I had the opportunity to participate in a call-in television show on CP-24, Tuesday, Sept. 30th 9:30-10:00 PM, representing the Libertarian Party of Canada. I’m just going to give a loose account of the interview and the points aren’t in any particular order or word-for-word.
I was seated next to the Communist Party representative! This made it really interesting. We were interviewed by Lorne Honickman who is a great host. I liked the format and we had several people calling in. The time flew because there was a lot to talk about.
One of the points of agreement between the Communist and I was evident. We both got involved in politics because of our opposition to war.
It was a great warm-up for me in this campaign because I expect there will be more debates or appearances. I lost my concentration a few times and started rambling on one occasion and looked at the floor too much, so there were some things I regret about the interview but on the other hand, overall, I feel very good that I had the chance to make some strong statements and say what needs to be said.
I didn’t feel very good about my health care answer. I want to say something less offensive to people and am painfully aware that I start losing sympathy from many in the audience at that point, as libertarians are inclined to do. What I would rather do is explain the basic reason why I can’t support the health care system. If the system is voluntary, that’s fine if people wanted to come up with a voluntary system. But it’s not voluntary.
There are prison sentences and fines for procuring or providing health care services outside of the system. Restricting the supply leads to shortages and line-ups and I’m not trying to exaggerate by saying it is very extreme and by comparing it to communism. If health care system defenders would care to tackle this argument, feel free. If a doctor and patient negotiate services outside of the system, would you want them to go to jail? Think about it. Libertarians – by definition – can’t support that. Just because you don’t know about the fist behind the velvet glove, ignorance doesn’t make it go away. It’s not libertarian to believe in that fist – in those fines and prison sentences. That is the use of force. Take them away and there’s no issue. Violence doesn’t work.
Health care is a provincial responsibility, so technically I wouldn’t want the federal parliament to interfere with provincial jurisdiction. Federally, we oppose the Canada Health Act. But individually, personally, provincially, we want to see an end to the suffering that is caused by this lack of freedom. I mentioned that the U.S. system is not a free market system.
Again, I was hammering this point about freedom. You can’t deal with poverty and economic problems and health care the way things are. Canadians need more freedom. Period.
We believe in a society based on property rights. We believe in economic freedom, personal freedom, civil liberties.
I explained that we oppose drug prohibition, that we opposed the criminalization of victimless acts. Hopefully that’s understood. I know these ideas become too abstract. I didn’t get a chance to mention it, but we want to see Marc Emery released.
Freedom of religion came up. I said basically that Canadians need to value their traditions of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. These are critical. (Freedom of speech has been weakened already in Canada on multiple fronts – people need to restore it and they need to preserve it as an ideal).
I talked about the war in Afghanistan. A caller challenged both of us on our antiwar views regarding Afghanistan and I gave a two-part answer on that because I think he believed that Canada was there just for peace-keeping. Earlier I had tried to get the point across that NATO was killing civilians in Afghanistan. This has been documented. This is the reality.
The two parts to my answer (and I really want to emphasize how libertarian arguments imply opposition to war except under special circumstances where there is a need to defend ourselves) -
1) Taxpayers shouldn’t be burdened with wars that they disagree with, because many Canadians do not agree with the war in Afghanistan and especially people who know that NATO is killing innocent people. There is the financial burden on unwilling taxpayers and there is the moral burden placed on us also – of the men, women and children who die. War in reality always involves murder and other crimes (rights violations).
2) I don’t believe in forcing myself on other peoples’ problems. Afghanistan is a problem for the Afghanis. They are capable of working out their conflicts and resolving them peacefully or otherwise if left alone. We shouldn’t be interfering. (The government should only concern itself with the actual defence of Canadians).
(And I could comment on motivations for the war which is a big topic – the issue of government propaganda – and not to mention the paternalistic globalist ideology which people adopt and their peace-endangering “collective security” alliances.)
So in any case, this is why I say that overall I was pleased with the interview (despite some cringes), because there were things I said on that show that are hardly ever - maybe never - said in the mainstream media. And all I’m about is getting that message out. All we can do in this world is speak the truth – about what concerns us the most – about what is most important to us. Get that message out there. Open your mouth and shout it out and stop holding back. If it makes some people angry, that’s too bad. Make them think and reconsider.
Lorne asked a really good question about unfortunate associations with other ideologies and I believe an anti-Bush caller may have linked Bush to libertarianism if I understood him correctly, so this is a serious problem for libertarians. I mentioned that libertarianism is associated with people who call themselves “free market” advocates but who believe in and practice imperialism - i.e. most “conservatives”.
(These ”conservatives” believe in their government, and the bed-time stories it tells them, especially when it’s breaking heads in foreign countries – they love that! The liberal internationalists don’t have policies that are much better, and seem to kill and bomb just as many people, but they just come across as less insane than the neo-conservatives. )
Real libertarianism is about peace, not bombing peoples’ homes and killing children and other innocents. (I admire classical liberals such as Richard Cobden who advocated peace.) The Libertarian Party started in the 70’s but our ideals go back to classical liberalism.
I tried to emphasize that our society has a fake (non-libertarian) version of capitalism and there are (at least) two planks of the Communist Manifesto that have been fulfilled in Canada – the income tax and central banking.
Also I had an opportunity to appeal for more candidates and volunteers for the Libertarian Party of Canada. We have 26 candidates – in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan. I forgot to mention that a lot of those candidates are in B.C. (I was hoping we would have some in Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia – almost - hopefully next time).
The question about being included in the debate gave me a chance to mention the following idea: I think that alternative parties are the tip of the iceberg and that all Canadian citizens should take action and do something about making our society freer and more just. I used the word “reform” but it’s not exactly the right word. I mean we need to change our attitudes as Canadians and take back control and transform our society into something where individuals are sovereign and free, where the government or justice system is responsive to us and respects our rights.
On health care:
(1) For a free/universal health care system, what we currently have is really expensive because of all the taxes that must be paid and because of the money supply that must be inflated in order to grow government’s budget at the lowest financial and political cost.
(2) Despite years of government monopoly over health care, things are not really improving.
(3)Big health care companies are in with government people to keep their market share and profits. Politicians are in with big health care companies to keep their control over our lives. Those who oppose big pharmaceuticals should really oppose government.
