2008 Archives (September)
Libertarian Party of Canada leader to challenge Harper
Libertarian Party leader will challenge Stephen Harper in Calgary Southwest
Western Standard, 28th August 2008
“Since his first interview after being elected leader of the Libertarian Party, Dennis Young has set his sights on Stephen Harper’s record in office. On issues as diverse as the war in Afghanistan, marijuana law reform, corporate welfare and Ezra Levant’s high profile campaign against the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Young has contrast his party’s policies against the record of the Conservative government…
…”“I’ve been working to show Canadians who believe in personal and economic freedom that Harper and the Conservatives do not share their core beliefs,” said Young. “I can’t think of a better way to do that than to take the Libertarian Party message directly to the constituents of Calgary Southwest.”…
…””Our message is that the Libertarian Party trusts adult Canadians with their own freedom and choices. We believe in the basic decency and common sense of average citizens and think they can be trusted to manage their own affairs and make their own choices without the interference of government,” said Young. “People will make bad choices from time to time, but that’s all part of what it means to be truly free. We need laws to protect people from the aggressive acts of others, not laws that protect people from themselves.”…”
Objectivist Paul McKeever, Leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario responds here: Hors d’oeuvre: a Libertarian in the Lion’s Den
I just wanted to make some observations about Paul McKeever’s post.
“…I do not believe a party can succeed in facilitating a freer society by bringing together people who oppose each other on matters of metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics…”
Whether or not the LP can succeed, unlike Objectivists, most libertarians believe in working together with people who have differing philosophies and religious beliefs. In other words, we try to ignore differences in beliefs about other areas and work together to pursue political liberty.
Another of McKeever’s comments:
“….For example, if the Libertarian Party of Canada is pacifistic – and many of its members are sure to be – it would be easier to get votes by campaigning against military participation in Afghanistan while campaigning against the oil-sector-victimizing, Alberta-milking, Liberal carbon tax.”
Note that here is “objective” evidence so-to-speak that the LP of Canada has many members (including the leader) who support an anti-war anti-aggression ideology called **libertarianism**. I don’t see not-being-aggressive as the same thing as “pacifism”, but I think that is how Objectivists interpret non-aggression and non-interventionism. They equate these policies to pacifism. Libertarians value the moral principle of not destroying innocent people with bombs and guns. Many others – neoconservatives, liberal internationalists and Objectivists by contrast find various public justifications for destroying innocent lives. One of them is a collectivist identification with the “national self-interest” or even “national greatness” and another is a collectivist identification with the whole world – “internationalism” (also a power grab for those who benefit from global bureacracies). Both groups disguise their aggression – and the real reasons – under a humanitarian cover-story that seems plausible to most people. Sometimes it is even an ideological cover-story such as “spreading democracy”.
Some Objectivist groups, from what I’ve read, don’t like the humanitarian cloak and believe that war should be fought strictly in the interest of the national government – which they somehow identify with a citizen’s individual self-interest. There are serious problems with this idea. First, there is an assumption that the government’s interests corresponds to its peoples’ best interest nationally and collectively and it doesn’t even do that. Also, people generally benefit from peace rather than war and there is less security and less freedom during war. Also, there is no way to get any truth from a secretive government once it starts lying to justify its war plans. (The institutionalized secrecy of Western governments delays public awareness of how bad they are: for example, Operation Paperclip and the 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government were long held secrets.) The belief system it projects about the world is questionable and its motives for war are questionable. In any case, it can’t possibly reflect what is the best interest of each individual, because each individual has more information about his/her own life. Self-interest is subjective but most people know that it is in their own best interest not to go along with criminal acts of aggression. However, too many people – clouded by collective identity – retain a special blind spot for their own government’s acts of aggression.
Libertarians believe that individual rights are universal, that individual lives have equal value across borders and cultures, regardless of the alleged “inferiority” or “superiority” of their culture or the form of government they suffer under. As a believer in individual responsibility, a libertarian should want justice pursued against those indidividuals who are responsible (with evidence) and does not approve of collective blame. Residents of other nations should not be threatened with destruction because of their governments, not any more than Canadian or American citizens should be hurt for what for our own governments do. The truth is that the U.S. and Britain etc. don’t actually want third world residents overthrowing the dicators they installed (such as the Shah of Iran in the 70’s).
Anyway, getting back to the main thread, I think this paragraph has perfectly reasonable advice for the LPC – opposing the Conservatives on their anti-libertarian positions and opposing the Liberals on their anti-libertarian positions. Dennis Young is probably intending to do something like this anyway, and I think it can go together with the other message of pointing out how the Conservatives aren’t living up to their expectation of being a small government party.
“In my view, choosing to run in Stephen Harper’s riding is a mistake if the Libertarian leader expects thereby to boost his vote count.”
I think McKeever is probably misinterpreting the strategy and its purpose. Yes, it’s possible that a large number of Harper supporters would come out in response to shore up their leader locally, and of course those voters who hate the Liberals would try to prevent a Liberal majority nationally.
However, as far as voters unhappy with the Conservatives, Dennis Young may receive a larger than normal (for a Libertarian) vote count as a result – because of libertarian-inclined people who have no loyalty at all to the Conservatives and who don’t care whether the Conservatives or Liberals take power. Who knows? Possibly some Liberal or NDP supporters unimpressed by their parties may vote Libertarian as well as people who have never supported any party.
