Freedom is My Nationality

Old Age Security is not about poverty

2012-02-02T09:48:00.003-05:00

The Old Age Security program is an example of pointless government spending. The debate has so far been about if it is sustainable. I don’t know if it is sustainable nor do I really care if it is sustainable. The real debate should be: what is OAS trying to achieve and is it achieving it?

The argument from the opposition parties and others has been that OAS prevents poverty among seniors. They claim that if the OAS is cut back even just a little it will lead to massive increases in elderly poverty. All you would need is for the program to be accurately described to make this claim baffling.

The OAS pays out the maximum of $540.12 every quarter. This number is adjusted upward along with inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. So that means that assuming that inflation is constant a qualifying individual of the age of 65 will receive a maximum of $2,160.48.

I don’t mind telling you that I would certainly enjoy an extra $2,000 a year. I am not sure that it would do much to raise me out of poverty. Of course I am not personally impoverished. For me $2,000 wouldn’t be the difference between eating or not, paying the rent or not, heating my home or not, and so on. So clearly if the OAS is about relieving poverty it will be targeting those for whom $2,000 will make a difference.

Residence of Canada can qualify for the maximum amount of OAS at $67,000 and still be receiving some OAS at $100,000 (The cut off is $110,000).

Why am I paying taxes to give a hand out to someone that is making twice what I am making simply because that person is 65?

Unlike other welfare programs there is no attempt to look at the circumstances of the recipient. It doesn’t matter if the recipient is living with family, has dependence, employed, unhealthy, in debt, or anything else. There are other programs that deal with some of those issues but not the OAS. All that matters for OAS is that you are a certain age and you have lived in Canada for a certain amount of time.

So if the OAS is handed out regardless if you actually need it or not how exactly is it an effective program for relieving poverty? Considering that the poverty rate for elderly in Canada is less than the working age population, the vast majority of this program can be cut if it only went to the elderly that actually needs it. Tens of billions can be cut from this year’s budget and not make one bit of difference to poverty.

The truth is that this isn’t really an anti-poverty program. How could it possibly be when it makes no effort to target poverty? The true purpose is a hand out to the portion of the population that is most likely to vote. I guess it is at least achieving that goal.

The real truth about the economy

2012-01-31T14:32:00.004-05:00

You have to be careful about how you evaluate and understand economic statistics. Often what seems simple is actually pretty complex. It is for this reason that Robert Reich's "Truth about the Economy" is misleading to the point of being wrong.

It's a dog play with dog world out there

2012-01-27T12:08:00.001-05:00

CATO's response to the State of the Union 2012

2012-01-25T09:14:00.000-05:00

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and world ending budget cuts

2012-01-23T10:49:00.003-05:00

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has released a report that claims to have calculated the impact that government cuts will have on employment. I say claims because the report itself is sloppy and lacks any attention to methodology or theory. The only explanation that we receive for how they came about their private sector job loss numbers is a footnote that says that the multiplier was provided by Informetrica Ltd. The author doesn’t bother to tell us what the multiplier is or why Informetrica Ltd. is superior to other researchers who may have come up with a different multiplier. The author tiptoes around a pretty controversial area of economics without bothering to allow the readers to judge his methodology.

Far more important is the basic assumptions of the work that is presented without even the pretense of an explanation.

The author does not take into consideration that at least some of the cuts can be achieved by creating efficiencies or by reducing compensations and employee privileges. You can easily argue that these will be a small part of the cuts compared to the layoffs but you can’t simply discount it all together. Not every dollar of the funding cuts will lead to a layoff.

There is also the suggestion made by the author through implication that the layoffs would hurt the economy due to creating higher unemployment. Although some of those who are laid off would likely be facing long term unemployment considering the state of the economy, but past experience has shown that laid off government workers tend to enter private sector employment pretty quickly.

The most fundamental assumption of the study is that these jobs are important to the wider economy as well as the health and safety of the Canadian population. This is pretty puzzling because the government is not even proposing reducing the budget to 2006 levels. Was Canada such an unhealthy and unsafe place in 2006? Has all the new funding of the last 6 years been so incredibly useful that we now simply cannot do without it? This is a pretty strange endorsement of the Conservative government coming from the Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Reading this study I can’t help but fear that the poor will be thrown out on the street, natives will be left to starve, and our food will become riddled with poison. All this will happen because the government cut its budget by around 3% over four years. Really makes you realize how greatly important the government is to our lives!

The hysteria coming from groups like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives would be a little more amusing if it wasn’t so pathetic. The federal government is making pretty small cut backs and the CCPA is claiming the world is going to come to an end. This has led them to release a study that is sloppy and foolish to the point that it discredits their arguments entirely. For them, it seems, a dime of reduced government spending is a tragedy and never mind that the government can’t afford to spend that dime.

Mark Zuckerberg on SOPA

2012-01-19T15:13:00.001-05:00

Founder and CEO of Facebook writes regarding SOPA:

The internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can’t let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the internet’s development. Facebook opposes SOPA and PIPA, and we will continue to oppose any laws that will hurt the internet.

The world today needs political leaders who are pro-internet. We have been working with many of these folks for months on better alternatives to these current proposals. I encourage you to learn more about these issues and tell your congressmen that you want them to be pro-internet.

I will only add to this that most laws are poorly thought out.

In other SOPA news: Gary Johnson is awesome

2012-01-19T12:21:00.003-05:00

Gary Johnson is the former Republican who was running for president and is still running for president but as a Libertarian candidate. I have often said that he would make a fantastic president and here is one more reason:

He opposes SOPA

SOPA debate: a congressman telling Congress that it doesn't know what it is doing

2012-01-19T12:11:00.005-05:00

If you substitute the word "nerd" for "people with expertise" I think that this is pretty well said.

Oh and if further evidence is needed, the author of the bill clearly doesn't understand it.

Government agency that does nothing

2012-01-19T09:02:00.004-05:00

I keep trying to write a blog post about this but instead I keep trying to imagine an appropriate curse word to describe it.

I went for Humphyisque.

Removing regulation for every new regulation is good but not great

2012-01-18T11:38:00.001-05:00

The Conservative government has promised to enact a “one for one rule” for new regulations. Every new regulation that is introduced would mean that another regulation is eliminated. This is a good policy and I applaud the Conservatives for moving forward with it.

This policy, however, doesn’t do anything to ease regulatory burden nor does it truly prevent that burden from growing worst.

I am not overly concerned with the absolute number of regulations that exist. I am a little concerned, but I do not believe that it should be the main focus. I am much more worried about the severity and cost of regulations.

Not all bad regulations are equally bad. The “one for one rule” allows governments to enact a regulation that could cripple an industry while removing a regulation that is a mere mild irritant. It is certainly better that the mild irritant be removed but it could hardly be considered good when an entire industry is suffering and people are losing their jobs.

Ultimately the “one for one rule” is a pretty mild restraint on government intrusion. This doesn’t make it bad, but it certainly makes it not great.

I endorse Ron Paul...

2012-01-17T15:32:00.003-05:00

...because endorsing Ron Paul is apparently beneficial to the endorser.

