes, take action right away.  Please.  Let’s have a free and prosperous society immediately.

“The capital funding shortfall began when the province downloaded already crumbling public housing to the City without the capital funds to repair it. Now the City is struggling to cope with the needs.

“Q3: Do you believe that the Province of Ontario should play a role in resolving this funding issue, or should they wash their hands of it now that housing has been downloaded to the City? ”

A:   The Ontario Government should NOT play a role in resolving this issue
The Ontario Government should play a role in resolving this issue

I mention more details in my answer to Q1.   Yes, the Ontario Government should immediately abolish rent controls which will allow more freedom for landlords to maintain their properties and make it easier to open up new properties for rent and build lower-income housing instead of just luxury housing which is how the current system works.  And the municipal and provincial governments should transfer this responsibility to the judgment of each citizen and let them decide which housing agency they wish to contribute to voluntarily.

“Q4: Do you believe your party should include funding to repair public housing as part of its platform in this election and as a priority for action in the next government, or should it be on the back burner?”

A:   This issue should be on the back burner rather than in the party platform
This is a priority issue and should be a commitment for the next government

Yes.  This is an important issue that needs to be dealt with immediately through giving people back their money and letting people fund the housing agency of their choice – people do care about other people but they are taxed and oppressed – and also the government should abolish rent controls to free up more possibilities for housing – not to restrict the choices and budgets of builders.   See my other answers for more details.   Our Party policy on poverty is mentioned here:
“Because Libertarians oppose government operated health care, education and other state services, many people conclude we have no sympathy for the underprivileged.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

“The hidden assumption is that the present system does help the poor.  In fact, it is the current system that creates the poor!  When our government schools turn out illiterates, they go on welfare.  When the Milk Marketing Board refuses to provide enough milk and a cheese factory closes, its employees go on welfare.  When government monetary policies cause inflation that wipes out savings intended for retirement, the elderly go on welfare.  When licensing laws and minimum wage laws destroy jobs, the jobless go on welfare.  When the tax and regulatory structure stifles economic growth and dries up risk capital that might have built new businesses, the jobless stay on welfare.  And when a poor family looks at its options, the best one the government offers is for the father to walk away from his family so the mother and children can go on welfare.

“Clearly, the poor fare the worst as government power increases.  Governments have always served those with the most power and taken advantage of those with the least.  Only in a free society do the underprivileged have the opportunity to improve their lives.

“Out of compassion for the enormous human suffering brought about by these government-created problems, Libertarians are working to reverse the trend towards authoritarian government – in the full knowledge that GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM and only human rights and liberty can be the solution “

“Q5: Will you make it a priority to advocate for $300 million in provincial funding to eliminate the backlog of capital projects in the housing the Province downloaded to the City?”

A:  Yes     No

See answers above for more details.    It’s an absolute priority for me to advocate for the tax burden to be removed from citizens, to let the people of Ontario decide which public housing agency they wish to fund in order to help the elderly poor and disabled, and it’s an immediate priority for me that the government stop interfering in our economic lives.  Their price controls (rent and wage controls), their zoning (allowing municipalities to zone areas to exclude economic activity, also “smart growth” plans), their licensing burdens, tax burdens and institutional professional monopolies reduce opportunities and keep the more vulnerable people in our society and new immigrants excluded from economic life – from good housing, from employment and from business.  Thank you very much for the opportunity to answer these questions.

September 25th, 2007

4 comments to Responses to “Save our Structures”

• Derek

November 7th, 2007 at 5:07 am

Don’t you realize that Save Our Structures is the brainchild of Sean Meagher, the former executive assistance to NDP city councillor Pam MacConnell?

He is also the person behind the Scarborough Civic Action Network, Strong Foundations and PublicInterest.ca

People like them usually send out questionaires so that if you aren’t already in their inner circle, you will be damned no matter how you answer.

• John

November 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

You should check this out that supports what you say Derek.

http://www.qaz.ca/orgs/saveourstructures.html

• Medexpert_Nick

August 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am

What is really going on in South Ossetia

http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=oLoBckWl-dg

http://ossetians.com/eng/news.php?newsid=459&f=36

• fiereepealt

October 19th, 2008 at 6:44 am

Today good day
The interesting name of a site – canadianliberty.com
I yesterday 7 hours
looked in a network So I have found your site
The interesting site but does not suffice several sections!
However this section is very necessary!
I have added you in elected!
Forgive I is drunk )

Ron Paul, Our Power and Responsibility

Great video.  Some very serious statements by Ron Paul and music by Evanescence, one of my favorite bands.