I believe there is such a thing as a freedom movement in Canada – libertarian or otherwise – whose members see both the Liberals and the Conservatives as terrible Establishment parties. And they do not have a traditional left and right point of view. These are the ones concerned about how the Establishment parties have done nothing but erode Canada’s civil liberties, sovereignty and formerly peaceful foreign policy. And probably many of them opppse Conservative-supported Bill C-51, the Conservative-supported war in Afghanistan and the Conservative-supported SPP – all these things which the Liberals are just as likely to support in one way or another. And how easy is it to top the Conservatives when it comes to freedom of speech, gun rights and property rights? Very easy. And not to mention growing skepticism towards the drug war. There are a lot of reasons why the Libertarian vote count in Harper’s riding may shoot up.
So that’s on top of the fact that public attention to the Libertarian Party will likely increase somewhat because of this direct confrontation with Harper.
My attitude – likely shared by others – is that I couldn’t care less about either the Conservatives or Liberals. I want them both sweating. And I want the libertarian message out there one way or another.
To respond to libertarian criticism of electoral politics in the comments section of the Western Standard post, I feel that using electoral politics is a perfectly defensible strategy. The public and media communicate about political ideas primarily during elections. That is when political ideas become most relevant to a broad audience. My point does not try to address all issues with this strategy but it just explains why I feel it can be totally legitimate and effective given the right circumstances.
It’s true that nobody has all of these issues solved yet. I think we need to tackle the nature of the political system from all angles and even challenge the system of representation. The critical issue right now for people like me is that we see our society moving rapidly in a totalitarian direction, so there are urgent problems which can’t wait. Canadians who care about freedom need to change their attitudes right now and they have to challenge governments and central planning at all levels – immediately – through media, through politics, through education. There is not enough libertarianism in any of these areas. Libertarian ideas are very relevant because of the urgent need felt by many to reign in the power of government.
–Alan Mercer
September 2nd, 2008
Comments for Libertarian Party of Canada leader to challenge Harper
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 am
Excellent Blog. I’ve been reading along and just wanted to say hi. I will be reading more of your posts in the future.
- Jason.
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 am
A bit tangential, but something that came to mind while reading your blog was that I’ve heard Stephen Harper described as a libertarian in the past. He is not libertarian, but I do understand why some folks might get that impression from some of things he did before he became Prime Minister.
Barry Zwicker interviewed on TVO about 9/11 Truth
Good for Canadian journalist and author Barry Zwicker on standing up to TV Ontario’s Steve Paikin! And for attacking the U.S. government’s nonsense conspiracy theory about planes pulverizing and melting three (yes, three – WTC 7) enormous steel structures without inside assistance.
He didn’t have any time to discuss that particular topic or much at all before the interview ended and “The Agenda” panel proceeded to trash “paranoia” and “conspiracy theories” (cause-and-effect thinking not allowed) in order to maintain the Establishment’s weakening grip on the public imagination. His main comments were on how the Air Force did not intercept the planes and also a discussion of the motive in terms of establishing a pretext for resource wars. This would tie in with the “new Pearl Harbor” wished for publicly in advance of 9/11 by the neocon “Project for a New American Century”.
The MP3 for the Agenda is here.
There is video coverage of Barry Zwicker on YouTube
September 2nd, 2008
Flobots- No Handlebars
An amazing song and excellent video by the Flobots. Starts off as a story about someone’s sense of independence, confidence and freedom and turns into something else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuK2A1ZqoWs
September 2nd, 2008
September 10, 2008 Libertarian Campaign Updates
Update: September 15: My campaign is going ahead
Scarborough–Rouge River Libertarian campaign: As of today, I won’t be able to go ahead without more volunteer support
Nationally: If you want to run as a candidate for the Libertarian Party where you live, or be an official agent/CFO, or volunteer for the election in some other way, contact [the Libertarian Party].
The Guelph by-election was cancelled because of the Canadian federal election.
September 10th, 2008
9/11 Chronicles Premier in Toronto on Friday
I listen to the Richard Syrett show on CFRB in Toronto and am looking forward to seeing the Canadian theatrical premier of The 9/11 Chronicles Part 1: TRUTH RISING on Friday September 12. Ticket info here.
September 10th, 2008
Libertarian Party of Canada Leader Praises War Resister
It takes “courage” to resist: Libertarian Party leader praises Iraq war resister
“In a packed room in the basement of the Parkdale United Church in Calgary, Dennis Young, a veteran of NATO operations in Bosnia and leader of the Libertarian Party, today told Iraq war resister Chuck Wiley to ignore the critics who call him a coward: “What you have done takes courage,” said Young to a roar of applause.
“Chief Petty Officer Wiley, a self-described Ron Paul libertarian and 17-year military veteran, told an audience of peace activists that he deserted the U.S. military after he was forced to choose between upholding his sworn oath to defend the constitution and participating in illegal war activities…”
Read the rest: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/09/it-takes-courag.html
The War Resisters Support Campaign is at http://www.resisters.ca/
The Conservative government has been ignoring the June 3 motion by Parliament:
The motion, which originated in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in December 2007, calls on the government to “immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members…to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and…the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions…against such individuals.”
War resister Chuck Wiley and Libertarian Party leader Dennis Young
September 14th, 2008
Act Now! Run as a candidate for the Libertarian Party of Canada
There are still a few days left to run as a candidate for the Libertarian Party of Canada! The recruitment committee is busy.