(4) How comes that to improve health care, it is better to run for office than to start an hospital? How demoralizing it is that the only way to improve health care is through an ugly combination of politics, corruption, and lobbying. If only free entrepreneurs had a chance to make a difference.
On libertarians and Bush, let’s not forget that many Randians call themselves Libertarians and are supporting many of the Bush’s policies. Also, Libertarians have the awful tendency to flirt with conservatism. Look at the political fraud Bob Barr in the USA who, day after day, speech after speech, redefines libertarianism as a breed of conservatism. Or look at the ghostly Dennis Young in Canada who brags his “conservative values”. When one runs as a Libertarian, one needs to be ready to support most if not all the ideas of the leaders or pseudo-leaders. I am more and more reluctant to call myself libertarian because of that. Anarcho-libertarian is much better. Anarcho-capitalist is cool also. Anarchy is wonderful, except that it was hijacked by some communist terrorists. At one point the key question to emigrate to the USA was “are you or have you been an anarchist?”.
Calling freedom movement in Scarborough – October 8th event
Please attend this event on Wed Oct. 8, 2008!
Anyone in Scarborough (and beyond) who wants to come out and support myself and a pro-freedom direction for Canada, even if you don’t live in my riding of Scarborough–Rouge River, please attend the Election Fest and Public Policy Forum sponsored by the Scarborough Mirror.
Time: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 7-10 PM.
Location: Centennial College Residence and Conference Centre, 940 Progress Ave., Scarborough, Ontario.
During the first part are presentations by the major party candidates in Scarborough. Hopefully there is time for the audience to challenge them – it would be great to see some libertarians and freedom groups doing that!
From 8:30 – 10:00, the rest of us “minor fringe candidates” also get to set up tables and hand out flyers. So I hope to have some help with that. If you can help, please do. Just come by, learn more about libertarianism and the Libertarian Party and help out if you can. And you can tell me about your concerns. Yes, I know there is a Libertarian pub night in downtown Toronto the same night unfortunately – but it can’t fit all of you anyway and I have decided to be at this other event.
Get the message out to people even if you have no Libertarian candidate in your riding. Only vote on principle and only vote for freedom. There are many freedom issues: the war on terror, health products legislation, copyright legislation, free speech, justice reform, property rights, taxes, government invasion of privacy, the drug war, gun rights, climate change propaganda/taxes, the monetary and banking system, SPP, etc. Probably there is a point here or there you disagree with – so what! Did I leave something out?
If you think everything is fine, and you like the other parties, and you want to prop up establishment authoritarianism, sorry I can’t help you - just read more and please forget to vote. I’m performing the service of being on the ballot for voters who want government to leave people alone. In my electoral district, you have a choice of voting for the Libertarian Party.
Starting this election and beyond elections, it’s all about getting the truth out to people – changing hearts and minds. Freedom is the answer. Tyranny is the problem. Discredit the system, the ruling political class and their destructive ideology.
October 4th, 2008
Eventful Campaign Week
Things have been very busy. I’ll start by talking about Wednesday. Basically, I was torn about the Rogers TV event. There was some kind of opportunity for me there to speak after the debate or whatever, but I was already committed to attending Election Fest at Centennial College and I wanted to focus on finding some volunteers. I was very pleased to meet a couple of Libertarian Party supporters there and I had a chance to set up a table and distribute flyers to the public. On Monday I was interviewed by a newspaper reporter and tonight at the Election Fest event, I also got a chance to speak to another reporter, which was great.
Here is my campaign flyer, lpc-brochure_am5, much of which is based on the LP of Canada brochure. Just to quote some sections:
Libertarian Party of Canada – Statement of Principles:
1. Each individual has the right to his or her own life, and this right is the source of all other rights.
2. Property rights are essential to the maintenance of those rights.
3. In order that these rights be respected, it is essential that no individual or group initiate the use of force or fraud against any other.
4. In order to bar the use of force or fraud from social relationships and to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control, human society requires an institution charged with the task of protecting individual rights under an objective code of rules. This is the basic task, and the only moral justification for, government.
5. The only proper functions of government, whose powers must be constitutionally limited are as follows: settling, according to objective laws, disputes among individuals, where private, voluntary arbitration has failed; providing protection from criminals; providing protection from foreign invaders.
6. As a consequence of all the above, every individual — as long as he or she respects the rights of others — has the right to live as he or she alone sees fit, as a free trader in a free market.
What is Libertarianism?
“Libertarianism is an integrated political philosophy. Although its roots can be traced back throughout the history of ideas, it is only within the last thirty years that it has emerged as a well defined political philosophy. What it is based on is a new idea regarding the proper role of government in a free society.
“Libertarianism challenges the basic premise behind the view that what the state perceives as “the common good” should be forced on the individual – and it challenges the idea on two fronts. In the civil area, Libertarianism supports all civil liberties and opposes all attempts by government to reshape its citizens’ lives. In the economic area, Libertarianism challenges the right of government to restrict trade in any way, or to force citizens to support through taxes projects they will not willingly support on the free market.
“Libertarians do not look at government as a sacrosanct body that cannot be questioned, but simply as the agency which today makes unreasonable use of legal force. Libertarians therefore address themselves to one basic question: What is the proper justification for the use of government’s coercive power?
“The Libertarian answer is that government power must be used only to protect the individual from the use of force or fraud by others.
“Libertarians believe that the ever-growing power of the state in Canada is stifling us all. The main problem today is that many Canadians have come to the belief that all problems can be solved by government. To counter this doctrine, Libertarians are promoting an idea, the idea of personal liberty as well as the idea of personal responsibility. “
Specific Issues of Concern
“Individual Rights: We hold that each individual has the right to exercise sole dominion over her/his life, and to live in whatever manner she/he may choose, so long as she/he does not violate the equal rights of others.
“Government’s Role: We hold that where governments exist, they should be stringently limited both in their structure and in their operations.
“Civil Order: No conflict exists between the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property, and the government’s obligation to maintain civil order.
“Social Concerns: Government interference in current social concerns such as pollution, consumer protection, health care delivery, and poverty exceeds the level required for the protection of individual rights.
“Defence & Foreign Policy: A Libertarian government would adopt a policy of non-intervention, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures.
“Trade & Economy: The proper role of government, in this context, is to protect property rights, enforce contracts, and adjudicate disputes, providing a legal framework for the protection of voluntary trade.”