Liberal Party should make marijuana legalization about the economy

2012-01-17T09:42:00.001-05:00

The Liberal Party over the weekend voted to “legalize and regulate” the selling of marijuana. I think that this issue has a potential to breathe life back into the Liberals if they approach it the right way and if they also reform their internal structure. From what I heard, most of the Liberal’s archaic party organization has been left untouched. Besides a dubious new process to elect a leader, the Liberal Party organization of last Friday is essentially the same as the one today. This is certainly not the last opportunity for the Liberal Party to enact real internal reforms, but it was the best opportunity.

As it stands now therefore the Liberal Party’s best chance of regaining at least second place is by putting the marijuana issue front and center.

More than one pundit has scoffed or made a snide sarcastic joke about the Liberal Party’s vote to include marijuana legalization in its policy document. Even Bob Rae the interim leader made a joke of it during his keynote speech. It is not a joke and they are missing the boat on what could be a game changer.

For me the issue of marijuana is one of liberty versus state overreach. It is an unjust law that attempts to control the choices and the lives of individuals. Smoking pot does not harm others, only the smoker, and the smoker has the right to decide what sort of harm he or she enjoys.

For the Liberal Party the issue could be about money and the economy.

It would be a huge boon for government revenue without even needing to add a “sin tax” to the legal sales of marijuana. All that unreported income and all that sales tax that has gone unreported from Canada’s most profitable cash crop would suddenly be available. It would represent a new source of revenue but without having to raise taxes by even a dime.

On the spending side billions of dollars would be saved on persecuting marijuana sales. Some of this money will likely go to whatever regulatory framework the Liberals create, but it would have to be a monstrous bureaucracy indeed to equal the massive sum that it takes to investigate, prosecute, and then jail someone in the marijuana trade. The hypothetical Liberal government can claim to be ending the deficit faster than the Conservatives and may even have some money left over for one of their foolish pet projects.

With the deficit eliminated with relative ease and debt being paid down Canada would be in a unique fiscal position for a G8 and G20 country. We can expect that confidence in Canada would soar even higher and investment will flock to Canada, as they flee the crumbling economies of Europe.

The best part is that Canadians by in large already agree that marijuana should be legal. They also think that the economy should be the priority. It would not be a difficult sell to connect the two issues and convince Canadians to vote for a party that has the best most painless plan to put Canada’s fiscal house back in order.

The resolution coming out of the Liberal convention is non-binding. This means that there is no guarantee that the issue will be in the 2015 Liberal election platform. In fact Canadian political parties have a history of completely ignoring policy resolutions from conventions, so the chances of this mantle being taken up are pretty grim. Hopefully the Liberal Party leadership will take a moment to truly look at legalization and realize the potential. It would not only be the best thing for the Liberals but for Canada as well.

Intellectual property enforcement and destroying the internet

2012-01-13T15:30:00.004-05:00

I understand and sympathize with the concept of intellectual property. The problem is that too often the attempt to enforce intellectual property rights is far more destructive than it is helpful.

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

Is Ron Paul electable?

2012-01-13T12:21:00.003-05:00

I admit a year ago I likely would have said no, but with the results from the early primaries this question should be revisited. Ron Paul did far better than people would have expected only a couple of months ago. He is also flying nearly as high as Mitt Romney in polls that compare him to Barrack Obama.

After reading this analyses from Reason Magazine I have to say that I think that there is a plausible path to the White House for Ron Paul. If he keeps the Republican Party behind him and continues to excite independents and the youth vote, Ron Paul could win the general election.

Shit Lazy economists say: How most Keynesians sound to me

2012-01-12T14:23:00.001-05:00

Although not all Keynesians.

Supporting the legalization of marijuana would help rejuvenate Liberal Party

2012-01-12T09:49:00.003-05:00

In the upcoming Liberal convention delegates will be voting on a resolution to legalize marijuana. This resolution has been submitted by the Young Liberals of Canada and it reads like this:

117. Legalize and Regulate Marijuana

WHEREAS, despite almost a century of prohibition, millions of Canadians today regularly consume marijuana and other cannabis products;

WHEREAS the failed prohibition of marijuana has exhausted countless billions of dollars spent on ineffective or incomplete enforcement and has resulted in unnecessarily dangerous and expensive congestion in our judicial system;

WHEREAS various marijuana decriminalization or legalization policy prescriptions have been recommended by the 1969-72 Commission of Enquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the 2002 Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, and the 2002 House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs;

WHEREAS the legal status quo for the criminal regulation of marijuana continues to endanger Canadians by generating significant resources for gang-related violent criminal activity and weapons smuggling – a reality which could be very easily confronted by the regulation and legitimization of Canada’s marijuana industry;

BE IT RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will invest significant resources in prevention and education programs designed to promote awareness of the health risks and consequences of marijuana use and dependency, especially amongst youth;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will extend amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana possession, and ensure the elimination of all criminal records related thereto;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will work with the provinces and local governments of Canada on a coordinated regulatory approach to marijuana which maintains significant federal responsibility for marijuana control while respecting provincial health jurisdiction and particular regional concerns and practices.

Young Liberals of Canada
Liberal Party of Canada (British Columbia)

In response interim (?) leader Bob Rae has admitted to smoking pot in the past but can’t recall if he has done so lately (presumably because his short term memory has been effected by something). He says that the Conservatives are clearly wrong to crack down on marijuana users but he can’t support this resolution because it has “too many flaws.”

It is not clear to me what flaws Mr. Rae is referring to. The most immediate flaw that I see is the “education program” component which strikes me as a waste of money. The government has been trying to convince people not to smoke cannabis based on “education” for generations and to no discernible result.

I also don’t like the implication of taxing the “use” of the drug. I suspect that this is a call for a sin tax which means that this isn’t a repudiation of a prohibitionist’s almost sickening desire to interfere with other people’s lives. Since this soft-prohibitionist approach is better than straight criminalization, I suppose I will live with it.

I doubt that Bob Rae sees either of these points as flaws and so I am still at a lost to what his objection is. I suspect that his hesitation has more to do with an unwillingness to take the issue on than any substantive objection. This is a mistake for the so called interim leader who has vowed to rejuvenate his party. Taking a bold position that MOST CANADIANS AGREE WITH ANYWAY is exactly what he needs to do to re-excite people about the Liberal Party.

Despite some dismissing ending prohibition as a side issue, it has the potential to be a crucial part of the Liberal Party platform. If the great issues of our day are mounting debt and the dangers of state insolvency then ending marijuana prohibition can certainly be a part of the solution. It is likely the one thing that the federal government can do that will cut the most spending on both the federal and provincial levels. It will mean the savings of billions of taxpayer’s dollars.

With one policy the Liberal Party can claim to be both more progressive than the Conservatives and better fiscal managers than the Conservatives. That is the exact balance that can rescue the Liberals from a decline into obscurity.

Reason: 3 Takeaways from the New Hampshire Primary

2012-01-11T15:51:00.004-05:00

I think that this is about accurate. Most pundits haven't caught on to the fact that this is shaping up to be a Romney-Paul race. Save money is on Mr. Romney, but it is early days yet.

