The Gift of Freedom

The greatest gift you can give someone on Christmas (or the other 364 days of the year) is the gift of freedom. Be the best ambassador for freedom you can be all year long. Spread the word that the answer to the world’s problems is freedom, charitable giving and personal responsibility… not government.

As my gift to you this year, I’d like to share with you the two men who have influenced my thinking more than any other. The two greatest gifts to freedom that the world has ever seen. Unfortunately, both are no longer with us.

Harry Browne:

Harry ran for US president in 1996 and again in 2000. He introduced me to libertarianism when a few years ago, I heard on old radio interview with him done in 1996 with Art Bell… I`ve been hooked ever since. He single headedly turned me into a libertarian. In the last few years of his life, Harry had a weekly radio show of his own. Blow is a link to one of those shows titled ``Selling Libertarian Ideas`` . I have listened to this episode several times and I`m sure I will again in the future.

Note: It`s a 5 part youtube video, I couldn`t find a version that was uninterrupted.

Milton Friedman:

I`ve only discovered him more recently but he had lots of great things to say. Every time I search youtube, I find more fascinating material. Here is my favourite video I`ve discovered so far:

Drug Protection Laws Are Not An Accomplishment

The Harper Government has given itself it’s own report card. Last week they released their 2013  legislative accomplishments. They seem to be proud that a record 40 bills have reached royal accent calling it the “most productive year on record”. Think of it a different way…   40 of your freedoms were taken away this year. Government gets bigger and it’s touted as an accomplishment? I find this very disturbing… and so should you. I thought conservative political parties were supposed to reduce the size of government. That’s another topic for another day, and I have lots to say on that subject for sure.

Among their ‘accomplishments’ are laws that protect Canadians from unsafe drugs. Many people see this as a good thing. And it CAN be for sure. However, rarely is it thought of the other way: What about lives that are lost because drugs which could be beneficial, are kept off the market? How will you ever see the lives lost because of that? Many years later when the drug IS approved, the only people who might object to that will be dead.  But they may still be alive if they had access to that drug.

For years, Beta Blockers were kept off the market for fear that they would be deadly. Upon approval, it was mentioned that this drug would save up to 10,000 lives a year. Since it took 10 years to approve, does this mean the Government killed 100,000 people? It’s in health Canada’s best interest to always be late on approval; they are not going to want the bad publicity from potentially killing thousands of people.

But it’s also in a drug company’s best interest to make sure the drugs they are putting on the market are safe. If a drug turns out to be unsafe, then that drug company deserves anything that comes it’s way… bankruptcy, class action lawsuits whatever. In a free and open market, potential for bad publicity keeps people honest. A free and unregulated market can police itself if given the chance.

Who died and put Health Canada in charge?

What Is A "Monopoly" Anyway?

Today, the competition bureau announced it’s going to look into whether or not google has too much dominance in the marketplace. The word monopoly wasn't actually used in this story but a Google run ‘Monopoly’ is really what is being investigated here.

Too often, people throw around the term “Monopoly” way too often. Progressives who use this word should really look up the definition in the dictionary. The definition of monopoly as given in the dictionary is:

Monopoly
: complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market
: a large company that has a monopoly
: complete ownership or control of something

There you have it, a monopoly is when one company or organization has 100% control over a marketplace or industry. However, monopoly is often used in the same sentence as ‘Walmart’ (or insert a big name company here). So if Walmart has a monopoly, then does Target not exist? Does Sears not exist? What about the dollar store? All of these companies are competitors for Walmart. Walmart may be the most successful and have the biggest share of the competitive pie, but by no means do they have a monopoly.

The fact is, monopolies almost never occur in the private sector. Monopolies occur almost exclusively with government. Like here in Ontario with the LCBO. If you want to buy wine or spirits, there is only one game in town, and that game is run by the government. Not only does the government have a monopoly on alcohol, they have outlawed all competition. THAT is a true monopoly. I find it funny that progressives who talk about these (fake) monopolies seem to be ok with government controlling almost every aspect of their lives. Let me tell you something, government will mess with you 100 times more often than any big corporation will.

I find it hilarious when a monopoly (government) investigates what it perceives to be a stranglehold on the marketplace. So much for Harper’s “Free Market Approach” huh?

Ontario "Healthy Schools Strategy" Has Failed

Well, surprise... surprise. Ontario high school students aren't eating at their local cafeteria because the food sucks.

Three years ago, the province of Ontario put in place what they called the "Healthy Schools Strategy". Chocolate bars, burgers and soft drinks were outlawed and replaced with apples, rice and corn in high school cafeteria's.

Ontario's annual Auditor General report was released this week and found in part, sales at High school cafeteria's are down by as much as 45% and vending machine sales are down by as much as 85%. This making it very difficult for Ontario to reach their goal to reduce childhood obesity by 20% in 5 years.

