As a (paleo-)libertarian, the highest priority issues for me are anything that erodes the freedoms we have, that goes in the wrong direction, that threatens individual rights – of Canadians and foreigners – directly. These are:
1) war and interventionism
2) erosion of civil liberties, due process, habeas corpus, use of torture, growth of surveillance and biometric identification
3) threats to Canadian sovereignty and independence from supra-national governments
4) after that, it’s attacks on free speech, undermining property rights, self-defence rights, reforming the justice system, independence of the individual and non-government institutions like families and churches from the government, taxes of course.
Probably all of the issues in #4 are important too, but I think #1, #2 and #3 should be given higher priority and are the most relevant to those in the public who care anything at all about freedom.
I’ve got so much to say about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, I better get started.
First, I am reading “The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” by Jerome Corsi, and I have heard his interviews on the radio, and I think he presents valuable insight into what is going on.
Second, I don’t agree with economic nationalism at all and interventionism in the economy by the government, and the policies in this article highlight the contradictions in this issue.
If we come at it as if there are only two points of view, then we are left thinking that we need to adopt either the one or the other. But I’d like to step mud all over both.
True statement: “We have a security and prosperity partnership which is dealing with a kind of de facto annexation that drives Canadian public policy.”
Yes, the corporatist state called the United States that intervenes in its economy and believes in this same anti-economic anti-market concept of “energy security” – to the extent that it attempts to dominate the world militarily – is indeed annexing the Canadian corporatist state.
To the libertarians and conservatives who advocate or passively advocate integration with the United States: Why is this a good thing?
The other contradiction: the report authors are wary of domination by the U.S. government but it’s somehow okay to go along with all the globalist environmental domination – annexation by the international global warming agenda (also pushed by many Americans)?
I’m supposed to take Klein’s and Harper’s side? I’m supposed to be against the Liberals who stayed out of Iraq? This left-right nonsense just leaves people confused. Look for the contradictions. It is divide and conquer by the political class.
February 8th, 2008