Ron Paul as the not Romney

2012-01-11T12:19:00.003-05:00

This from Reason:

There’s one candidate, of course, who I have yet to mention: Rep. Ron Paul. Unlike the numerous GOP flavors of the week, Paul has been building his support and his momentum slowly. After his solid second-place finish in New Hampshire last night, Paul has arguably emerged as the most effective anti-Romney candidate in the GOP field. And one thing you can say about Paul is that he is not offering anything that could be described as conventional Republicanism; his campaign is built on opposition to defense spending and overseas adventurism, a critique of the Federal Reserve, and a return to constitutionally limited government. Compare this to the shrugging acceptance with which Romney’s vanilla campaign and laundry list of GOP priorities have been greeted; Paul, in contrast, has managed to generate tremendous, unusual enthusiasm. Indeed, he’s the only candidate in the race who has been able to sustain and build such enthusiasm over time. Who knew? The most effective anti-Romney turns out to be someone who is genuinely not like Mitt Romney.

I think it is true that all the other not Romneys have been flavours of the week. Ron Paul is the only candidate who really isn't anything like Romney. This is part of the reason that he is able to sustain himself in this race while so many others have fallen flat, despite his many imperfections as a candidate. He is running a platform of true reform at a time when the public is practically screaming for change.

Ron Paul victory speech

2012-01-11T09:18:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul at Cato talking about Monetary Policy

2012-01-09T14:32:00.002-05:00

Dreaming of us all being Austrian

2012-01-07T20:49:00.001-05:00

Austrian economics

Gary Johnson should be President

2012-01-06T15:19:00.004-05:00

This video helps demonstrate why I like Gary Johnson:

By the way the 2.9 million jobs is actually factually wrong. That number comes from the the Congressional Budget Office, but they did not come up with that number through empirical data. They used models that basically assumed that the jobs would be created without finding out if any jobs were actually created. Basically it is like saying if we assume we are right then we are right.

Gary Johnson polling higher out of the GOP than when he was in the GOP

2012-01-06T09:10:00.006-05:00

He is polling at 9%.

Gary Johnson isn't just the best candidate running for president in 2012, he is the best candidate running in my living memory. I don't care if he "takes" votes away from whoever the Republican nominee is. Neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Santorum deserve your vote. Frankly I think that Gary Johnson deserves your vote more than Ron Paul.

I would be excited to see if, now that the mantle of the GOP has been dropped, he is able to have a real impact on the debate.

Rick Santorum and "freedom"

2012-01-05T14:31:00.002-05:00

Mr. Santorum has a different idea of what freedom is:

Cato Institute: The GOP's Struggle for Identity in 2012

2012-01-05T12:13:00.001-05:00

New Ron Paul advert: The compassion of Ron Paul

2011-12-29T12:47:00.000-05:00

Nick Gillespie Discusses Ron Paul, Libertarianism & Iowa on C-SPAN

2011-12-29T10:32:00.001-05:00

Stephen Harper is not changing Canadian values

2011-12-29T09:51:00.001-05:00

Pundits hostile to the Conservative Party has given Stephen Harper one of the greatest compliments I have ever seen a politician receive: they have accused him of changing Canada to suite his own vision. Stephen Harper, according to way too many columnists, has some sort of demigod power to mold the population to his will. From the top he rules and we the people bend and rush to change our core values. Canada and the society that exists here is nothing but the play thing of the mastermind known by us mortals as Stephen Harper.

Initially I was puzzled by how so many people who are essentially paid to think and write could possibly conceive that such a thing would be possible. Then I realized that they aren’t paid to think; they are just paid to write. In December not a lot happens in politics but columnists must produce and so they scrape together a silly bit of fear mongering to please their narrow minded constituents.

The truth is that Mr. Harper is not changing Canada, at least not in the fundamental way that some are claiming. He is, however, giving a voice to some within Canadian society who have been largely ignored. It is arrogance for these pundits to believe that because it is not their voice it is not Canada’s voice. It is absurdity to think that Canada is a homogenous society with only one set of values or opinions. Many Canadians agree with Stephen Harper, and most of those agreed with his positions long before he was Prime Minister.

The real genius and true revolutionary action of Mr. Harper and the Conservatives is the voter coalition that they have pieced together. It is a voter coalition the likes of which has not been seen before. It includes much of the same elements as the Liberal voter coalition that propelled the Liberal Party into power for most of the last century, but it also includes some new elements. These new elements are every bit as much Canadian as those that have been voting Liberal for decades. Canada is not changing, but the balance of power has shifted slightly.

Consider the evidence that these pundits have offered as evidence of fundamental change: scrapping the long gun registry, ending the Canada Wheat Board monopsony, and the justice reforms. All of these positions, whether they are bad or good, are positions that many Canadians have supported for decades. There was a movement to get rid of the long gun registry almost the second after it was created and the Canada Wheat Board has been an irritant to many Canadians for decades. Where exactly is the fundamental change that was supposed to have taken place over the last 6 years?

Of course Canada is changing. What in the universe isn’t in a state of constant change? But that change does not flow from the Prime Minister’s Office; that is giving government too much credit.

Kelly Clarkson endorses Ron Paul for President

2011-12-29T09:11:00.003-05:00

Which kind of makes me wish I knew who Kelly Clarkson is. Something about being an idol American?

Gary Johnson is chased out of the Republican Party

2011-12-28T11:41:00.001-05:00

Gary Johnson has announced that he is dropping out of the Republican presidential race and joining the Libertarian Party race. I find this disappointing, not because of anything that Mr. Johnson has done, but rather because of how the Republican Party has treated him.

Much ink has been spent describing how some members of the media have completely ignored Ron Paul despite the fact that his polling numbers indicate that he is a credible candidate. At the same time little has been said about the complete shutting out of Gary Johnson, who was not even allowed in most of the debates.

On paper Gary Johnson should have been a very credible candidate for the GOP nomination. He is a two-term Governor of a state dominated by the Democrats, he has a clear record of fiscal conservatism, and he has a personal narrative that Americans are likely to find appealing. You have to wonder why he was not just ignored but actively shunned.

Keep the Canadian Forces home

2011-12-28T10:17:00.001-05:00

A survey by Ipsos-Reid that was presented to senior staff in the Department of National Defense shows that Canadians prefer that the Canadian Forces focus on missions within Canada. This makes a lot of sense. After all it is the Canadian taxpayers that pay for the military, shouldn’t they be the primary beneficiaries of the military’s efforts?

Many would say that Canada does benefit from their being a freer Libya and Afghanistan. Missions that are meant to protect that freedom or aid locals in achieving it are therefore a benefit to Canada. I have some sympathy for this argument because it makes sense in both an abstract and more concrete way. Freedom can only really exist if everyone around you is also free because if others are not free then you are not free to interact with them as you will. The more free people that there are in the world then the more free people there will be for Canadians to freely interact with.

Plus it is rare that countries with a free citizenry go to war against other countries with free citizens. I don’t think it is impossible for free peoples to war against each other, but the circumstances would have to be extraordinary. It is unlikely, for example, that the USA would ever invade Canada for control over the oil sands. It would be much cheaper an easier for the citizens of America to simply buy the oil. A core feature of freedom is that it encourages peaceful co-existence. So in that context sending our soldiers to fight for other people’s freedoms does make a certain amount of sense.

