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

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

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

Article continued down the page
[ Some Thoughts on Mimimum Wage Etc.: Economic Arguments Need to be Reexamined in Light of Living in a Planned Society – Update: 2012
I agree that Hazlitt’s arguments seemed convincing, that these restrictions logically should backfire, but in our situation, the more serious problems are still in place: heavy regulation and taxation and government subsidies to big business(!), and even worse, there is a process of deindustrialization described as “free trade”. So in a system that isn’t free anyway, taking away minimum wage laws etc. means that there is just one less thing shielding people from poverty.

In other words, it could deserve some careful analysis at some point, but for now, I’m speculating that there could be counter-arguments against Hazlitt. The assumptions of economists could just be completely wrong. For one thing, who ever considers a situation where Western economies are being deliberately shut down [under Agenda 21 and climate change and trade agreements] according to an international agreed plan?

Also, big companies are subsidized and bailed out! The wealth flows to the top! Executives who were caught up in that would keep laying people off anyway as they reduced the workforce and the size of the plants and take large salaries and retirement benefits for themselves as the company closed or was transferred overseas! Hasn’t that been happening?

In that situation, a freed up minimum wage would have no lower limit, as there would be no competition domestically for jobs and they could employ a few more people at slave wages for longer. If the intent was there to reduce businesses domestically, reducing wages would just prolong the shut-down slightly.

I wouldn’t be so quick to focus on minimum wage (seems insensitive) as part of a solution to a troubled economy when our problems are much deeper and are actually planned! (Many people are trained not to allow for that possibility because of their education). It’s worth reexamining these economic arguments and their assumptions.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer – not because of free market, but because of the fact that the elites control the government and are making it more and more oppressive and corrupt. In other words, the wealth gets literally sucked out of the working and middle classes and is redistributed to the wealthy in a situation like that. All the government impositions remain in place and corporate welfare remains in place, and the jobs are shipped to Asia. Regulations favor big business because they can afford them.

If there is a lack of industry, a lack of business, then there is going to be less and less competition. Competition for employees is what would protect the wages of employees in a supposed free market society. But what if there are very few jobs!? If the pressure is on us to move overseas even (a lot of people would never move), it’s still caused by all of this planning, and we’re being pushed to move against our will. You might claim it’s “free market” or “free trade” but it’s really planning. Coordinated demolition of protections is the same as central coordinated planning or reorganization. After decades of being dependent on government and relying on them to protect us, they pull the rug out from under us! I’m all for economic freedom, but I can’t ignore what’s happening. Many points need reexamined.

Aren’t we in a situation where we should stand up for each other and use every tool we can to protect each others’ rights and their standard of living and economic status instead of allowing everything to be taken away deliberately. It seems that way to me. Should people cooperate more, and if not using government, at least agree on standing up for each other in different ways to shield people from abuse.

Here’s another point! Do Hazlitt’s arguments apply to a society that is dominated by property tax? I don’t see how free market arguments can apply in a society that is controlled by property tax! If we don’t have work, we can’t keep our homes and our property!!! We need to focus on issues like that. We can’t talk about removing protections in a society that forces us to pay for our own property on top of sales tax on top of incomes tax! And with corporate government contracts, subsidies and bailouts escalating. It’s ridiculous. There’s no freedom. There’s no competition. It’s just people at the lower level sliding into the ditch.]

Back to Original Article

Also, monopolies on professional certification prevent access to new immigrant professionals – and others – whose qualifications should be open to judgment by consumers through competing standards associations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Statement:

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

September 21st, 2007