Red Pill Three

Taking the Red Pill can be quite disorienting as your world view changes and the ground seems to shift under your feet.  Things that were once sacred become profane.

A number of years ago I was in the local public library and I came across The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo.  I was curious about the American Civil War and this title seemed interesting.  But Whoa! The synopsis was saying some less than flattering things about Saint Lincoln.  How can it be that the man who ended slavery was anything other than a great guy?  Well you have to read the book!  Or if you don't have the time or inclination a you tube video will have to suffice!

Not a minor footnote to this story is my discovery of the Mises Institute.  In the last post I had mentioned the Cato Institute which does great work but find the Mises

Institute to be more hardcore Libertarian.

Pill Two

If I want to red pill someone there are more direct ways than I am suggesting in these posts. The websites and individuals I am pointing to are roughly the path I took down the Libertarian rabbit hole. Taking a gradual approach may be better than risking “turning someone off” by sudden exposure to the most radical writers.

I have no recollection of the name of the article but I do remember that Terence Corcoran mentioned Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute. Dan quickly became one of my favorite writers and is especially good on podcasts and youtube. Great article on his site about bone-headed government moves. Cato is a Libertarian site which takes some flack for its association with the Koch brothers but they have in recent past become independent of the billionaire brothers.

Cato puts out a lot of good material, plenty for the new libertarian to chew on. If you like the above material, just wait. There is plenty more to come. Stay tuned!

Red Pills

Many people describe their move from a liberal/progressive mindset to conservatism/libertarianism as being red-pilled. What a trip it is to realize for the first time that government actions usually make things worse not better. Give people welfare and they become dependent on the state. Unemployment rates rise with unemployment insurance because you are paying people to not work. The “safety net” rather than breaking your fall, is a prison that keeps you down.

The red pill process can be quite rapid for some but for me it was a slow as I tried to integrate the full implications of the non-agression principle with my christian/conservative views.

The first step for me was reading the National Post. The Post hosts a wide range of opions but you will find more skepticism of government in its pages than any other major Canadian news publication. The first pill for me was the opinion pages. The Full Comment section is for general political topics and FP Comment is in the Financial Post section, dealing mostly with economic issues, there is however overlap in the two sections.

Just a disclaimer however, if you are a hard libertarian or anarcho-capitalist you might yell at some of the opinions.

Terence Corcoran the financial pages editor is great as well as Lawrence Solomon, the latter being perhaps the closest of the two to being a Libertarian.

Check out these writers for a start and check back with me in a week or two for your next dose…

Sympathy for Monsanto?

President Obama will soon be signing a law that will place fewer restrictions for labeling genetically modified organisms.  In an article on mercola.com it is pointed out how this legislation favours Monsanto a large producer of GMO's.  The article also gives a brief history of the close relationship between Monsanto and the U.S. Government.  The main gist of the article is that it is wrong for the U.S. government to interfere with the labeling requirements set by individual States such as Vermont.

A Libertarian analysis would be quick to point out that it is wrong for any company to use state power to accomplish what they cannot achieve peacefully in the market place.

Behind every tax and regulation is the threat of force.  Fines, imprisonment, or death (if you decide to resist).  Now if a company like Monsanto enters the market and wants to sell products made with GMO's, I think they should be allowed to do so.  It is not the responsibility of the government to protect us from harm.  And just as individuals should not be subject to coercion, neither should companies.

I can hear the objections already, the non-aggression principle states that no-one is allowed to initiate force against another and GMO's are known to be harmful.  But I would reply, then do not buy them.  No one is forcing you to purchase products with GMO's.

The market is fully capable of weeding out bad actors without the help of government.  If a company does not list their products as containing GMO's, then it is likely that they do.  It is a market advantage for a company to voluntarily list their products as non-GMO and people who are concerned can go ahead make their choices based on the presence or absence of a label.

Neither do we need the government to police products as being certified organic or non-GMO.  Third party agencies can easily do this job.  Companies who are not transparent or who break faith with their customers will summarily be judged in the market.  With the availability and instant nature of communication in the modern era, it just makes sense to be up front with your customers.

Our focus should be on breaking the relationship between government and business so that we can punish or reward bad actors directly by withholding our dollars or exchanging them for good products.

Captain Trump

When evaluating Donald Trump it is necessary to look at the current state of the two-party system over the last 20 or so years.  What we have seen is endless wars, record debts and deficits and record levels of cynicism towards politicians due to constant lying and general sense that the economy is getting worse not better.  Political correctness has become stifling and amounts to thought control when people are hectored and badgered as racists and bigots simply for holding dissenting opinion.

Into this milieu we see the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  Sanders who gave Hillary a good scare in the primaries was seen as an anti-establishment candidate as is Trump on the Republican side.  The thing Libertarians can appreciate about Trump in all this is that he has shaken up a rotten party structure intent on giving us more of the same.  If we never see another war-loving, fiscally conservative (while in practice not being able to say "no" to any new spending) neo-con from the RNC, then the Donald will have done us a great service.