The problem with this argument is that it is not entirely clear that are military can actually successfully instill freedom on other countries. The results from Iraq and Afghanistan are not very encouraging. Despite a decade of fighting and building, violence and oppression is still the norm. There have been some hopeful moments, such as the opening of schools for educating Afghan girls, but the teachers at those schools face a daily threat to life that is almost unheard of in Canada. Considering the level of violence still present, it would be perverse to call either Afghanistan or Iraq free countries.

It strikes me as doubtful that Libya will be any better of a success story than Afghanistan or Iraq. The jury is still out on the idea of liberalization through military intervention, but most of the evidence thus far is that it isn’t working. So the taxpayers in Canada are paying this bill and we don’t seem to be getting anything for it. We have been patient but unless dividends start appearing, foreign adventurism deserves its lukewarm support.

The Canadian Forces exists to serve the interests of the people of Canada. We will always need a military and it is advisable to ensure that military is as strong and well equipped as can be afforded. This does not mean, however, that foreign military interventionism is a necessary part of having a strong military. We should keep the military strong and keep it home.

Harper is right: health care solutions must come from provinces but first he has to show leadership

2011-12-26T09:13:00.001-05:00

In his end of year interview Stephen Harper said something on health care policy that is both useful and true. He said that it is up to the provinces to find the solutions to the problems in the health care system. This is not an abdication of federal leadership but a recognition that there are some things that the provinces are better at doing. Provincial governments are the ones that run the health care system and there is a limit to how much a federal bureaucrat can understand the details of each provincial system. Also provinces need to find solutions that work for their own particular circumstance and come up with political compromises that are acceptable to their own populace. Federalizing the issue of health care does nothing but hopelessly complicate an already complex policy dilemma.

So I am very happy to hear the Prime Minister admit the limitations of the federal government and encourage provinces to take action. At the same time he has to recognize that the federal government is preventing provinces from exploring any meaningful reform. The Canada Health Act severely limits the range of policy options that would be possible even while maintaining the goal of universal access.

Too many Canadians are stuck in a simplistic comparison between Canada’s and America’s health care system. Instead we should be looking at the policies in Europe and seeing how universal or near universal access can be achieved without the single/public-payer system. Models from the Netherlands or Switzerland, neither could be called havens of extreme capitalist thought, would be violations of the Canada Health Act.

The way that the federal government enforces the Canada Health Act is through the funding that they provide to the provinces. With health care spending eating up half or nearly half of provincial revenue, the provinces are reliant on the money that the federal government sends them. If any provincial government does anything that the federal government interprets as a violation of the Canada Health Act and that funding will dry up. The upshot is that if Ontario wants to take inspiration for solutions that have worked well in the Netherlands, they would face financial ruin at the hands of the federal government.

Despite Mr. Harper’s reputation for being open to reform in the health care system, his government has consistently reconfirmed its commitment to enforcing the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Harper is right that the solutions must come from the provinces but he has to allow them the tools to fine those solutions. Although it may be politically difficult, for reform to be possible the Canada Health Act cannot remain unchanged.

The most positive change that the federal government can make is to remove the requirement of a single/public payer as a condition for federal financing. Note that this is not the same thing as removing universal access as a principle of the act. As the Europeans show us, single/public-payer is not the same thing as universal access.

It is in reforming the Canada Health Act that Stephen Harper not only can but must show leadership.

A Christmas birthday

2011-12-25T12:00:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court says no to a national securities regulator, so now what?

2011-12-22T10:44:00.000-05:00

Earlier this morning the Supreme Court of Canada gave a firm no to a national securities regulator. I have written in the past why a national securities regulator would do more harm than good, and so I am very happy with this decision. I am also extremely happy with the arguments that the Supreme Court uses. The decision clarifies and reinforces what is provincial and what is federal jurisdiction then makes clear that the federal government does not have the authority to legislate provincial affairs. The reaffirmation of Canada’s jurisdictional federalism from the highest constitutional court is very much welcomed.

The core reason why I strongly support security regulation as a provincial matter is the need for regulatory competition. One of the main advantages of a federalism like Canada’s, where authority is separated (as opposed to Germany where authority is shared), is that it allows for the different provinces to learn from each other. Policy making is a very unscientific process because it is usually impossible to conduct experiments, but by observing what other provinces do policy makers can learn what is likely to work and what isn’t. It introduces something that is at least close to a market for governments.

Now that the Supreme Court has come to its decision we should focus on how to strengthen the competition between securities regulators in Canada. A friend of mine recently pointed out to me that the largest hamper to competition is the requirement that you must register with each securities regulator if you want to deal with investors in each province. This means that there isn’t so much competition as a series of monopolies. There is still potential for policy learning, but the incentive to make positive reforms is weaker.

Luckily many of Canada’s securities commissions have already found the solution in the form of a passport system. This allows businesses to register with one regulator and be allowed to deal with investors in the other provinces that have a passport agreement with that regulator. Effectively what this means is that businesses are able to select the regulator that offers the best balance between appliance cost and investor protection (businesses have an incentive to pick a regulator that would ensure investor confidence). This in turn encourages regulators to ensure that they reduce appliance costs while maintaining strong investor protection.

This passport system should be extended to include all provinces, and Ontario especially should join. This would not only encourage competition but would also reduce costs on businesses who would then only have to deal with one regulator instead of ten.

The results of beer regulation in Ontario

2011-12-22T09:32:00.002-05:00

This is an article I wrote for the Fraser Institute's Canadian Student Review. It is meant as a backgrounder into beer retail regulation in Ontario and the results of that regulation. For one thing, did you know that The Beer Store is a private company?

Makers vs. Takers at Occupy Wall Street

2011-12-21T14:01:00.001-05:00

I think that he is being overly generous in his assessment of the motives of the people who participated in the Occupy movement, but his point is well taken (by me at least).

Short selling is about hedging against risk

2011-12-21T13:33:00.003-05:00

Kyle Bass talks about his investment ideas but the interviewer is more interested in attacking short sellers. Mr. Bass gives an intelligent defence, short sellers don't cause crisis they merely hedge against the possibility of crisis.

"Don't hate the mirror because you are ugly."

3 claims that convinces me that Paul Krugman is a hack

2011-12-21T10:10:00.001-05:00

The economic crisis of the last few years has not been good to Keynesian economists. The universal response in the autumn of 2008 and the winter of 2009 was to enact policies that were being trumpeted by the intellectual descendants of Lord Keynes. The results have not been encouraging and the skeptics have largely been proven right (at least proven that they were right to be skeptical). Some economists who are friendly towards Lord Keynes’ theories claim that things would have been worst if countries had not stimulated. This is a conclusion that does not arise from any empirical data. They operate under the assumption that their theory is right and that their models are true reflections of reality. If you based your conclusions on these models then yes you can see that things would have been worst. This is, however, the same as saying, “If we assume that I am right then therefore I am right.” I don’t find this argument very convincing.