Don’t put it off! If you want to run, fax or email a scanned copy of your membership form to … – mailing your membership fee is fine. Contact … and let them know you would like to run as a candidate. Ask them if your own riding or a nearby electoral district is available.
Membership forms are here: http://libertarian.ca/english/libertarian-party-join.html – sign as a voting member
The nomination deadline for all candidates to see their local returning officer is September 22: you need a $1000 deposit, 100+ signatures, an official agent (and auditor), and a letter from the party leader. These are all obstacles that need some time to resolve. Waiting until the 20th is pushing it. The LPC may be able to help you find an official agent but please see if you can find someone to assist you.
P.S. Recent news about the Libertarian Party of Canada:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/09/it-takes-courag.html
September 14th, 2008
Libertarian Campaign in Scarborough–Rouge River
I’m going ahead with the nomination process and my campaign for the Canadian federal election in Scarborough–Rouge River, Ontario
You can reach me at …
September 16th, 2008
Manitoba Libertarians
Manitoba Libertarian Alliance
September 16th, 2008
Canadian Justice System
My reaction to Art Hanger’s article Criminal justice – Not in Canada: I don’t believe that respect for rights and due process is the cause of coddling criminals. I agree there is something wrong with the liberal establishment’s philosophy that ignores concern for victims’ rights. I believe in restorative justice and restitution to victims. This idea is explained very well in Mary Ruwart’s book Healing Our World. I think criminals should be punished proportionally (not physically abused in prison by other prisoners). One of the points I notice about Canadian trials in the news is how information and truth is repeatedly suppressed for different reasons. I think this is horrible. I’m not impressed either with the false dichotomy of conservative vs. liberal “tough-on-crime” rhetoric. I don’t want to see enforcement for victimless crimes – I want the drug war abolished. I don’t want to see innocent people punished - those who cause no harm to others. As long as conservatives, liberals and Canadians of all stripes want to criminalize lifestyles and worship authority and the state rather than seeking real justice for individuals, justice isn’t going to improve.
September 16th, 2008
Costs of Afghan War
Does Knowing the Hidden Cost of the Afghan War Matter to Your Vote?
Yes, it matters how much of our money the government spends on this war. In fact, I don’t want any of my money spent on this dubious war at all, and I want it to stop right now. But the system forces us to pay taxes anyway which are used to cooperate with our allies in their mass killing of civilians. No, I don’t want my money spent on killing Afghanis and causing death and suffering to Canadian soldiers.
–Alan Mercer, Libertarian Party of Canada, canadianliberty.com
September 16th, 2008
Responses to Toronto Star
The Toronto Star asked candidates for info for their online coverage. My responses:
Education: Bachelor of Science, University of Toronto
Elected offices contested/held currently or previously:
2005 provincial by-election (Scarborough–Rouge River), 2006 federal election, 2007 provincial election
Your political hero or heroes: Ron Paul
Most pressing issue in your riding:
In my opinion, people need freedom and less restrictions on their lives
Why you entered politics/what you stand for:
I entered politics because I oppose war and other policies promoted by our authoritarian system. I oppose the invasiveness of government and its attacks on freedom and privacy.
Extra comments: A recent example of invasion of privacy is how the federal government introduced roadside drug testing.
September 24th, 2008
Responses to Sun Questions
My responses to a Sun journalist’s questions for their online coverage (sticking to the word count limits given):
KEY ISSUES
I oppose the war in Afghanistan and constant killing of civilians. The government should leave people alone. Those who harm others should face justice and nobody else. Stop trampling on freedom of speech, invading privacy, and eroding sovereignty.
WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT MY RIDING
Scarborough—Rouge River contains an amazing diversity of people in terms of ethnicity and religion, all heavily restrained by licensing monopolies, taxes, prohibitions and regulations. Nothing unique there! But the riding also contains the famous Toronto Zoo where the animals are happily (or unhappily) caged and dependent on their keepers.
–Alan Mercer
Libertarian Candidate, Scarborough–Rouge River
Extra comments:
An example of government invasion of privacy is financial surveillance under FINTRAC
Info on Scarborough–Rouge River can be found at the incumbent’s site.
September 24th, 2008
Update on campaign
The weekend was very tough but I managed to collect all of the 100 signatures I needed and I was confirmed as a candidate on Sunday. It reminded me that I had extra help during the last federal election (thanks to my friend out there who may be reading with a critical eye). The deadline was Monday. It looks like the Libertarian Party of Canada has 24 candidates confirmed so far according to the Elections Canada list. Maybe that number will increase, I don’t know.
There are a lot of hurdles to get over and without some help, nominees find it very tough and discouraging if they don’t make it. Definitely I am hoping that we will find more volunteers for the LP of Canada during the election so that the LP and libertarian movement can grow in Canada. I think it is time to reach out to the other wings of the freedom movement and alter strategy vis-a-vis the traditional LP approach – not least because of the problems the U.S. LP is having. The “leave us alone” coalition is part of our national strategy and I believe it is on the right track. The coalition approach for attempting to address political change is where we might build bridges between people with different political philosophies. Getting the libertarian non-aggression philosophy out there is very important but maybe we can combine that by working with others for positive political change (I don’t want to try to list all the issues – some of them are very urgent). Ron Paul pointed the way with his recent press conference where he invited third party candidates and united on a common platform. Of course if there is a majority government after this election, the LP can forget about electoral politics for a few years and look at other types of activism.