September 25th, 2007

TorontoTV Event at Starwalk International Buffet

On Tuesday I was interviewed by a Ryerson student journalist, and on Wednesday I attended a very nice hospitable event in the morning hosted by the Chinese media  in Scarborough.  Everyone had time to eat and a few minutes to speak and they could leave when they were finished.    There were candidates there from different ridings in Scarborough.  I asked Sheila White of the NDP about their position on the SPP (North American Union) and we both oppose it but of course it’s a federal issue  - there are different reasons but I think we agree on sovereignty.  Basically she helped convince me to vote for Mixed Member Proportional representation.   But other than that, …., here’s my speech more or less:

Thank-you to TorontoTV.net, Today Daily News, Global Chinese Press, Torcn.com.

I’m Alan Mercer of the Ontario Libertarian Party, running in Scarborough-Rouge River.  (Added a point about how I immigrated from Northern Ireland when I was little.)

Have you heard the word LIBERTARIAN?

Libertarian means LIBERTY and FREEDOM.

Like Ron Paul, who is running for president.

Have you heard of RON PAUL?

Libertarian stands for SELF-OWNERSHIP, PROPERTY RIGHTS, PERSONAL FREEDOM, ECONOMIC LIBERTIES, KEEPING YOUR MONEY.

The other parties represent the RULING CLASS – A BUREACRATIC AND POLITICAL RULING CLASS.

They stand for AUTHORITARIANISM, FOR MEDDLING IN OUR LIVES, FOR INTERFERENCE AND FORCED TRANSFER OF WEALTH.

Libertarian stands for REFORM of the justice system, RESTITUTION for VICTIMS of crimes.

For EDUCATIONAL choice and freedom.

For HEALTH CARE choice and freedom.

For a VOLUNTARY society.

For abolishing government monopolies that regulate and license professionals.

BUT the OTHER PARTIES stand for:

TAX SLAVERY

BIG GOVERNMENT

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

SMOKING BANS

INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS

DRUG WAR

GUN BANS

RESTRICTIONS ON HEALTH CARE

RESTRICTIONS ON EDUCATION

But the LIBERTARIAN PARTY STANDS FOR CHOICE AND FREEDOM.

If you care about FREEDOM, get involved with the GROWING LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.

THANK YOU.

September 30th, 2007

1 comment to TorontoTV Event at Starwalk International Buffet

• Wayne Smith

October 1st, 2007 at 2:26 am

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting is about giving voters the power to hold political parties accountable, by giving every voter a party vote that actually helps to elect somebody, every time. Under our current system, most of us vote for people who do not get elected, so we end up with a government that most of us did not vote for.

Under our current system, usually one party gets about 40-45% of the votes, which gives them 60-70% of the seats, and 100% of the power. Why do we consider it normal that one political party gets unlimited power, even though most people voted against them?

MMP will mean the end of phony majority government, so government will truly not be able to rule without the confidence of Parliament. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.

MMP will also give smaller parties like the Libertarian Party a fair shot at electing somebody. Parties can win province-wide seats by getting at least 3% of the party votes, about 135,000 votes.

The Libertarian Party got 1,991 votes in 2003, so has a way to go. However, there are two things in your favour under MMP:

People will vote differently under a different voting system. There are undoubtedly people who would have liked to vote Libertarian in past elections, but did not because the candidate had no chance of winning. Under MMP, people can cast their party vote for the Libertarian Party and still vote strategically in their riding.

The Libertarian Party ran only five candidates in 2003. Under MMP, people all over the province can vote Libertarian, even where there is no local candidate.

Health Care Experiences this week

I forgot to mention that I was diagnosed this week with glaucoma on Tuesday and I had laser eye surgery on Friday.  I’m very appreciative to my optometrist who booked my appointment to check for some concerns a while ago (I was shocked to be diagnosed though) and I appreciated the work of the opthamologist who diagnosed me and did the surgery to lower the pressure.  I really appreciate the advice I got from friends. But I’ve got to tell you that these are huge potential delays and wait-times we are talking about for referrals to eye surgeons in the Ontario health care system, and I experienced this first-hand this week.   I notice that new patients have misconceptions about the system, and think it’s like the free market, and expect to be served promptly when they’re scheduled, but this is not possible.  And if you were booked a month in advance, you should get ready to wait a couple of hours for your session.  The doctors’ office was full of redirected emergency room patients when I was waiting on Tuesday. Don’t be quick to lose your temper and walk out – it’s a mistake! The problems are due to the communist health care system which the doctors do their best to adapt to.  Of course the government picks away at it in its attempts to salvage it, and some important tests cost extra and are not covered by OHIP.   My next test is two months from now of course.