Paul Krugman, in an effort to save his increasingly shallow intellectual theorizing, has come up with three predictions that Keynesians made that has come out true. I won’t be as crass as to point out that this is the exact same method that a psychic uses: make lots of predictions and then cling to the few that happened to come out as true as if it was evidence of your power. No, I would never be that crass.

Instead I will look at each one of these so called predictions and point out why none of them offer convincing evidence that modern Keynesian theory is sound.

1. There has been no crowding out; interest rates outside the euro area have remained low despite massive government borrowing, which is what you’d expect in a liquidity trap.

Interest rates are low because central banks, especially the Federal Reserve, have been doing everything in its power to keep interest rates low. If the central banks were not distorting the credit market, then we don’t really know what would happen. The economy is an entire system you can’t simply look at two variables and claim causality. There is usually some other variable in the mix that is having an effect. This is what makes economics such a complex field of study. It is highly intellectually dishonest to claim that your causality hypothesis is correct when you know for a fact that there is another variable that has a more established claim on effecting the outcome.

2. Inflation has been quiescent despite huge increases in the monetary base, again what you’d expect in a liquidity trap.

This is another example of what I pointed out above. Mr. Krugman is simply looking at two variables while ignoring the other possible (and more likely) explanations. It is an established tendency, although not an iron clad rule, that high unemployment is associated with low inflation. Unemployment in the United States has been very high and thus it is consistent with the pattern to observe low inflation. I admit that it is impressive that inflation is so low despite the “huge increases in the monetary base.” My point here isn’t to say that my explanation is right and Mr. Krugman is wrong (although I think he is). I am simply pointing out that his explanation is incomplete to the point of being dishonest. If this is the best that Keynesianism can offer I remain unconvinced.

3. Fiscal austerity has deepened the economic downturn everywhere it has been put in place.

I find this to be the most puzzling of the three claims. I almost suspect that Mr. Krugman had to desperately think of a third prediction as to make his argument sound more rhetorically pleasing. What austerity measures in what countries? Any results from Europe can be discounted. There is too much going on in the European economy to isolate austerity measures as the cause of any economic problems. Besides most of the austerity plans haven’t been enacted yet. Austerity hasn’t taken place in Canada and the United States, not in any really significant way anyway. So where exactly is Mr. Krugman drawing his evidence from?

Is this really the best that a Keynesian has to defend her theory? I suspect not. I suspect instead that this is the best that Mr. Krugman has to offer. The list of claims that he makes above are shallow and dishonest. This once great Nobel Prize winning economist has descended from respectability to become a hack columnist writer. He produces dribble that pleases his constituent readership and little more.

Grandma Got Indefinitely Detained (A Very TSA Christmas)

2011-12-20T13:57:00.001-05:00

Federal government's new health care transfer plan not the stuff of a decentralized federal state

2011-12-20T10:55:00.001-05:00

Several pundits have been claiming that the federal government’s take-it-or-leave-it and no-strings-attached health transfer proposal is evidence of Mr. Harper’s desire for a more decentralized federalism. The federal government has promised to increase health care transfers by 6% until 2016-17 and then increase transfers according to growth in nominal GDP (not government revenue) but never to increase transfers by less than 3%. Unlike Paul Marten, Stephen Harper is not demanding national standards or any other provincial concessions. As long as the money is spent in the health care area, provinces can spend it as they like. To give this a little more colour you can remind people of Mr. Harper’s Alberta firewall letter, which was basically a manifesto for a more decentralized federal state. The lines practically draw themselves and it is easy to see how they reached such a conclusion. These pundits, however, are forgetting two crucial facts that make it pretty clear that Mr. Harper isn’t actually doing much to end the encroachment of the federal government into provincial affairs.

The first fact is that Paul Martin’s Health Accord was unusual and did not represent the normal way that health care transfers were negotiated.

Traditionally it has been much closer to what Harper’s government has done: here it is, take it or leave it. Also it has been unusual for federal governments to establish national standards and put in the kind of conditions that Martin’s government included. Those ideas came out of the Romanow Commission on healthcare that was released shortly before the Health Care Accord was negotiated. The reality is that Paul Martin is the blip and Stephen Harper is just bringing things back to business as usual. This hardly demonstrates a radical decentralization agenda.

The second fact that is missed by pundits is that the Harper government has committed itself to encroaching on provincial affairs in a huge way.

The Canada Health Act is the very embodiment of federal interference in provincial policy making. The Canada Health Act tells provinces what it can and can’t do in health care policy and threatens to end transfer payments if they do not comply. Any agenda to remove federal interference from the provincial policy sphere would have to include a dismantling of the Canada Health Act. It is quite simply the largest such interference in Canada. Stephen Harper and the government and party that he leads have time and time again said that they are defenders of the Canada Health Act. Again this is hardly the stuff of a radical decentralization agenda.

It could be argued that Stephen Harper or some members of the Conservative Party would like to reform or remove the Canada Health Act but that they are too afraid of a public backlash to do or say so. This may be true, or it may not, it doesn’t really matter. The reality is that government policy, for one reason or another, is to keep and enforce the Canada Health Act. Changing this policy isn’t even something that Conservatives wistfully talk about the way they did with the Canada Wheat Board for years.

The absolute most that you can say about Stephen Harper in regards to federalism is that he is clawing back the centralization of Paul Martin and returning Canada to the balance that existed under Chretien and Mulroney. It may be true that he has some sympathy for a more decentralized federalism, but he hasn’t done too much towards that goal nor does he appear to be making any plans to put such a thing on the agenda. Claims to the contrary are simply either exaggerated or wrong.

Virtue requires liberty

2011-12-19T11:00:00.002-05:00

To be virtuous you have to have the choice not to be. If you are forced to always do a good thing then you can never choose to be good. True virtue requires liberty.

Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa

2011-12-19T10:44:00.001-05:00

The most recent anti-Romney anointed one, Newt Gringrich, is seeing his campaign collapse like so many before him. It is seems that this time it is Ron Paul that is picking up at least some of the pieces:

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

In honour of the passing of the monster Kim Jong Il

2011-12-19T09:00:00.001-05:00

Giants of the Scottish Enlightenment Part Two: Adam Smith

2011-12-16T10:53:00.000-05:00

10 good Conservative government policies

2011-12-15T15:11:00.001-05:00

I think I may have a reputation for being a bit of an anti-harperite. I don’t think that this is really true. I don’t feel any more personal animosity towards the Conservative Party than I do any other political party. Perhaps a couple of years back I was a bit bitter at how libertarians were treated within the party, but I’m over it. Still I constantly criticize the Harper government, not because I have an agenda to bring them down (that would be rather megalomaniac of me) but because I call a spade a spade; bad policy is bad policy regardless of what party is proposing it.

The Conservatives propose a lot of bad policies. Some of their legislation is so awful that it makes me want to rip my hair out (which explains why I am starting to go bald). At the same time not all of their policies are bad. In fact since the May election they have had some pretty good ideas. So in the spirit of the coming Christmas, I write this post to point out some of those good things that the Conservative government is trying to do (in no particular order).