See pdf above for Libertarian Party of Canada membership and contact information.
And here is my personal “platform” or at least a summary of some key issues that are important to me:
Alan Mercer
Candidate, Libertarian Party of Canada
Scarborough—Rouge River
Voluntary society – autonomy – freedom
Personal and economic freedom
Property rights and free markets
End Canada’s intervention in Afghanistan
End war, bombing and torture
Restore and protect civil liberties and privacy
Protect our sovereignty – oppose the SPP
Support free speech
Support health freedom
End marijuana and drug prohibition
Oppose taxes, regulations and victimless “crimes”
Support justice reform, victims’ rights, restitution, and self-defence rights
Next post will be on Tuesday’s events. I’m feeling very positive about the election today. It feels good a lot of the time to do this kind of outreach, even though I guess I must be making some people angry. I have some hope that we will continue to build a larger freedom movement and network of volunteers across Canada. I’m glad that there are 26 candidates for the LP of Canada running and it’s great that we’re all participating and going through the same kind of experience together.
October 9th, 2008
Statement on CFRB 1010
My statement from Tuesday evening (Oct. 7th) on CFRB Radio:
My name is Alan Mercer and I’m running in Scarborough–Rouge River for the Libertarian Party.
In everyday life, we negotiate with other people and try to respect their autonomy and choices.
But when it comes to politics, people use government power – threats of prison and fines – to control others – how they use their money, their property and their bodies – what they can and can’t do with their lives.
One of the activities other people force us to pay for is the war in Afghanistan. If you have been following some of the reports from Afghanistan, you will hear about the large numbers of civilian deaths, many of which are caused by NATO airstrikes.
I don’t agree that I should fund death and destruction in Afghanistan with my taxes.
Thank you.
[end]
And coincidentally, I was encouraged to see this letter to the editor posted the next day on the Toronto Star’s web site from a soldier, Corporal Paul Demetrick, opposing the war in Afghanistan:
“…But when I hear of things our troops have done in Afghanistan, I have to ask, “What kind of legacy do we wish to leave behind?” Some examples: we respond to hostile fire by indiscriminate bombing and shelling of villages, killing innocent men, women and children; we fire white phosphorus shells (a chemical weapon outlawed by the Geneva Conventions due to the horrific way it burns human beings) into vineyards where it was known Afghan insurgents were deployed; we hand over prisoners of war to Afghan authorities, who torture them; and we shoot and kill a 2-year-old Afghan boy and his 4-year-old sister. …”
Paul Demetrick is a Reservist who has never been deployed to Afghanistan. His letter to the editor of the Star contains a mix of lies and statements about events taken completely out of context, not surprising for someone who was never there in the first place. He is a sad disgrace to the CF, his supposed “comrades-in-arms”, and to Canada.
As Bloggins just stated, Cpl Demetrick a member of the British Columbia Dragoons has never deployed to Afghanistan. Canadian Soldiers have never used White Phosphorous against the Taliban/Insurgents. For one, we do not possess WP and second, it is against the Geneva Convention, a law of armed conflict we follow explicitly. Cpl Demetrick has sullen the name of those of us currently deployed (Myself included), those that have deployed and those that have not come home. Cpl Demetrick does not know his facts. Cpl Demetrick is also foolish if he believes Peace will magically come to the people of Afghanistan if NATO pulls out. He obviously has never read a history book written about the area and the atrocities the Taliban were responsible for during their time in power.
Furthermore the editor who published his letter should be fired for not checking his sources and allowing left wing rhetoric to influence an already out of touch and uninformed public.
A proud soldier IN Afghanistan.
“Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.
“”The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It’s very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices … and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don’t dodge in and out of those marijuana forests,” he said in a speech in Ottawa.
“”We tried burning them with white phosphorus — it didn’t work. We tried burning them with diesel — it didn’t work. The plants are so full of water right now … that we simply couldn’t burn them,” he said.
…”
“MCpl Smith” said “we do not possess WP” and I produced a link contradicting that.
So what other “make-believe” stuff from me do you want to disprove today?
How about:
Canada doesn’t have an independent foreign policy. It pursues an imperial interventionist foreign policy.
Canada surrendered its sovereignty already to the U.S., U.N. and NATO.
We’re lied to by our governments.
The war on terror is a fraud. 9/11 was the ruling class’s “pearl harbour” as they anticipated in the Project for the New American Century report.
Young people are used as cannon fodder.
NATO troops are poisoned by depleted uranium and vaccine experimentation so they become no threat
Innocent people are constantly killed and weddings bombed repeatedly in Afghanistan.
Canadian forces serve the military industrial complex.
They are fighting for a socialist state, a totalitarian system that established an income tax, a central banking system and political correctness that attacks traditional institutions, just as was tested during the Soviet era.
They are fighting for a government that started destroying our civil liberties “to fight terror”, that is continuing to destroy our property rights and will follow its bosses down the road of destroying our freedom of speech as well.
Statement at Albert Campbell All-Candidates Debate
I attended the all-candidates debate at Albert Campbell Collegiate on Tuesday morning (Oct. 7th). There were really two debates and it was fairly intense. Half the students were there for the first hour and then the other half came for the second hour.
Here is my opening statement in the main debates. (And if you think anyone else mentioned these topics, forget it. Keep the topics as boring as possible about rearranging deck chairs and that way you don’t remind anyone about deeper problems. )
I’m running as a Libertarian to present my concerns and give you an opportunity to vote for freedom.
Freedom means the opposite of control and domination.
In daily life, we have to negotiate with others and try to respect their autonomy and choices.
But when it comes to politics, we use government power – threats of prison and fines – to control others – how they use their money, their property and their bodies – what they can and can’t do with their lives.
Over the years, Parliament has increased the government’s powers, such as FINTRAC’s monitoring of our financial transactions. Also introduced recently was mandatory roadside drug testing. Other proposals threaten civil liberties in the areas of natural health products and intellectual property.
Parliament can’t deal with the fact that the U.S. government is becoming a dictatorship. There was the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the recent bailout.
This is why Parliament should be protecting our sovereignty but Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers have instead been negotiating the Security and Prosperity Partnership with the U.S.
In February, a Civil Assistance Plan was signed that allows the U.S. military to come into Canada whenever there is a civil emergency.