On the negative side, while NAFTA does have a lot of problems, our trade set up could become much worse if we go back to a system of tariffs and trade wars.  What we need is real free trade where the government steps back completely and does not interfere with my dealing with customers and suppliers from other countries.

With regards to war, he has been not as bad as most of the Republican candidates who he demolished, or Hillary the despicable who has so far proven to be above law and did a great job of destabilizing Libya and Syria thereby making the war on terror much worse.

Trump is no Libertarian but he seems to be part of the turning of a massive ship away from the destructive path the Democrats and Republicans have been on for decades.  If we don't do a complete 180 degree turn the Donald's approach will have some good and bad but ultimately may not be able to save from another economic crisis which has been brewing since the 2008.   All the screwy attempts of fighting debt with more debt are doomed to fail.  He represents a 45 or 90 degree turn but we need more.  There are rocks and ice bergs in those directions just a little further off.

Census, Freedom, And More....

In an article today comparing the former Harper government to Justin Trudeau and his Liberals after 100 days in office Michael Den Tandt gives a short list of things the Liberals are doing better.

Not to mention the beginnings of a new law on assisted death, as the Supreme Court has required; restoring the long-form census, the abolition of which was idiotic and misguided from the start; un-gagging federal scientists, public servants and diplomats, whose silencing during the Harper years was outrageous and un-democratic; gender parity in cabinet, which was long overdue, and re-starting federal-provincial relationships that had rotted on the vine for a decade.

I am going to give a quick Libertarian view of each of these points.  Initially I was only going to talk about the census but instead I will foolishly wade into the other points as well.

1. Assisted Death.  This is a nice anti-septic term for assisted suicide or euthanasia.  While I have not heard or read many libertarians on this issue, I think that this would simply be left up to the individual and their doctor.  The state would have no business interfering in these matters one way or another.  Personally I am not against the idea if all avenues have been attempted to keep a person alive and if they are only being sustained unnaturally.  I think that Libertarianism as a political philosophy comes up short here.  Taking of one's own life cannot be contemplated properly unless it is first seen as sacred.  
2. The Long-Form Census.  Why does the government need this information?  I only want to give out my information freely to private companies and individuals with whom I am doing business.  While the government may want to use this data to provide better services it can also be used for nefarious purposes.
3. Un-Gagging Federal Scientists.  Yes they never should have been gagged but then the government doesn't need scientists.  R&D is best left to the private sector.
4. Gender Parity.  Are we not past this?  If I were a woman I would be insulted if I was given a position just because I was a woman.  Merit is the only reason to give a position to anyone.  Period.
5. Federal-Provincial Relations.  This can be good or bad.  Bad if provinces try to suck more money out of the Federal government.  Good if the Federal Government gives more independence to the provinces.  Decentralization is better if we are moving closer to the end goal of individual liberty where I am not forced by any majority or minority to do or pay when I have not given my consent.

Isolationistism? Recognising War-Monger Speak ...

Brave is the politician who calls for an end to involvement in foreign wars and thereby risks being branded and isolationist!  Who will keep Russian from taking over the Ukraine?  Who will bring democracy and peace to Islamic dictatorships? Of course it will be from Canada, the USA and their Nato allies with properly executed military strategies.This will bring the same freedom and democracy that we enjoy to these politically immature countries who are presently stuck with dictators and oligarchs.

The counter to this line of thinking for a Libertarian is that we do not promote isolation but non-intervention.  What in fact isolates us is our political involvement and interference with countries who do not want our armies in the region.  We are isolating these countries by our misconceived wars.  It is not simplistic to ask, "how would we feel if another power was imposing their influence in our region"?
What we should be pushing for is less intervention (sticking our nose in the affairs of  other countries with out military) and less isolation  But less isolation actually means more.  More trade!

I am not talking about government initiated trade, because politicians don't seem to be able to understand the power of laissez-faire.  When governments try to promote their brand of free-trade, which many give lip-service to, you get Frankenstein-like deals such as NAFTA and the TPP.   Government free-trade is a misnomer in that businesses are bogged down with a dizzying amount of regulations and paper-work.
No, the kind of free-trade we need is the kind that would develop naturally between individuals and businesses with out third party involvement. What right does anyone have to interfere with what I am buying and selling or where my trade partners come from?

Focusing once again on the conflict zones where we are involved, I am not saying that non-interventionism and trade would solve all the problems in these conflict zones.  Far from it.  But it is hard to imagine how things could have been worse if we had not been there militarily.  I would point to an article from theguardian.com showing how US policy helped create Isis.  Repeatedly the unintended consequences of our war-efforts in the Middle East seems to be fuel on the terrorist fires.

So maybe I am an isolationist after all. I would like to isolate our armies from countries who are not attacking our borders.  After that if they want to cozy up to us in unrestricted free-trade, then so be it.