Added my photo.
–Alan Mercer
September 24th,
Comments for Update on Campaign
September 26th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Congratulations and good luck!
A Libertarian does not need to be elected to be useful. He can act as a “watchpork” and denounce every abuses committed in Ottawa.
A libertarian activist should be more a journalist than a would-be statesman that will bring freedom. The reality is that government corrupts and government is crime. It does not make sense to run for an office in order to change the system; one runs to use and abuse the system.
Libertarians should run to push radical ideas. The best scenario for a Libertarian is to be never elected but always force other candidates to change their platforms towards more freedom.
My aunt opposes libertarianism because she does not want to have to shop for a waste collector if that service were privatized; my neighbor is shocked that the city of Markham requires permit to cut a tree but loves it when the city forces the other neighbor to rebuild a barn… Once they don’t believe that anymore, Harper and Dion will obediently run on Libertarian-minded platforms. Most probably they won’t run any more because why would they run if they don’t get power and money to play with?
I wish I could endorse you Alan but I am afraid of the Third Party Election Advertising rules that could send me to jail or force me to pay some fines… Let me say, however, that I know you are a great cook and that I encourage every one to accept an invitation for diner at your table.
Report on Wrongful Convictions
Joyce Milgaard ‘delighted’ by report recommendations (Sep 26, 2008)
“The call for a new agency in Canada to review alleged cases of wrongful conviction was enthusiastically endorsed Friday by the central figures in the David Milgaard saga.
“Milgaard was convicted in 1970 of the murder of Gail Miller in Saskatoon and spent 23 years in prison. He was eventually cleared in the case, in part because of DNA evidence, and another man was convicted.”
I hope the report recommends more than a new independent body which I would be skeptical about. I think that part of the real answer is creating a completely different new system which empowers *everyone* - one that *anyone* can use to challenge any decision made by courts or government. Also, individuals responsible for wrongful convictions should be held responsible – there is no perfect system – there are only people willing to speak up and hold abusers in positions of power responsible.
September 27th, 2008
Campaign Video for InsideTorontoVotes.ca
The Scarborough Mirror / Toronto Community News provided an opportunity for candidates to record videos so I did that today. I think it will be up early next week here.
Statement by Alan Mercer:
In normal daily life, we try to get along with others. We don’t always agree, but we try to respect others’ autonomy and personal space.
But when it comes to government and politics, we revert to a primitive attitude of using force to control others. Everybody has to live our way and believe our way or else they get tasered, fined and jailed.
And for some reason we look up to politicians and institutions who let people be tortured, who continually bomb civilians, who keep endless secrets, who manipulate interest rates, who betray our sovereignty, who involve us in foreign wars, and invade our financial and personal privacy. For some reason we believe these people and institutions know what is best for us.
But we should really be skeptical of everything they do.
And we should learn to leave other people alone.
September 27th, 2008
Update on Libertarian Candidates
The final list of candidates in the 2008 election has been published at the Elections Canada website here. And I’m glad to see there are actually 26 Libertarian Party of Canada candidates so my last post was off by 2. I think that means more voices promoting the freedom agenda in Canada and it will help the libertarian movement become larger and have more impact on the society.
Provinces represented in final list: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan. We almost had candidates in Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia, not sure. I think everyone who didn’t make it should try to keep up their spirits and try speaking out in other ways – during the election and after – and building up informal networks.
There is contact information on candidates here
Some of the candidates have web pages -
http://www.jasonmcneil.ca/
http://sites.google.com/site/anthonygilesforhamiltoncenter/
http://www.libertarian.ca/english/candidates/A_Small.htm
http://andrewmphillips.net/Jean-Serge.html
http://canadianliberty.com/
http://www.kevinstricker.ca/
I heard Stephanie Wilson, candidate in Ajax–Pickering on CFRB Radio a couple of days ago. Way to go, Stephanie!
Just to mention news about my own riding of Scarborough–Rouge River, there is an event scheduled for Wednesday October 8 which is open to the public and all candidates so they can meet. Location: Centennial College Residence and Conference Centre, 940 Progress Ave., Scarborough. 7-8:30 is the Public Policy Forum where the 4 major parties debate the “ideas” they want to impose on us. And the important part for the rest of the candidates lasts from 8:30 – 10:00 where hopefully some of you liberty supporters out there can drop by for a visit (and you can remind me to go too ) – and we can talk about building the freedom movement.
September 27th, 2008
Libertarian Party Leader on CBC
From the Western Standard “Shotgun Blog”:
Libertarian Party leader uses free CBC airtime to take on Harper’s record
Two-minute script:
I’m Dennis Young, leader of the Libertarian Party. I’m running against Stephen Harper in Calgary South West to contrast the Conservative record against our agenda for economic and personal liberty.
When Harper was a Reform MP, he fought against the over-regulation of safe, natural healthcare products. Now that he’s in power, he no longer cares about freedom of choice in healthcare, and instead introduced legislation that would put the government in control of herbal supplements.
Harper has ignored millions of average Canadians and even members of his own caucus who believe our marijuana laws are unjust, unfair and need changing. Harper’s plan for a Bush-style war on drugs will fill our prisons with non-violent marijuana users and escalate the violence on our streets.