September 30th, 2007

All Candidates Debate Sep. 27 – Burrows Hall

I think I did better with some of the live unrehearsed questions in the middle.  I didn’t have a pen so I lost my train of thought once or twice.   The audience was mostly there supporting their candidates – Greens, NDP, Liberals, but the journalists may have paid more attention.  I managed to get a little more applause towards the end.   I explained about how the Liberals keep the kids in school until they’re 18, and how they should be encouraged to work and start businesses if they don’t want to be in school.  I explained how immigrants and young people are kept out of employment by professional monopolies and by minimum wage laws.   The other parties just loved minimum wage, boy.  They just love it.    I think the audience were totally confused when I challenged it, but I kept trying to get through to them.    And rent control laws?!   Crappy housing for the poor and more resources in the market go to the luxury housing of course.   And I think I did my best explaining property rights and a libertarian approach to the environment.

I’m able to give a rough idea of where the other candidates stand on the freedom question – nowhere at all!

Liberal: firmly entrenched – in power forever.  All sorts of programs lined up for the environment and the economy – for controlling peoples’ lives.

NDP:  I listened carefully to her comments on littering and smokers, and based on those comments, the NDP objectively is the second most controlling and tyrannical party next to the Greens.  I still see hope with some of their followers  in terms of rejecting controls on people.

Tories:    this is the party that some libertarians claim to be undermining from within.  From my perspective, better work a bit harder at that, guys!   Totally status quo.   Nice elderly gentleman, means no harm.  The Tories – “red” or “blue” – they have color codes – are the natural ruling party of Ontario and if they could get back in power, they would continue their big government, corporatist ruling class programs such as their proposed government take-over of religious schools.

Greens:   it’s not the “left-wing” type of environmentalism. It’s a sort of a manic Torified version of “green” where they use as many “market” techniques as possible and the tax system (and I would imagine intensive police powers ) to control people and make Ontarians live exactly as the Greens would prefer.  I’m happy to call it “right-wing” if people want to use these meaningless labels.  So “left” means controlling people and “right” means controlling people.  Pick your poison: red, orange, blue or green.

I notice people call the Libertarian Party “right-wing” – this is the false left right paradigm - and I swear I really don’t want to be associated with these other parties in any sense.   ”Right” is associated with authoritarianism and right-conservatives belong on the same spectrum as these other authoritarian left-wing parties.  Libertarians advocate liberty and should be outside this spectrum.   Definitely I felt isolated – yes, out on a limb.

The Ontario electorate are totally starved of any knowledge of libertarianism and libertarians are completely wrong for dissing politics.   Libertarians could have a huge positive effect in Canada if they got involved with running as candidates provincially and federally.   People really need to hear the alternative message.  Elections are a completely wasted opportunity by libertarians in Canada and we don’t have huge obstacles at the moment like the U.S. LP has in the States.  So that’s my answer to Stefan Molyneux.   And I’ve got more to say about that.

I’ve included my intro and closing speeches only.  Not much time for those and kind of clumsy:

I want to thank the Malvern Community Coalition for hosting this event.

My name is Alan Mercer and I’m running for the Ontario Libertarian Party.   There is more info on the Toronto Star website and at canadianliberty.com.

I ran in the last provincial by-election, also in the federal election and I’m working to help build the libertarian political movement in Canada.

The reason why I’m running is to completely contradict the authoritarian agendas of the other parties – their smoking bans, their interference with landowners, their use of the schools to imprison older teens as the Liberals have done.

Libertarian means choice and freedom when it comes to everything – including taxes, health care and education.

Libertarian means justice reform and a society based on the protection of personal rights and property rights.
The other major parties don’t care about your freedom.

If you want a free society, support the message of the Libertarian Party.
Closing:

You may not have heard the word Libertarian before.

It means Liberty or Freedom.

Like Ron Paul who is running for president.

Libertarian means self-ownership and property rights

It means government is our servant and not our master.

The other parties stand for authoritarianism and interfering in our lives.

Libertarian stands for justice reform, for restitution for victims of crime.

For educational choice and independence.

For health care choice and freedom. For a voluntary society.

The others stand for tax slavery and social engineering.

But the Libertarian Party stands for choice and freedom.

For more info, go to canadianliberty.com or libertarian.on.ca

September 30th, 2007