Getting rid of the gun registry

This has never been a big issue for me, but I agree that the registry was wasteful and invasive. I am glad that the government is getting rid of it.

Ending the Wheat Board

The Canadian Wheat Board, like all supply management, is ultimately destructive to both consumers and producers. This anachronism of a time of enthusiasm for economic nationalism should have been done away with two decades ago, but better late than never. Next up will be the poultry and eggs supply management (or not).

Pooled Retirement Pension Plan

Over the last couple of years there has been a big push to expand the CPP. This would have been a horrible idea and so instead the government has introduced the PRPPs. There are some nuanced changes that should be made to the legislation, but the concept is pretty sound.

Native Property Rights

This is something that has been muttered about for a while now, but the government looks like it is finally poised to do something about it. Property rights have been shown time and time again as a requirement for prosperity. It is time for those living on the reserves to be able to enjoy the full benefits of capitalism.

Entering talks to join the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Zone

No “free trade” deal has ever been truly free trade, but such deals do allow a greater degree of free trade and so I approve. The Conservative government has done an excellent job of negotiating bi-lateral agreements and this is simply the next logical step.

Restoring the right to defend yourself

There have been some recent high profile cases of individuals getting into legal trouble for simply defending themselves. The Conservative government is acting very appropriately in taking steps to ensure that other people don’t run into the same problem. After all, even Thomas Hobbes, who is pretty much unconcerned with individual liberty, says that the one right no one can ever surrender to the state is the right to self-defense.

Getting out of Kyoto

Considering the fact the federal government starting ignoring the Kyoto Accord about 5 seconds after signing it, this was a formality but an important one. Kyoto has been a failure regardless of your opinion on climate change and the Canadian government is showing leadership by being the first signatory to publically admit it.

Capping health transfers

Health care spending is out of control and reform is a necessity. Capping the growth of health care transfers from the federal government to the provinces is not even close to being a solution, but at least it introduces some fiscal discipline to the mess.

Restoring rep by pop (or at least coming closer to it)

The way Parliamentary seats are distributed currently is fundamentally unfair and violates the principle of representation by population. The Conservative’s plan doesn’t fix the issue completely but at least it comes as close as possible. I for one can’t think of a way to approve the new system other than not giving Quebec those random extra seats.

Ending the vote party subsidy

It doesn’t matter if you think that this is a cynical plot on the part of Stephen Harper to continue the destruction of the Liberal Party, it is good policy. Taxpayers should not be forced to provide funding to political parties. There are of course more subsidies that continue to exist, but at least this one source has been removed.

There, I came up with ten conservative government policies that are good. There may be a few more that I either didn’t hear about or have forgotten, but ten is enough I think. I am glad that these policies have been either enacted or are being actively sought by the government. With any luck next year I will be able to think of more than just ten.

Legalize moonshine

2011-12-14T15:03:00.000-05:00

State insolvancy and public service pension

2011-12-14T14:32:00.001-05:00

The C.D. Howe Institute has released a study that says that federal pension plans are hiding an 80 billion dollar liability. The government denies this liability saying that their accounting practices are approved by…the government. The C.D. Howe Institute points out that these practices would not be accepted by the private sector. The response to this is that it is not comparable because the government can’t become insolvent or cease to exist.

Are you kidding me?

Is there no history of states going out of business or going bankrupt? I can think of a few that have gone completely out of business over the past couple of decades and you don’t even have to think very hard to think of a countries that go insolvent on a regular basis (One of them starts with an ‘A’ and ends with an ‘rgentina’).

The reason why we should worry about this issue is exactly because Canada can go bankrupt and that unless the finances are fixed this is certainly a long term possibility.

Ending the Global Drug War: Voices from the front lines

2011-12-14T09:25:00.000-05:00

Paul Dewar and the problem of forcing people to give

2011-12-14T09:14:00.002-05:00

NDP leadership candidate Paul Dewar gave a pretty comprehensive interview The Tyee. In it Mr. Dewar talked about a wide range of positively awful and slightly scary policy ideas. Instead of taking apart each of these bad suggestions, it seems more worthwhile to target what appears to be the underlining philosophy. In a fundamental way Mr. Dewar misunderstands what it is to take care of a person and that misunderstanding leads to a deeply divided society.

This is what he said:

We are going to have a country, and I'd like to be a prime minister, who says we are going to take better care of each other and not apologize for that.

I appreciate the sentiment, at least what he literally says and not what he actually means. There are a lot of people in my life that I value and take care of to the best of my ability and to the extent that they need taking care of by me. Many of these people make a similar effort to take care of me. There is a bond between us of mutual respect and love. There is a familial and friendly duty that ties us together and makes us all better off. Truly I say without such connections in my life I could not be the happy person that I am.

This is not what Mr. Dewar means when he says “take better care of each other.”

Mr. Dewar is talking about a process by which the state takes some resource from one individual and provides it to another. This sort of exchange is very different than the one that I described above. First and most importantly is that it is not voluntary. Also it is not a mutually beneficial exchange. When I give to my nephew, even though my nephew is too young to give much back to me besides affection, it is to my benefit and gain. If something is taken to me and given to a stranger I gain nothing. You can’t even argue that I gain by having access to the same benefits of forced assistance. If I contributed nothing to the state I would have the same access, in fact I would likely have more.

Some of you may think me selfish for thinking only of my gain, but why shouldn’t I think of myself? Why should I not object when my liberty and property is stripped away to benefit someone else? How do I know that the person who is receiving my forced assistance even requires my help? Also how do I know that they aren’t using my resources to do something that I disapprove of? What right do these strangers have to my stuff?

I suspect that it is at least part of Mr. Dewar’s thinking that this forced taking care of each other would pull us together. Politicians and others that use his sort of rhetoric seem to believe that government can create the same kind of social bonds that exists between me and my family and friends. By having a government that forces everyone to tend to everyone’s needs, they think that we will have a more united and socially coherent society.

The opposite is actually true because most, if not all of us, will at some point ask the questions that I asked above. Even those that are satisfied to have their money spent on some people in some ways will be able to find something that they object to in how the state assists people (what is Dewar’s opinion on the assistance given to oil companies?). There will also be those who see an opportunity to profit from the system by scheming to obtain a disproportional amount of that assistance. For this purpose people build coalitions of groups that apply political pressure to gain advantage. This breeds resentment (think about the negative feeling people get at the term ‘special interest group) and other groups must organize to either protect themselves
or to try and gain their own special privilege.

Far from a society of happy helpful people that look out for each other, we have a society that is divided and constantly fighting over a piece of the assistance pie. My neighbour becomes my enemy because I suspect that my neighbour is gaining more from the system than I am. My neighbour becomes someone to fear and not someone to build a community with.

Mr. Dewar should re-examine his policies and consider what he is trying to achieve with them. The world is not such a simple place that we can just give a poor man more money and everything will be better. Public policy should exist in this complex world not the imagined simple one of Mr. Dewar’s mind.

Norway butter and the importance of free trade

2011-12-13T09:07:00.000-05:00

For a combination of reasons Norway is running out of butter. People are paying four times the normal price as the Christmas baking season approaches.