Ignoring the advice of economists and tax experts, Harper has been tinkering with the GST. This is political opportunism, not good tax policy. The Libertarian Party would introduce a low, flat income and corporate tax that would make our tax system fairer, simpler and more efficient.
On April 5, 1995, Stephen Harper was the only Reform MP to support Bill C-68, the legislation that created the firearms registry. This legislation has made criminals out of thousands of law-abiding farmers and hunters. The registry must be scrapped, but can Harper really be trusted to do this?
The Libertarian Party will fight to keep abortion safe and legal, but we also feel a compromise is needed to ensure that the deeply held views of pro-life Canadians are respected. If elected, I will work to protect the freedom of conscience of pro-life medical workers and taxpayers by getting the federal government out of the abortion business.
The Libertarian Party believes Canadians can be trusted with economic and personal liberty. If you share our vision for Canada, vote for the Libertarian Party.
30-second script:
I’m Dennis Young, leader of the Libertarian Party. As a former soldier and policeman, I bring real world experience and conservative values to my campaign against Stephen Harper in Calgary South West.
Harper broke his promise to seniors to not tax income trusts; he’s responsible for creating the biggest and most wasteful government in Canadian history; and he actually voted for the national firearms registry.
Stephen Harper is not a conservative.
Vote for economic and personal liberty. Vote for the Libertarian Party.
For more info on the attacks on health freedom – resistance needs to be kept up in the face of potential new legislation by the next government – see http://stopc51.com
September 27th, 2008
Comments for Libertarian Party Leader on CBC
September 28th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Conservative values are not Libertarian values; Dennis Young is starting to look like Bob Barr. That’s not good. He’d better write that “Harper is a Conservative and that Conservatism is a breed of statism and as such should be rejected.”
October 7th, 2008 at 9:05 am
great post hope to see some additional comments next Tuesday…see ya
Libertarian Graphic Novelist Chester Brown
The Toronto Star’s coverage of Chester Brown’s election bid: Campaigning artists enliven election
A serious and successful graphic novelist, who has garnered international reviews and won countless awards, Brown is about to become a seriously unsuccessful politician. He’s running for the Libertarian Party in Trinity-Spadina, a fringe party in an artsy riding dominated by the NDP and Liberals.
Contact info for Chester is here – call and tell him you’re going to support him and that you’re going to work for freedom in this country.
I’ve read Louis Riel and it’s excellent.
September 27th, 2008
Comments for Libertarian Graphic Novelist Chester Brown
September 30th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I have a question about the Canadian libertarian party – i would consider myself a libertarian, but i do feel that children need special protection, especially as society changed from a more nanny state to a freer one. I do not believe in the innate goodness of man, but i do think that if the government didn’t take 50% of everything, people would be more generous with each other (as evidenced by their behaviour during Katrina, the tsunami etc)
What special protections would be in place for children in the event of a Libertarian Canada?
October 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Libertarians believe in the protection of rights. What I would say about that is that the justice system we have in a non-libertarian Canada works very poorly.
What we need instead are people taking responsibility for their lives and laws and the justice system being responsive and accountable to the people who need it to work. For us to build a society like that requires everyone to believe in that instead of looking up to institutions and authorities to solve problems for them. People need to get away from dependency on the the State and start taking responsibility for themselves and their neighbours voluntarily in terms of looking out for the rights of those who are least able to defend themselves.
There needs to be a better more responsive justice system. That’s how I would put it. The LPC principles are listed here: http://www.libertarian.ca/english/libertarian-party-canada.html and you may want to read over them to see how they might apply to your question.
I assume you’re talking about child abuse or crimes committed against children. But you may be talking about other things. Libertarians tend to believe like classical liberals that parents are the custodians of children and have the responsibility for looking after their children and that children need guardians until some point where they are capable of making decisions on their own and being responsible. At least that’s my view.
For other people using the State as a tool of intervention in peoples’ lives, to use children as a reason for doing this because of arbitrary numbers about how poor the families are or requiring them to take certain vaccinations, or requiring them to follow a certain program of education, then actions like this are very dangerous to the general liberty. The State is not a legitimate guardian or replacement for parents. I think this is what has been going on and it’s getting worse. It ends up in regulating smoking in cars for example. Children are used as an excuse to control behavior. And they are also used in threatening ways because they can be taken away based on the parents’ behavior conforming to some arbitrary standard rather than on whether there are criminal acts towards the child and due process and a proper trial. How bad this gets depends on the attitude of Canadians. I think many people are still resistant to interference like this in Canada but on the other hand they take the child care subsidies. And in the U.S. and Britain at least, the trends are bad and probably are going to be copied here even more. Parents are either responsible for their childrens’ general well-being or they are not. Some parents are in a better position in one way or another so there is always inequality and relative disadvantages because of jobs and education(but there should be equality under the law) – but even disadvantaged people can enjoy freedom and the opportunities and dignity that freedom brings. If an institution is allowed to take that freedom away, then they really have nothing at all.
Sometimes other family members need to step in or charitable groups to help out, but the state should not be empowered to regiment peoples’ lives. Libertarians believe that we need laws and courts to respond to criminal acts directed at them.
In a libertarian society, people have the right of self-defence and the right to defend others from criminal harm.