This in spite of the fact that our ally is practicing barbaric abuses against prisoners. Even Canadian citizens like Maher Arar have been caught up in this.
Canada should be demanding the return of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, captured as a child, so he can have a fair trial.
Canada should not be turning away war resisters who want to follow their conscience.
Liberals and Conservatives have supported the U.S. and NATO in their war in Afghanistan. Civilians, including children, arekilled regularly and constantly by NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan.
It doesn’t seem that Parliament has any intention of letting other nations or individuals work out their own lives and follow their own destiny.
The other parties don’t seem to have any intention of creating a more voluntary society based on respect for personal autonomy.
A lot of topics were covered during the debate. For example, I had a chance to respond to questions about propposed gun bans for Toronto by advocating for the right of law-abiding citizens to carry the means of their own defence so they’re not helpless and victimized by people who don’t obey the law (and who wouldn’t follow “gun bans” anyway and who don’t legally own guns). I explained that we shouldn’t have different classes of people: those in government – police and military – who are allowed to carry guns and another class of ordinary helpless citizens who are not allowed to carry guns.
And it’s an important point also to mention, whether or not I explained it clearly at the debate, that prohibition is making a life of gangs and violence too attractive and profitable to some, so ending the war on drugs would eliminate this problem. Prohibiting trade in something (a victimless “crime”) means it is very profitable for lawless gangs, who create actual victims.
I also had a chance to touch on a property rights approach to dealing with pollution and safety risk. Also, I attempted to explain how reducing taxes (ultimately to voluntary fees) and getting rid of centrally imposed regulations, government licensing, and credentialling monopolies would revive the Canadian economy and open doors to everyone, including immigrants. This alternative means a society based on contracts, consumer choice and accountability, fraud protection and competing credentialling associations – a free market in other words. Freedom means opportunity and wealth through maximizing the division of labour where everybody has opportunities to do what they do best. That’s what free-market capitalism means (not the fake kind of capitalism we have) – it’s a natural system of cooperation where people are free and they respect each others’ rights. The more freedom there is, the more of their own wealth people can keep, the more opportunities they have to feel better about their lives and to create a much more positive society.
Global Warming
I didn’t get a chance to talk about global warming in the actual debate, but I started a discussion about the issue in the staff room afterwards with some candidates, teachers and students. Basically I started out by challenging the Liberals and others who describe carbon dioxide as pollution. It’s not a completely new concept to me, but I was taken aback by this terminology “greenhouse gas pollution” in the Liberal’s Green Shift plan. The public is definitely being confused by this and I think many people are mistakenly associating carbon dioxide – an invisible non-polluting life-giving gas – with smog and real pollutants. Plants need carbon dioxide for life.
The politicians are calling it a “pollutant” because it is a greenhouse gas that is supposedly in excess quantities in the atmosphere. I gave some arguments that indicate human-produced carbon dioxide can’t have much of an effect. One example of these arguments is the drop in global temperatures from 1940 to 1975 despite increasing industrialization.
All combustion produces carbon dioxide and water vapour. Controlling human production of carbon dioxide by taxes is very serious because it will affect our “freedom” (yeh, I know, whatever that means, I’ll keep explaining it) - our ability to travel and heat our homes, as well as our whole economy. It’s not like actual pollution where individuals can assess costs of pollution. I covered some of the key points from this page.
Philosophically, I don’t believe that governments have a right to interfere in this way even if human industry did cause global warming, because what we do as humans naturally – without imposing damage on others - is part of nature and it’s up to individuals to solve problems voluntarily. That’s fine, but there is more going on here. As soon as you start looking into the subject, you realize the whole idea of man-made global warming is full of holes and totally questionable.
So now I’m a “denier” because I deny that humans cause global warming – and the other tactic of trying to shame and bully people with their top-down “scientific” pronouncements is in full force. Why is that? Because it’s not about reality and truth. It’s about control. And their “truth” has no place for freedom. Someone who is skeptical of pronouncements by the state and global bureacrats is automatically going to question this flimsy story supposedly backed by “science”.
My hunch, based on people I’ve talked to, is that many in the public aren’t buying it. They don’t want to be poorer. They don’t want to be even deeper into serfdom. We don’t want to be tax slaves. More and more people are tired of it – thousands of years of it already. Enough. How do you like that for TRUTH? Don’t hear much of it from the establishment media.
And this imposition of beliefs combined with politics – do you realize that this is exactly why freedom of conscience is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights? To protect us from people who want to impose beliefs on others! You don’t just impose beliefs on human beings with your politicized science and expect everyone just to accept whatever they’re told and expect to be held guiltless when human beings start suffering the consequences. This strategy of imposing an agenda and a religion dressed up as science violates the whole supposed basis of our society long before the Charter of Rights.
So I hope it all falls apart! I’m optimistic with that subject at least. Because I think many will examine the evidence and arguments scientifically on their own and will think for themselves.
October 10th, 2008
Q&A Canadian Firearms Institute – www.itsnowornever.ca
Name: Alan Mercer
Party: Libertarian Party of Canada
Province: Ontario
Riding: Scarborough—Rouge River
“The gun registry is by no means complete. Only 7 million of the estimated 15 million guns that are in Canada (according to government import and export records) are registered.
“The firearms registration is redundant, in that firearm owners are already licensed and identified and those licences and addresses are available to the police.
“The firearms registration has demonstrated itself to be a slow, inaccurate tool that identifies only those firearm owners who are licensed and register their firearms. Millions of firearms remain unregistered: their location, make, calibre and owner all unknown. The one billion plus dollars that have been spent creating and maintaining this inaccurate data base could well have been spent on increasing our country’s police services, upgrading technology for law enforcement and developing new methods for combating crime.”
Do you support abolishing the firearms registration?
YES
Do you support re-allocating the money, now wasted on the Firearms Registry, towards fortifying – and rendering more effective – our policing services?
NO
Comments: Yes, I support abolishing the firearms registration. I believe that firearms ownership is a right. I don’t believe in any registration because I believe in the right of self-defence. I don’t believe in different classes of people. Police are servants of the people and should not be the only citizens with guns. I don’t believe the authorities should be monitoring the location of firearms. This is how totalitarianism is imposed. After the bank-bailouts and corporate rip-offs are complete and the public is angry with the inflation, the government in power will start looking up the names of gun owners.