When the government forces people to do things they don't want to do, they go elsewhere. High taxes on tobacco products have forced people to go underground to get their fix. Many people cross boarder shop because prices are cheaper... even when you factor in the price of gas (which is also significantly cheaper in the US). In this case, high school students are ditching their local cafeteria's for fast food options across the street.

When I was in high school, I rarely ate at the cafeteria as I usually brought my lunch from home. Healthy eating starts at home, not with the government telling us what we can and can't eat.

The auditor general's report also found that many cafeteria's aren't even following the healthy eating plan either. Of the three schools tested for this report, some entree's had two times the amount of allowable fat and one dish had 40% more sodium than was supposed to be called for.

In addition to the undesirable options, many students say their local cafeteria menu prices are just too high and the fast food dollar menu across the street is more appealing. I bet the next step is banning fast food establishments near high schools. Sorry... I don't want to give the government bureaucrats any ideas.

The Reform Act: Two Sides To Every Bill

There has been a lot of talk lately about The Reform Act. Last week, Conservative MP Michael Chong put forth a motion which would give more power to your local MP. It sounds like a good idea on the surface but as with most things in life, there are two sides to every story.

There are things about this bill that are good, like allowing a party's local riding association to pick their own candidate. Too many times these days, your local election candidate could be a parachute candidate. The leader of the party will pick high profile candidates and put them in ridings they know they can win, even if that riding is 1000's of miles away from where that person lives. I personally believe that a candidate should live in the riding they are running in. This is an issue that people care about, the 'where do you live' question seems to come up in most debates I watch. The whole parachute thing is dishonest politics, this is exactly how Green Party leader Elizabeth May got elected in 2011.

So there is definitely some good stuff in this bill. But... has anybody seen they part where only 15% of caucus MP's can overthrow their leader?  This concerns me. Take the Liberals for example, the federal Liberals have 36 seats in the house of commons right now. So this would mean if 5 MP's don't like him, he can be kicked out? 81, 000 card carrying liberals voted for Justin Tredeau earlier this year at the leadership convention and if only 5 people don't like him, those vote will be null and void?

But wait there's more, party MP's will have the power to choose the replacement. And this vote occurs in secret and with only 50% + 1 of the vote, a new leader is voted in. And it's not mandatory that every MP attends the meeting either. So in theory, a new leader could be voted in by literally a hand full of people as well. And this is supposed to be more democratic? If you are a card carrying member of a political party, you should think twice about supporting this bill.

There are two sides to every story. Whenever you hear about a piece of legislation, especially something you think is going to benefit the voting public, ask yourself this question: What is in it for the person (or people) proposing the bill? Everything government does by its very nature is political. Politicians will rarely do anything that benefits the people, everything they do is ultimately for their own political gain. In this case, it's a few back bench MP's who don't see eye to eye with Stephen Harper and they want to overthrow him. Sure, Michael Chong says this won't come into effect until the next election in 2015 but he could very well get re-elected and then.. It's on.

Be very wary of this proposal, It's gives more power to government bureaucrats and less power to you, the voting public. Remember, ask yourself: What's in it for me? The answer... nothing.

Inside The Mind of a Liberal

I can't sleep tonight so here I am wondering aimlessly around the interwebs. I came across an interesting article speculating why the Occupy Wall Street movement never really took off. There are a number of reasons for this but this article suggests that the 'left' hasn't embraced the OWS movement the way the 'right' has taken to the tea party movement. The article reads in part:

"Liberals tend to think they’re each unique in their ideology, while conservatives and moderates have the perception that most other people think the way they do."

It's an intresting article... take a look:

Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/02/study-suggests-occupy-wall-street-movement-undone-by-liberals-need-to-feel-unique 

"Yeild To The Bus" Has Become An Abuse Of Power

So picture this,

I'm driving to work this morning, I'm in the right hand lane getting ready to cross an intersection. Just after the intersection is a guy pulled over by police in the right hand lane. I signal and make my move to the left hand lane to avoid the blockage... so does a city bus right in front of me.

In the area I live in, city busses have a yield sign on the back of them. The purpose of this is to allow city busses to merge back into traffic after making a stop. I have never really agreed with this exemption but abide by the law and willingly let the bus in when in that situation. My beef is when this yield law is abused. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a bus bend the rules just like I saw this morning.

A city bus made a lane change in the middle of an intersection. This is another example of Government employees making rules for the general public but abiding by a different set of rules for themselves.  Politicians have their own private jets. In some cases, send their kids to a special school system provided by government. Government bureaucrats don't live in the real world. Do you think Air Force 1 has ever experienced a delay? Has the Prime Minister ever had to check his baggage or gone through a naked body scanner? Of course not.

In this case the bottom line is, you can't change lanes in an intersection. It's unfair that city transit vehicles can get away with something that I would get a ticket for. And I don't care that it's in the name of saving the planet... which is ultimately what this is all about.