I’m not interested in giving anyone easy answers. Libertarian principles of liberty and justice, personal and property rights, need to be applied to the society and the only people going to do that are the members of that society. This is an educational process for people. They need to take back power over their lives, away from impersonal institutions that force them to pay for services, welfare, subsidies (whether to rich or poor) or force them to conform to dictates. That’s not liberty.
I hope this answer is helpful.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I meant to give an example:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/10/01/bc-crown-appeals-ellard.html?ref=rss
Medical Marijuana activist meets with Libertarian Party
September 26th story at Western Standard Shotgun Blog: Calgary medical marijuana activist to Harper: “repeal prohibition”
Medical marijuana activist Douglas Cluff has a message for Prime Minister Stephen Harper: “repeal prohibition.” Cluff, an MS sufferer and the founder of Calgary Medicinal Marijuana Counselling (CMMC), believes that only when marijuana is legal will medical users have reliable access to marijuana and research into its “far-reaching medical benefits.”
While medical marijuana is legal in Canada — the government even grows and certifies its own supply – Cluff told the Libertarian Party candidate for Calgary Centre-North, Jason McNeil, and party leader Dennis Young in a meeting Thursday that access is still the primary concern for CMMC members….
read the rest…
September 27th, 2008
Blogger attacks Simcoe-Grey Libertarian candidate
My response to his post:
Of course you attack Caley because he is the most threatening to your comfortable beliefs. He’s actually saying something about how the health care system is forced on people. If you try to use services outside of the system, there is a fine or prison sentence waiting for you. That’s definitely equivalent to communism and Canada is right up there as one of the most extreme in the world. And people suffer the consequences of restricted supply. Also, he’s exactly right – stop making everything illegal – to do that, we need to discredit the “ideas” of all the other parties – and what do they do – other than make everything illegal!! So obviously you’re all over Caley because you can’t stand his message.
September 28th, 2008
Comments for Blogger attacks Simcoe-Grey Libertarian candidate
September 28th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Alan
Thanks for that link; I also posted my opinion:
Caley is our man! He must run hard against those government criminals. The harder the better. The Conservatives, liberals, NDP, green fascists are big bundle of lies, corruption, manipulation.
Canada supported Bill Clinton’s oil for food program that starved to death 500,000 children. This is mass-murder. Canadian electors must realize that when they vote for X, they take full responsibility for the actions of X.
Canada is bombing, killing, murdering in Afghanistan; why should we reelect Helena Guergis? Because her tongue is smooth enough to have us believe that this is not crime but “war against terrorists” or something along those lines?
Of course, Canada is a communist country. Total tax rate is above 50%; more than half of our life is spent taxes. The other half is trying to abide by thousands of bylaws, laws, regulations…
Even endorsing a candidate is regulated by the Third Party Election Advertising; Anyone who believes there is political freedom in Canada is misled or has an authoritarian conception of freedom.
The Bank of Canada is no better than the Fed in the US. Everyday, that Bank works at the debasement of the Canadian dollar. Our “money” is fiat money! That the loonie is strong against the US dollar does not mean much because, in the world of currencies, some pairs have to be strong. There is simply no way that all currencies be weak at the same time. Please, have a look at M1, M2 and compare that to CPI, and I challenge you to tell me the Bank of Canada is an honest institution.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:04 am
[...] Uh-oh, it seems I’ve angered the Libertarians because of my comments about Simcoe-Grey candidate, Caley McKibbin (if you surf through the comment [...]
September 30th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Funny how the anonymous writer of this blog (does he/she/it give his/her/its real name somewhere?) cannot admit that he was attacking Caley. The typical “I don’t want to insult you [because I am a nice, educated guy] but you are a piece of sh… Don’t you dare pretend that I insulted you fu… mor…”. Or, “I support individual freedom and private property but I believe that taxes are good and bylaws essential.” Most probably he/she/it, the anonymous blogger, does not believe in anonymous smearing but in straight exchange of ideas. Whatever…
Good luck to Caley in that debate.
Scarborough–Rouge River Campaign Issues and Bio
ISSUES
I oppose the government’s war in Afghanistan and the continual NATO bombing of civilians – in our name – and the killing and maiming of soldiers also.
I oppose torture, secret detentions and secret trials.
I oppose the government handing over Canadian sovereignty through the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
I oppose the laws that attack freedom of speech and freedom of choice when it comes to so many things such as natural health products. I want an end to drug prohibition.
I believe in personal liberty, privacy, independence and genuine free markets.
I oppose central bank manipulation of interest rates, fiat currency and corporate welfare.
I oppose roadside drug testing and the financial surveillance of Canadians.
I believe the justice system should be oriented towards victims rather than the State. Punishment should focus on directing perpetrators to compensate victims and their families.
I believe in reducing taxes and government and working towards a voluntary society where Canadians choose the services they want to pay for.
BIO:
I was born in Northern Ireland and have a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Toronto. … I work in the software industry as a Quality Assurance Software Analyst. I ran as a candidate in the 2005 provincial by-election, the 2006 federal election and the 2007 provincial election. I have been involved in writing press statements and platform statements for both the Ontario Libertarian Party and Libertarian Party of Canada. I was previously the president of the Libertarian Party of Canada from 2006 to 2008.