I was thinking of answering “Yes” to the policing question but it’s not the right answer. It should be up to each citizen how their money is spent. Money could be better spent on policing if people feel they could be better served by the police in a specific way. Also they should be able to make that choice locally and individually about what kind of security they prefer and it would be great if they could have written assurances from police services about how they are going to improve their approach to going after real crimes – murder, sexual assault, burglary and other theft.
However, if the government is going to waste resources on victimless crimes that shouldn’t be crimes, then this is a deeper problem and I wouldn’t advocate more money be spent on policing by government while they continue those policies. The justice system should be responsive to the needs of victims, and criminals should have to make restitution – pay compensation – to their victims or to the families of their victims.
“Canada’s Firearm heritage is imbedded in our culture and Firearms owners contribute over One Billion Dollars * a year to the Canadian economy through their activities such as hunting, purchasing hunting equipment, sports and target shooting, sports equipment, recreational vehicle purchases, and travel expenses etc. The firearms community contributes 1.2 Million dollars* to wildlife conservation programs and event annually.”
Will you actively support and protect this heritage?
YES
Comments: Yes, I will actively defend and encourage Canada’s Firearm heritage. The more of this type of positive economic activity the better. And there are so many other positive business and recreational activities that people could choose to add to that list if they were living in a more libertarian society with less taxes, regulations, licensing and central planning.
“The recent and notorious surge in “Gang Violence” is a creeping social problem fed by greed, easy money and criminal behaviour. People are killed and terrorized by these criminals. Our resources should be focused on solving these issues by implementing social programs at the geographic source of these troubled areas and increasing law and drug enforcement capability and technologies – rather than attacking our own trustworthy, hard working, voting citizens who also happen to legally own and use firearms.”
I agree AND I disagree
I agree with leaving law-abiding gun owners alone but I disagree with promoting the invasive drug war.
“If you would like to address the firearms community further, please include your comments below. We would like to know what you think.”
Just to comment more on the last question, I agree that law-abiding citizens should be left alone. Besides the fact that social programs should be voluntary, I would like to emphasize that we should not support a police state where infrared cameras are used to spy out homes for possible marijuana growth or where power usage is monitored! There are reports of this type of spying. Neither should we support harsh tyrannical innovations such as asset forfeiture, which is in violation of everything Canada is supposed to stand for. These attacks on civil liberties are not the kind of “creative energy” we need in Canada. Mandatory roadside drug testing was recently introduced and is another example of this. These invasions of privacy need to stop.
See Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at http://www.leap.cc/ We need to abolish the drug war. Drug prohibition is abusive and leads to higher profits for those who are willing to risk participation in the drug trade – because it is illegal – just as gangsters were empowered by alcohol prohibition. The lure of easy money is seductive to unstable young people in my opinion.
A genuine crime only exists when there is a victim. In a free society, young people would have more opportunities to prosper and live positive, fulfilling and responsible lives. For more information on libertarian ideals, see my website at …
October 11th, 2008
3 comments to Q&A Canadian Firearms Institute – www.itsnowornever.ca
I BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA IS TO TOTALLY DISARM THE PUBLIC. FURTHERMORE THE REGISTRY IS ONE OF THE MOST COSTLY VENTURES BY ANY GOVERNMENT AND A MAJORITY OF THE MEDIA (SPURRED ON BY THE GOVERNMENT)TO DUPE THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING THAT PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BE LIKE SHEEP AND FOLLOW (AGREE TO) EVEN BAD JUDGEMENTS MADE BY OUR LAWMAKERS IN OTTAWA. THEY WERE HASTY IN FORMULATING AND PASSING BILL C-68.
I HOPE A MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC ISBEING EDUCATED AND WILL EVENTUALLY GRASP THE FUTILIY OF THE GUN REGISTRY BECAUSE THE LAW ABIDING FIREARMS OWNERS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
IT SHOULD BE TIME THAT THE TRUE FIGURE REACH THE PUBLIC AS TO EXACTLY HOW MANY GUN RELATED CRIME ARE COMMITTED BY THE LAW ABIDER. THERE ARE ALREADY FIREARM LAWS IN EXISTENCE TO LET THE POLICE KNOW WHO THE LAW ABIDING OWNERS ARE.
TOO BAD THE CRIMINALS DO NOT ABIDE BY THE LAWS IN EXISTENCE.
“WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS”
I believe in freedom of speech – on and off the Internet. I dislike racism and anti-Semitism, etc., but we need to be able to talk freely about subjects in order to criticize and separate good from bad. The establishment political class do not believe in freedom of speech and we need to stop them from eating away at this fundamental pillar and value of Canadian society. Like so many other issues, there is a global power grab going on that is directed at the middle class. And the political establishment feels threatened by the potential for revolt against all the wars and erosion of national sovereignty which they prop up with their smears and propaganda. “Hate” laws are a tool for control and policing of opinion. Speech laws, drug prohibition, gun grabs, attacks on civil liberties, Internet regulations, “environmental” attacks on property rights, carbon taxes and banking bail-outs – it’s all part of the same picture.
2. Marc Emery test – Will you oppose the extradition of Marc Emery to the US for charges related to selling marijuana seeds. You can learn more about that here:
Our society needs more empathy for others, to leave people alone. The drug war is all about cruelty and abuse, so of course they came to arrest Marc Emery wearing ski masks! And again the Canadian government, as with the Security and Prosperity Partnership and banking bail-outs, puts U.S. and corporate influence above the interests of Canadians.
3. Pierre Lemieux test – Will you repeal the national firearms registry and provide amnesty to anyone charged under this legislation? More here:
Canadians traditionally have had the freedom and right to own firearms and this has eroded over time. We are facing growing government power and restrictions on our lives. I am glad to see there is resistance among firearms owners to the new government invasions of their lives. Who is threatening violence? The government. Who wants to own all the guns ultimately and leave people defenceless? The government.
4. Jacques Chaoulli test – Will you amend the Canadian Health Act to remove any and all barriers to private health delivery. Here’s our cover story on the Chaoulli case for background:
As in the case of the drug war, the health care system, which is supposed to be so compassionate, is actually cruel and abusive towards patients who are forced to suffer long delays while they wait for treatment. As in the case of provincial legislation in Ontario, violators are threatened with fines and prison sentences. That’s why libertarians cannot support it! Nobody should be proud of that! And read all about the queue-jumping. Amazing! They want freedom for themselves but not for everyone else. Same old story. Violence doesn’t solve problems and threats of violence are what the health care system is all about.