“Hang on a minute,” you say. “How can an entire country be running out of something? Can’t the citizens of that country just buy it from a foreign provider?”

Well it seems that the Danes would be more than happy to do so except that the tariffs in Norway on butter products is so high that it isn’t profitable for Danish merchants to enter the market in a big way.

This is exactly what we mean when we talk about how destructive anti-trade policies are. Norway, a fully industrial modern society, is experiencing food shortages as if it was a poor African country. Granted that butter is not vital to dietary needs, but it is a commonly used ingredient and so it pretty much guarantees that food prices in general are going to sky rocket.

The best way to avoid this sort of situation is to allow the free flow of goods and services. That way if there is suddenly a greater demand there would be a supply to meet that demand.

Friedman: capitalism isn`t a sufficient condition for freedom

2011-12-09T23:07:00.002-05:00

Imans speak out against honour killings

2011-12-08T14:58:00.003-05:00

It makes me glad to see this sort of thing. The more people that condemn this sort of primitive behaviour the better. I am glad that Canada has such leaders in its Muslim community.

Canadian imams plan to condemn the "misguided notion" of so-called honor killings in their Friday sermons this week, responding to the high-profile trial of a father accused of murdering his three teenage daughters, allegedly because they shamed his Afghan family.

The two dozen imams, backed by 60 Canadian Muslim groups, will plead for action to fight domestic violence, perhaps quoting comments from the prophet Mohammad that "the best amongst you is he who treats women the best."

"We felt very strongly that we had a responsibility to make it very, very clear that honor killings -- so-called honor killings; we don't want to consider them anything honorable -- have absolutely nothing to do with Islam," said Sikander Hashmi, an imam in the Ontario city of Kingston where the trial is taking place.

Flaherty demands veto power over bank decisions

2011-12-08T11:23:00.001-05:00

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is arguing that he should have more power over what banks do because if the banks screw up it is Ottawa that is “on the hook.” Of course it doesn’t occur to him that Ottawa isn’t actually “on the hook” in the sense that the government HAS to bail out banks. In fact the government is not responsible for dumb decisions made by bank executives unless the government DECIDES to be responsible.

What we need here is a metaphor: Say I have a 30 year old son that is pretty reckless with his finances. He is undoubtedly a full adult and he actually has a really good job that gives him a strong income. Despite this he keeps getting in trouble with harebrained schemes and silly ideas. He is completely broke and he can’t possibly pay even the minimum requirements on his credit card.

I as his parent have two options: I can let him go bankrupt, or I can bail him out. As a loving father, and despite the fact that it puts my own finances under strain, I decide to bail him out.

Now there is somewhat of an assumption that I will be “on the hook” the next time he screws up. I haven’t even so much as tried to say this is a one time deal in any credible way, so this assumption seems to hold. So in order to protect my own savings I start telling him what to do and I start interfering with his life. He lets me because he knows that he relies on me to save him (and if this metaphor were to be more complete he would also allow me because I own a gun and he doesn’t).

If I had treated my son as an adult and allowed him to work out his own mistakes I wouldn’t have a reason or an excuse to interfere so much with his life. The reason for my interference isn’t to prevent him from screwing up, it is to protect myself, but the best way to protect myself would just be to declare that he will never receive a bailout ever again.

There are several problems with my metaphor (what metaphor isn’t problematic?). The biggest problem is that the government doesn’t have a paternal relationship with the banks. There are no familial issues of love and loyalty. A more accurate metaphor would be that I am not bailing out my son but a complete stranger.

Actually come to think of it, that isn’t a metaphor at all. I am in fact bailing out a complete stranger. I am not even doing it by choice I am being forced to bail out this stranger. In exchange another stranger (who is supposedly acting as my agent) is going to start vetoing decisions of the first stranger. I fail to see how this is remotely a good deal for me. It is far worst than bailing out my son because at least that was someone I presumably love.

So no Mr. Flaherty you shouldn’t get more power to veto bank decisions. You should instead stop forcing me to bail them out of the bad decisions. I am not even sure why you think you are such a mastermind that you can do a better job at producing a secure banking system than the market anyway. Or for that matter why you assume your successor will be as brilliant as yourself. It isn’t like government decisions have never lead to horrific disasters at any point in history.

The one big problem with the Canada-USA border agreement

2011-12-07T15:34:00.001-05:00

The CBC lists 6 things that we can expect to be in the new border agreement between Canada and the USA that is being announced today. Of those 6 items I support without hesitation 5 of them. The first on the list, however, gives me pause.

1. Better aligned regulations: Canada and the U.S. still have different regulations and standards on a lot of products, on everything from vehicles to food to consumer products. Those rules can slow trade or make it harder to make goods compatible, so much so that Harper and Obama set up a separate agreement on regulatory co-operation. Canada expects this agreement to lower costs to businesses and consumers.

As someone who is concerned with Canadian’s freedom to trade externally and internally you would think that I would be supportive of this. After all, as the above points out, different regulations slows down trade and often acts as a hidden obstruction, yet there is another consideration to take in account. That consideration is the danger of spreading bad regulation and hampering good policy making.

I’m not overly concerned with sovereignty when it comes to this issue. Agreeing to bilaterally align regulation is not a giving up of sovereignty. It is a decision that having similar or identical regulation is more important than whatever the benefits are of the regulation before alignment over the regulation after alignment. That is most certainly the choice of a sovereign state.

My problem with it is that we don’t really know before hand how much worst or better the aligned regulation will be. In an ideal world we would examine the regulations of both the United States and Canada then decide which is better and adopt that regulation. Government does not exist in an ideal world and the path to alignment is likely to be far bumpier. For one thing defining what exactly “better” means will depend greatly on who is negotiating and which interest groups are at the table.

The results may be terrible, it could be alright, hell it is just barely possible that the results will be better regulation all around. When mistakes are made, however, it will be difficult if not impossible to fix the mistake. Two government agencies from different nations would have to work together and coordination across borders is not simple or easy. If you want an example of how well it works just take a look at the European Union.

Also, since the regulation will be the same it would be difficult to figure out exactly why the policy was failing and what the potential solutions are. Usually government learns these things by comparing themselves to similar countries. Without a US-Canada comparison, policy learning as a near scientific approach would be greatly hampered.

Think of it this way: if you want to make good regulation you have the choice of either trying different things until something works (potentially highly destructive), or you can look at what other countries have done right or wrong and learn from them. The fewer examples you have to learn from the less likely it is that you will discover the best possible policy. This is not a trivial matter. It strikes at the very heart of our regulators ability (as limited as it already is) to be good governors.

I find it unlikely that streamlining trade just this little bit will be sufficient to make up for the risk of making regulation worst. I am almost certain that it isn’t worth the disadvantage of making policy learning more difficult.

The LCBO and the neo-prohibitionists

2011-12-07T10:00:00.002-05:00

Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan defended the board of the LCBO with words such as “competent” but at the same time he endorsed Auditor General Jim McCarter’s criticism that the LCBO doesn’t do enough to negotiate lower prices. I suspect that Mr. Duncan is thinking about the deficit and realizes that perhaps the LCBO cash cow can be squeezed for a few pennies more. I am skeptical that the LCBO really is as much of a revenue booster as its proponents claim, but that is another post for another time.