–Alan Mercer
September 28th, 2008
Dion and Harper send clear message to Canadians – dissent over 9/11 and other issues will not be tolerated
I want to talk about the harsh and unjust treatment of Lesley Hughes by the Liberal Party: “Liberals ask candidate to step down over 9/11 comments” It seems to me that Lesley Hughes’ arguments can be defended, because she accused the Israeli government and other governments of advance foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks – and hey, that’s going to upset people – but as she states, she is not accusing Jews in general and is not anti-Semitic in any way – and I believe that. There may or may not be some evidence to back up what she has been saying. If someone has read her article, or has info about this, it’s a good topic for discussion.
I know that one of my favorite columnists, libertarian Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, has presented evidence that there was Israeli foreknowledge while rejecting accusations that key elements of the U.S. government were directly involved in 9/11 (if I’m understanding his position correctly). I don’t think it is fair to single out the Israeli government as some people do, but that’s the nature of bias. We all have our biases and sometimes we are resistant to going against our illusions about the world and giving up our old loyalties.
Yes, I know, we’re not allowed to criticize the U.S. government either - because anti-Americanism is “hate” and don’t you know, the establishment in Europe and North America are trying to ban all “hate”. They haven’t quite got around to criminalizing political “hate” speech yet in Canada or we’d all have to be thrown in jail. So the people in power being criticized (and those identifying with them) throw up a smoke-screen of accusations about racist and religious bigotry to cover their aggressions.
And of course we’re not allowed to talk about or present critical evidence about the Israeli government in general and its main ally and the power behind it, the U.S. government. Because then how else would these governments get away with their agendas of fomenting war and conquest? Always hiding their crimes behind sentiment. Don’t criticize the poor “democratic” governments or else you’re a vicious “anti-Semite” or “anti-American”. I’m trying to think of a term to describe hatred of the British government which is also open to being “picked on” by vicious critics like me. The British have marketed their intelligence agencies very well using the James Bond series but they don’t seem to be a politically correct protected class yet. I’m sure they’re working at it.
The establishment defends itself and presents arguments that have no substance whatsoever (”9/11 conspiracy theories disrespect the victims”), even though everything is at stake. The future of the whole world depends on intelligent citizens being able to restrain governments. And on our ability to call for them to reveal secrets and conduct proper investigations. And Canadians need to be allowed to consider neutral or peaceful approaches instead of making Canada take a warlike position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran.
Why are Canadians dragged into more and more wars? And isn’t 9/11 – and the dubious official story – the basis of our current involvement in Afghanistan? From now on, we should face the subject directly and not be afraid.
And I know that many libertarians want to run away from 9/11 and nobody likes to upset their friends and allies. I would like to thank libertarian science fiction author L. Neil Smith for taking the line he has on this. Nobody likes to upset people and make waves. And we don’t all read the same books and we’re not all aware of the same facts. So we should all read more. Take a look at the evidence. Watch the movie “Loose Change- Final Cut” – you can find it on YouTube. Read David Ray Griffin’s books – you can find them on Amazon. But above all, follow your own heart and mind. There are gaping holes in the official story.
Could aircraft bring those buildings down? And then there was another building that fell down afterwards that wasn’t even hit. Melted steel and clouds of pulverized dust! All three towers came down as if they were some kind of controlled demolition. This is what I perceive and I refuse to deny what I see and how I interpret it. Not to mention the fact that the later anthrax attacks were confirmed by the FBI as coming from a U.S. lab! I could go on and on. There were reports of multiple explosions within the towers and endless suspicious incidents and unanswered questions that lead people like me to conclude that it was a “false flag” “Pearl Harbor” type of event that was deliberately set up in order to justify endless war against the Moslem world. The neo-conservatives stated in their 2000 “Project for a New American Century” report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that there would need to be a “new Pearl Harbor” (p. 51) in order to achieve American hegemony. Another book, by the way, I can recommend is Ian Henshall’s “9/11 Revealed: The New Evidence”.
But people are so quick to excuse all the holes in the story, to make excuses for these people in the U.S. government and all their publicly known efforts to keep criticial evidence secret.
So of course, Ms. Hughes’ views are not surprising to me and I am absolutely sympathetic to what happened to Lesley Hughes and to any other candidate in the same situation.
In any case, there is supposed to be free speech in this country and we should expect candidates to have intelligent opinions on important issues and not to be toadying to the established order. But the party leaders of the major parties – on the other hand – they won’t stand for that! They don’t want to just disagree or let the candidate have their opinion. They don’t want to offend the foreign policy status quo.
I hope that Dion -and Harper and other leaders – are prepared to lose votes over this (more votes than maybe the media will ever acknowledge).
And I hope that Canadians take note of the message being sent to them by the major parties. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE OPINIONS ON THIS SUBJECT IF YOU WANT TO RUN AS A CANDIDATE AND YOU SHOULD SHUT UP. OR ELSE. SO BURY THOSE OPINIONS AND SHUT UP.
So I just wanted to translate that for people in case they weren’t paying attention.
TWO classes of people in Canada: those who have the right on paper to run as candidates but are prevented because they’re busy exercising freedom of the press and freedom of expression (what’s left of those) – and those who keep their mouths shut and are “privileged” to “serve” in the government and rule over everyone else.
And Bev Collins is another case where the Liberals are really going to town with their new “principle” of hacking up anybody who holds 9/11 truth positions: “NDP Running Conspiracy Theorist”
And I’m sure – speaking sarcastically - it will be a really “popular” and “winning” strategy for the Liberals and Conservatives to pursue this line of attack and I hope they keep it up so they can discredit themselves further with a large section of the public who believe in free expression and who question 9/11.