October 12th, 2008
1 comment to Q&A – Western Standard Freedom Issues
I oppose the Finance Minister’s plan to bail out Canadian banks. I am disappointed but not surprised. In my opinion, the Conservatives should not be rewarded for this transfer of our wealth to the banks. Since Stephane Dion says he would do the same, I think voters should definitely consider not voting for either the Conservatives or Liberals. A revolt against the Conservatives – and Liberals – I believe personally would be a very healthy thing for Canada.
We have all these people believing that the Conservatives are “laissez-faire” blah blah blah and they have their “secret” laissez-faire agenda. It’s so secret, I guess they’ve been disguising it as a market interventionist agenda for a while now. Sure, vote Libertarian if you have a candidate in your area, or vote for another party if you insist, or don’t vote at all.
The government is planning to buy bank-held mortgages through the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation (CHMC). The Finance Minister and the Prime Minister claim that these are valuable assets and that the government is going to make money on this transaction. I don’t believe either of those promises.
I don’t believe that government wealth should be redistributed like this. I don’t believe the government should be giving special privileges to big banks. If libertarians are opposed to forced government welfare in general, and interference in the free market (or semblance thereof), we should even more be opposed to welfare for big corporations. I see this as corporatism. The structure of the society is government working together with big business (some of them anyway), fused together legislatively, especially through the banks and those who have the most pull on the government, another example being the auto manufacturers. They receive privileged benefits. Everyone works together, goes along, doesn’t rock the boat, doesn’t seek independence and freedom. Just cover the cracks with whitewash and pretend to be doing something useful instead of doing the right thing.
Regardless of whatever principles the Conservatives might have (”secret” principles I guess), the peer pressure from the U.S. government, European governments and banks is obviously overwhelming Canadian politicians and makes them react to paper over problems like this credit crunch using this kind of socialist intervention.
I’m trying to understand this situation as well as possible. My belief is that the results of this could be inflationary or it could be a drain on taxpayers in some other way. (Have we already had the money taken from us by the CMHC all these years and have they been accumulating it? The topic of the interventionist CMHC needs to be examined closely by Canadians.)
I think that people should stop spending and borrowing now. If credit is supposed to dry up, let it dry up. Let these institutions correct how they do business and who they do business with. Let consumers correct their spending and borrowing behaviors. Don’t interfere. That way everything can adjust. Instead, this interference is going to prolong the problem.
Oct. 10: “The federal government’s $25-billion takeover of bank-held mortgages to ease a growing credit crunch faced by the country’s financial institutions is not a bailout …”
Oct. 10: Point of view of the Consumers’ Association (this is another wrong approach but trying to control interest rates is a fundamental mistake in our society so it’s not new)
Dennis Young is running against Stephen Harper in Calgary–Southwest
For other Libertarian candidates and volunteer suggestions, go here
October 13th, 2008
Scarborough–Rouge River and Campaign Coverage
New coverage of me in Centennial College’s Toronto Observer with the other Scarborough–Rouge River Candidates.Alan Mercer campaign flyer with my platform points and information on libertarianism and the Libertarian Party of Canada.
A recorded 1 minute video of me for the Scarborough Mirror at InsideTorontoVotes.ca
Why does Dennis Young make a difference between marijuana consumption by adult and non-adult?
Should we imply that the leader of the Libertarians Party of Canada support the war on cocaine and other drugs?
Norris Barens, Libertarian candidate for Vancouver Quadra posted the following comments here, which are very provocative. He makes an important distinction between individualism and collectivism, including ironic remarks that are bound to offend. I like his idea about how representatives should be required to read legislation and keep each bill to one topic.
“I know I am not a contender in this election my goal is to get as many votes as possible and send a message to the government that there are people that care about Liberty and we should be taken seriously.
“If I where able to get 1,000 votes I would be a very happy person. The objective for me is to show that there is an alternative to the system we now have in all countries of the world and that alternative is individualism.
“The opposite of individualism is collectivism that is the only system we have in the world today. Examples of collectivism in order of severity would be Stalinism, Maoism, Adolf Hitler’s fascist Germany, Idi Amin’s Uganda, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau and Steven Harper the list is endless and the list of suckers that believe in collectivism is endless.
“Collectivism is where a group gets together and tells everyone else what they think is good for them. As collectivism can very in degree at any given time it ultimately boils down to someone else is in control of your life they will tell you what they think is best for you.
“Some times this is a good thing as a kind ruler can do many good works take for example Adolf Hitler, his accomplishments still to this day are held as a shining example of when a good collectivist can acomplish if left with unbridled power. In the 193.’s Germany had health care they had day care they had the finest highway system in the world. All of this was pulled from the ashes of a devastating depression.
“Joseph Stalin was another nation builder. The list go’s on.
“Right hear in Canada we have everything that Nazi Germany had and we can be proud of our accomplishments. Collectivism can work very well I will be the first to admit that.
“The problem comes when our leaders become adventurous. Since we opened the flood gates and gave our rights to govern our own lives to the all benevolent government we have to carry on with what ever plan they have in store for us because remember the majority tells the minority what is good for them.
“If by some miracle if I were elected the first thing I would argue for would be that all M.P’s would have each bill read to them by the law clerk. They would have to sign an affidavit that they read and understood the bill. I would argue that there should be only one subject per bill. If bills had to be read they would be shorter and more concise. One subject at a time would ensure that bad earmarks could not be attached to good and worthy bills.
“I would fight for a constitutionally limited government. This means we would have to say goodbye to the Crown of England.
“History shows that criminals often infiltrate government and hold positions of power in our civil service. We should guard our rights jealously and say to the government we’re the government not you.
“In Liberty I remain yours truly Norris Barens Libertarian candidate for Vancouver Quadra”
October 13th, 2008
A Libertarian Response to the Canadian Government’s Mortgage Buyout
Following up on my previous post, I wanted to include this article by another Libertarian candidate:
Analysis by Jason McNeil, Libertarian Party of Canada Candidate for Calgary Centre — North
Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty stated on Friday (Oct. 10) that the government would buy up $25 billion in CMHC-insured mortgages. He tried to assure Canadians that since they were insured by a Crown Corporation that there was no increase in risk to own the securities. The goal of this action is to free up the banks with an infusion of cash so that they can continue to issue credit.
Q. Where is the government getting the $25 billion?
A. They are borrowing it and counting on the revenue from the securities to be more than the rate they are borrowing at. Overall, this is a likely scenario.
Q. Are these loans ‘low risk’?
A. Not entirely, otherwise they would not require CMHC, but they are not what we would call Toxic or NINJA loans.
Q. Why has credit dried up?
A. Lending institutions have made bad loans and a more than usual number of people are not paying them back. This has caused a loss of confidence and so loans are being called in, with fewer new loans being issued. The larger issue is inter-bank lending, or an institutional bank run. This is what the Government is trying to avoid.
Q. What caused the problems in the derivatives?
A. Derivatives involve buying up credit risk. If you buy up too many high risk derivatives and they default, you will experience a loss and may go bankrupt. The problem in the US occurred, in part, because a few large companies had taken on the risk for a very large number of loans; loan default rates went up and the risk holders were about to go under.
Q. Who caused this?
A. The government. They artificially lower interest rates through the central bank and this causes excessive lending and a boom. When the market finally realizes that it can not maintain the number of loans that it has issued, credit will contract and the market will experience a bust.
If the rate of lending was determined by the market, these cycles would be shorter and would differ between lenders.
Q. So if excessive lending caused the problems how is the government trying to fix the issue?
A. They are trying to free up credit. They have bought loans from banks to take them off their books and they have lowered the Central Bank’s lending rate (to other banks) by 0.5% to 2.5%. This may sound like it will add to the problem, and it will. The problem however, is systemic in that without credit and confidence in our paper money, the system fails. The principles of sound finance do not apply in our FIAT monetary system. What happens is that new money must be created at a rate greater than the rate it was created in the previous loan- repayment cycle. Thus we must inflate our money supply. The result of inflation is that people with savings or fixed incomes lose purchasing power. This is like a hidden tax on the middle class and the poor.
Q. How do we avoid this going forward?
A. By moving to a 100% reserve banking system and a currency that is redeemable in gold. In this system we can easily allow bad lenders to go out of business without the worries of bank runs or a loss of confidence in our money. The loss of confidence would be vested in those who made bad investment decisions.
Q. How do we transition?
A. Over a period of time (years) we would exchange FIAT dollars for Gold Dollars. The price of gold would have to go up as we have more dollars than gold at the current rate. This would give gold holders and the gold miners a windfall profit during the transition. This is acceptable.
Transitioning the banking system is harder and would require a shift in our habits as consumers. We would have to do a lot more saving, as loans would be harder to get. The positive is that we would lower inflation so that saving would be beneficial and the total cost to consumers to buy things would go down (no interest).
“The drug war is a reason to not vote Conservative. The Conservatives are likely to extradite Marc Emery. I think the Liberals would be just as bad or worse with bank bailouts, so vote Libertarian if there is a candidate in your riding, or stay home.”
October 13th, 2008
Libertarian “Victory Party” in Barrie – Vote for Paolo Fabrizio
Election Day – October 14 – BARRIE VICTORY PARTY, 6:30 PM
Location: Mullies Bar & Grill, 17 Mulcaster Street, Barrie,
“Come and help Paolo Fabrizio, our candidate in Barrie, celebrate an amazing campaign. He received almost daily coverage in the Barrie Examiner and attended many All Candidate Meetings. There were Libertarian signs all over Barrie and Paolo has attracted many new people to the Libertarian Party. Rogers Cable and the Barrie Examiner said they would be there. Even the Liberal and Conservative candidates plan to show up for Paolo’s party. Don’t miss it!”
“Paolo Fabrizio for MP. Married father of three. Honest, scandal-free baker and pastry chef. Win or lose, every single vote for Fabrizio shows you are fed up with government waste, and this time, you really mean it. Fabrizio will work to bring the troops home, pull Canada out of the flawed Security and Prosperity Partnership which erodes our sovereignty, preserve property rights, reject the world government of the United Nations, put more money in your pocket for real, and fight for your right to own firearms like nobody else. And, even legalize marijuana, too. Please visit his website: www.barrielibertarians.com
October 13th, 2008
Libertarian Candidate in Calgary–Centre North
Article on Jason McNeil, Libertarian Party of Canada candidate for Calgary Centre–North. Lots of coverage of his campaign at his site. More info on his platform here. For example, Bill C-61 is a very important issue:
“No Canadian-DMCA: Copyright needs to be brought up to date so that technology isn’t used to facilitate theft; the current government practice of charging copying levies is not the answer. All Canadians should not suffer the cost of those who choose to wilfully infringe. Criminalization of circumvention of digital locks is not the solution either; this can and has been abused elsewhere (like the DMCA in the USA). Placing a digital lock on something is the equivalent of an automaker using a square gas spout in their cars and then making people criminals for using adapters for the round pumps. The circumvention of such locks currently is legal, the Libertarian party would work to ensure it remains that way.
“Jim Prentice refuses to discuss the fact that his new bill will turn our children into Copyright Criminals for doing something as simple as copying a video from a DVD onto their iPods. He also hung up on a CBC radio program about the effects of Bill-61 should it become law [Listen Here]. Can we really trust him to keep consumers best interests in mind?”
October 13th, 2008
Vote for Libertarian Candidate in Hamilton Centre
Anthony Giles is running for the Libertarian Party of Canada in Hamilton Centre. Please see his web site. There is a very interesting collection of Youtube videos on Ron Paul, free speech, taxation, monetary policy etc.
October 13th, 2008
Vote Libertarian in Scarborough–Rouge River
If you want to vote for something different, for freedom issues and peace, and against the bailout, then vote Libertarian tomorrow, Oct. 14.
You can read my campaign brochure here: http://canadianliberty.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/lpc-brochure_am5.pdf (outdated link).
It explains pro-liberty ideals as well as my platform. We are looking for more volunteers and local organizers post-election.
Alan,
Congratulations on your campaign; always difficult to fight against the media who always push the idea that government is here to do something for the people. Those laws and regulations on campaign financing are undemocratic. Just like any form of government I must say.
What do you think of the final results?
What should the Libertarian Party of Canada do at this point?