Good for “JC”, by the way, who is defending Bev Collins at the Western Standard blog. And also here, my fellow Libertarian candidate Krista Zoobkoff steps up to the plate to defend free expression. One of the commentators quotes Diefenbaker:
“I am a Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong, or
free to choose those who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
Quote by: John G. Diefenbaker
(1895-1979) Prime Minister of Canada
I see the whole thing as parallel to the withdrawal (?) of Conservative candidate Chris Reid for advocating gun rights and for criticizing the failure of passengers to intervene in the famous bus incident (passivity and powerlessness being the theme of our lives). I agree with him on those issues.
And of course this is parallel to NDP Leader Jack Layton dumping Dana Larsen with his drug activities taken out of context as Marc Emery explains.
And another parallel is the trouble faced by Conservative Lee Richardson over his attempts to talk about crime in the context of immigration and culture. Not allowed. No doubt he’s trying to say something intelligent without causing offence, but that’s often very hard to do because many immigrants would feel threatened no matter how he said it. But anyway, the point is whether he’s allowed to say what he thinks and have a discussion. Maybe problems can be faced more realistically if people can describe them honestly. Instead, just fear, trembling, apologies – censorship.
Candidates must be uninformed – that’s the rule – no opinions allowed.
And this brings to mind a fundamental problem with our system of government. This is the whole concept of government by representatives. These “representatives” can never represent individuals anyway. It’s impossible. Besides the fact that the parties determine who are the representatives, individual citizens would like their views represented by a single representative but this is logically impossible for a Member of Parliament to represent all views. He/she can only reflect a “consensus” or pretend to but that’s not really the situation either. in reality, he reflects his own views and those of his party – and beyond that, those of the special interests who control the party. This is why I think we ought to look at direct democracy or direct representation – referenda via an online virtual assembly. A citizen who can’t attend all votes could hire a representative who can vote on issues by proxy and directly represent their views issue by issue. Differences in points of view, prejudice or character issues would just be normal individual differences in a system like that. I think it’s something we need to have eventually. It’s not the end goal for libertarians, but it would allow individuals to debate fellow citizens directly and influence attitudes and the outcome of votes directly. This way there are no special candidates to be placed on a pedestal and shot down because they have controversial opinions or because they’re human in some other way!
September 28th, 2008
Comments for Dion and Harper send clear message to Canadians – dissent over 9/11 and other issues will not be tolerated
September 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
The cracking down on dissent within the mainstream parties is significant on a number of levels. It flies in the face of free speech. It seems to be used to cast a shroud over openess in government. But most significantly, it completely debauches the idea that we have any actual representaion by our elected MP’s. They are there to tow the party line, and that’s all. Its definately time for change.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I don’t feel any urge to defend Lesley Hughes. As a member of the Liberal Party of Canada she supports authoritarian policies and wishes the worst for Canada. Her freedom of speech is under attack? First off, I don’t think this is the case, but more about that below… So, her freedom of speech is under attack? Excellent! Maybe that will help her realize that she is on the dark end of the political spectrum. Let’s hope she will apologize for years of awful political activism.
I love when government people go after each other and hurt each other. Wonderful! More of that!
The whole idea that political representation of millions of Canadians by a few hundreds of representatives does not make sense. How can one MP represent the opinions of some 100,000 human beings living in a district? That’s impossible. I can hardly represent myself! That political representativity is an impossibility and that makes it a swindle.
Instead of fighting for good representativity, one should fight for Liberty and minimal (ideally zero) political representativity.
If I were the leader of a party (no worry, will not happen soon), I would be upset at members straying from the platform. I don’t think that it “flies in the face of free speech” because the so-called victims can still leave the parties and government violence is not used against them. Quite different from government going violently after you (fine and jail) because you did not register as political third-party. The problem is not that Dion and Harper straighten out their political friends (I do think they are justified), the problem is that Canadians believe that political parties should represent the opinions of millions of human beings.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:27 am
I should have updated the post to mention that Harper supported Lee Richardson. It was the media gunning for him.
About Lesley Hughes, in this case it was something she wrote years before.
I don’t agree with sticking to national platforms – I think this is inappropriate for individuals – it should be “pick and choose”. I think individual candidates should have their own platforms and this is the current practice in the Libertarian Party of Canada, which is based around certain principles in any case.
In Canadian politics, there is too much emphasis on the party. It’s better for voters to evaluate the candidate’s message and get a sense of them. It’s more bottom up that way and closer to being representative.
I don’t believe things are improving – it’s all top down and getting more so – I think there needs to be direct representation of each citizen’s beliefs in order to change our society positively. That would be better – I believe rights protections would improve that way also. I know I’m talking about direct democracy again, but it’s a way to engage others directly instead of people hiding from these issues. The parties will keep things moving in a more oppressive direction until ordinary Canadians start dealing with freedom issues. It doesn’t mean that majorities only vote in legitimate ways or that I consider anti-freedom votes to be legitimate. Not at all. If we want a free society, we need a large number or majority to agree with that anyway, so why shouldn’t the system be shaken up by selling this idea of everyone having a vote issue by issue? Let people empower themselves, spread out the power among everyone and dump the oligarchy.
Recent Comments