Yes, there’s a wall of false philosophy and false economics that prevents people from questioning how they live. Many people want to use government to force controls on others whether they see this or not.
The Libertarian Party of Canada has more volunteers now and may be able to build a bigger list of candidates for next time. Considering the number of candidates, the results for the LPC were about what can be expected, because there is certainly a need for more volunteers.
The Christian Heritage Party, I believe was the most successful minor party (not counting the Greens) and I know I felt envious of their results because I believe that the LP has the potential to exceed their performance if there is growth.
I’d like to emphasize my belief that the LPC, because it is a libertarian party, needs to be a special kind of Canadian political party that tolerates diversity in candidates and is not centralized like other parties. I’ve mentioned this before. All the centralized stuff might “work” for the other parties to an extent – where their goal is power in order to control others and get jobs for their friends. Instead, for the Libertarian Party, there is strength and success in numbers. Also, the party is based on philosophy and principles, not on platforms. Platforms are only useful for education or illustrating issues. The LPC will be stronger with a diverse and larger membership where people openly debate ideas in that context. After all, libertarians are likely to be opinionated and independent-minded and this is their appeal. I think this is more of an American political party approach that we need to maintain. Trying to imitate the other parties will not work for us.
It’s already been done and that’s why the LPC members left in the 80’s to join the Reform and Mike Harris Conservatives. We need motivated libertarian-minded people to join and they will be mostly impressed by a principled pro-freedom anti-war message.
I was disappointed that the Conservatives won more seats and I was disappointed that Canadians (the half who voted) were so obsessed with voting Liberal or Conservative to keep the others out. This is the establishment’s trick working very well in maintaining the status quo with the left-right tribal system. I would have prefered to see the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP be more evenly split and more divided. So somehow I think these election results are a bad omen for the near future but I don’t want people to give up. We need to build up our movement.
I think that you, the Libertarians in Canada, should focus more on the monetary issues. Many people are receptive to the “sound money” argument.
I understand that many Libertarians believe this is too sophisticated an issue to appeal to the public but Ron Paul hardly utters a sentence without mentioning the issue. When talking politics to pro-government people, I usually get a good reception on those issues. Deep in their minds, they know that printing money is wrong! Interestingly enough, I would say that the part of government they are the most receptive to curb/eliminate first is the central banking system! This is ironic because once central banking is gone, government will go fast because it will be very difficult to fund its violent operations through the sole taxes and borrowing. Borrowing without printing the borrowed money is not the same!!!
For some reasons, one looks better when talking about monetary issues than marijuana through a three-bullet point party strategy.
Libertarian Party as the party of sound money is a way better line than party of choice.
The US Federal Reserve is worse than the Bank of Canada only because the Fed is the heart of the current monetary system. The Bank of Canada is as bad in terms of increase of money supply, manipulation of interest rates, helping the state grows at the less visible cost of inflation…
I was very happy that abstentionism hit an all-time high at the last Federal elections because anything that hits the credibility of the state is good. Elections are great to push a message but the idea that a few elected get very significant power over millions of unelected is chilly enough for me to support the “don’t vote, it only encourages them” approach.
In the Personal Genome Project, volunteers make their genetic data public. On the positive side, it could lead to better and more individualized medical treatment. On the negative side, there are concerns expressed about insurance, eugenics and civil liberties.
Since we live in a society where individual choice is overridden by the power of the State - but I know how people want to believe otherwise – I’m sure this data will be used to control people. By the way, this adds thousands of additional records to government databases.
I recommend that people (and their doctors) keep their genetic data private, and I think that’s a good message for the freedom movement to promote.
October 18th, 2008
Results for Libertarian Party of Canada Candidates
Congratulations to all my fellow candidates for participating in the election! I know if there are more candidates next time, there will be more votes per candidate because there will be more of a presence.
I think Canadians should take the libertarian and freedom philosophy more seriously – to counter the rotten propaganda from “left” and “right”.
As libertarians, should follow our intuition about what are priorities are as individuals and choose areas of activism that we feel drawn to. I think part of that is making sure we build up personal sovereignty in our own lives and making that the basis of our efforts to achieve legal and political sovereignty.
Hopefully the Libertarian Party of Canada remains available as an institution that allows us to express the liberty agenda during elections and which also provides a diverse network of people who can build up the freedom movement and take action between elections.
One idea I’ve had – and it’s not new of course – is to write city councillors, MPP’s (MLA’s), MP’s etc. about specific issues that you feel strongly about, and also address the public about those specific issues using your best arguments. I think it’s important to always include the argument about liberty and choice and to never leave it out – the argument from morality in other words – and not to run away from controversial issues you feel strongly about simply because others disapprove of them. You may be on the right track and they may be on the wrong track.
Also, I have expectations of the public that many of them (not all) will understand the core philosophy and will also at least be concerned about how the government seems to be getting even more out of control.
“Michael Schmidt has run a co-operative organic dairy farm near Owen Sound, Ont., for more than 20 years…”
Why shouldn’t we be able to buy and sell raw milk? So many human economic activities are controlled or criminalized, but people think Canada is a free country for some reason. What exactly do you mean by “free”?
Deficits okay, PM told“As the premiers gathered here for a half-day meeting this morning to discuss the global financial crisis, several of them implored Harper to shake his previously iron-clad resistance to running a budget deficit….”
October 20th, 2008
New 9/11 movie “Fabled Enemies”
Fabled Enemies is a recent film by Jason Bermas that presents even more challenges to the official 9/11 story.
“Increasingly frustrated by the “downward spiral” that the U.S. intelligence community sees in Afghanistan, the Pentagon appears to be moving in support of engaging leaders of the resurgent Taliban who are prepared to disassociate themselves from al Qaeda.”
“Obama said if elected in November, he will remove troops from Iraq in a measured but methodical way and send more into Afghanistan. He recently proposed sending two brigades, or about more 7,000 troops, into Afghanistan, while withdrawing one or two brigades a month from Iraq.“
I think Stefan Molyneux’s philosophy series is very valuable, although I arrive at different conclusions on several topics I can think of. Overall, I really recommend him because of his advocacy of the non-aggression principle and his ideas on reason and morality. No one person has all the answers, but I feel the need to point out people (sometimes very different) who have really made a difference to me personally. Warning: painful, challenging, could disrupt your life.
Recent Comments