The best defense of the LCBO’s lack of business sense is that making a profit isn’t what the Liquor Control Board is all about. The core mission is to control liquor; the real purpose is what they call “social responsibility.” Once the Orwillian element is stripped away really what is being said is that the LCBO exists to keep the dream of prohibition alive.

The LCBO doesn’t want to lower prices because it will mean that people could afford to buy more alcohol. The immediate response to this ought to be: so what?

Why does it matter that people drink more? What harm does it do?

Don’t tell me that alcoholism is a curse on families. Higher prices do nothing to prevent alcoholics from over consuming. If you are a drunk you will sell your children for a cup of beer. If you are an irresponsible drinker than you will behave irresponsibly and buy more alcohol than you can really afford. The only people that will actually drink less are the sort that would like a cocktail or a beer to relax with after work but can’t afford the inflated prices. It is the responsible drinkers that suffer in the mission to prevent the irresponsible drinkers from behaving irresponsibly.

I sometimes suspect that it isn’t really the alcoholics that concern the neo-prohibitionist supporters of the LCBO. Truthfully it is more like they see something inherently immoral or scummy about drinking. It is as if in their mind every man was a drink away from becoming a monster and every woman was a shot of tequila away from being a whore. It isn’t about helping people who abuse drink, it is about making a value judgment about what people do in their spare time.

This is the value judgment that the LCBO is making when it promotes “social responsibility” by discouraging its customers from buying its products. The LCBO at its core, deep down in its institutional setup, practically written right into its mandate, thinks that you are a scumbag for wanting to drink.

It is not the business of any government agency in a free society to make that kind of judgment. It is past time to brush off the last remnant of prohibition and allow private entities to retail alcohol in Ontario.

The LCBO screws consumers with baffling business practice

2011-12-05T16:03:00.002-05:00

One of the arguments often made in favour of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario’s monopoly is that, by being the world’s largest single purchaser, it can negotiate discounts with suppliers. This argument deserves a great deal of skepticism. After all it isn’t like alcohol is particularly cheap at the LCBO. It turns out that the skeptics are right.

According to the Auditor General of Ontario the LCBO doesn’t even bother to negotiate a discount. There are therefore no cost savings in having the Control Board as the sole purchaser from suppliers.

This is just one example of the supreme incompetence of the government owned LCBO. It is time for the government to allow competition and to stop screwing law abiding adult consumers of alcohol.

Because it is December again

2011-12-01T23:37:00.000-05:00

I would be proud if this was my son

2011-12-01T19:24:00.001-05:00

Although if he were my son he would be a liar.

The core of the European crisis is a lack of economic freedom

2011-12-01T12:05:00.003-05:00

As the Greek crisis rapidly turn into the European crisis there is a scramble by world leaders to “fix it.” Of course it isn’t that easy because the real crisis in Europe is a systemic one; the real downfall of Europe is a lack of economic freedom and it isn’t going to be easy for European leaders to change that overnight.

I backed up the claim that a lack of freedom is the primary issue in a recent op-Ed I wrote with Fred McMahon. We examine where the Euro-countries place on the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index:

A glance at the Eurozone countries shows us that nine out of 16 of the member countries fall under the “mostly free” category, five of the 16 are “relatively free,” and two of the countries are “relatively unfree.” The freest country in the Eurozone is Finland, ranked 11th in the world in the economic freedom index. In contrast the least free country, Greece, ranks 88th in the world. The massive difference in economic freedom enjoyed in different countries in the Eurozone creates a dividing line and it is pretty easy to see conflict arising across that line.

The list of countries that fall into the less free side of the line reads like a list of the economic problem children of Europe. Spain, Italy, and Portugal all fall into the “relatively free” category. Greece, the main problem child, is ranked “relatively unfree” on the index. The only country that has required assistance that is “mostly free” is Ireland, and Ireland has shown the strongest signs of economic recovery.

The “mostly free” United States has also experienced economic turmoil but the downturn there pales in comparison to Greece or Spain. No one but the most exaggerating of alarmists would claim that the American economy is in danger of imminent collapse, while the complete unraveling of the Greek economy is quite real. More so than in America, it is the less economic free countries of Europe that are bearing the brunt of the ongoing global economic crisis.

Some European countries (as we write above) are pretty high on the economic freedom index.
Proponents of economic freedom would expect these countries to be more able to handle the shock of the crisis, and so they are. At the same time, however, the freer Euro-countries are being dragged down with the not so free.

It isn’t because investors don’t trust Germany that the German bond auction went so badly. It is because investors now know that Germany is tied to the hip to countries that they do not trust. The bad economic policies of Italy and Greece are damaging the German economy and finances in a big way. At the same time the only thing that is keeping Greece from completely sinking is that they are tied to the hip of Finland and Germany

Ultimately, for the long run, there can only be one solution to this problem:

Austerity measures are not enough. Greece and the other troubled countries need to take a fundamental look at the very structure of their economies and find a way to increase economic freedom if they want to ensure a prosperous future for their citizens.

Randy Hillier pushing to end pit bull ban

2011-12-01T09:04:00.003-05:00

Randy Hillier is leading the charge to repeal one of Dalton McGuinty's many bans, the ban on pit bulls. He is being joined by MPPs from both the Liberal Party and the NDP. Considering the multiparty nature of this move and the minority parliament, I am pretty hopeful that it will get through.

The pit bull ban is a classic example of government policy at its worst. It amounted to nothing more than headline chasing and lacked any pretense of being a measured response. For the sake of a positive news cycle the government took a little bit of freedom away from the people.

Death to Pennies

2011-11-30T16:11:00.003-05:00

This makes sense:

And most of the arguments can apply to Canada too.

Government fails and the Happy Meal lives on

2011-11-30T15:21:00.001-05:00

Government regulators are all too often convinced that they know how we as individuals should live our lives and raise our children. At the same time most regulators are incredibly incompetent at getting people to do what they want.

Take this recent case in San Francisco as an example:

In order to include a toy with a meal, restaurants must now comply with city-generated nutritional standards. Those are standards that even the "healthier" Happy Meals McDonald's introduced earlier this year don't come close to meeting. (As SF Weekly noted in January, the school lunches our children eat aren't healthy enough to qualify, either).

And yet it seems McDonald's has turned lemons into lemonade -- and is selling the sugary drink to San Francisco's children. Local McDonald's employees tell SF Weekly the company has devised a solution that appears to comply with San Francisco's "Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance" that could actually make the company more money -- and necessitate toy-happy youngsters to buy more Happy Meals.

It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

It isn’t so much that they failed to force McDonald’s not to offer toys along with Happy Meals, that is funny enough but what really tickles me about this is how stupid the original premise is.

I remember loving Happy Meals as a child, but I don’t have any recollection of ever caring much about the crappy toys. At best I would play with the Happy Meal toys in the car ride home. If the toys didn’t come with the meals I don’t think I would have even noticed.

I suspect that I am not unique in this. Some children may have cared about the toys more than me, but I really doubt that many children liked the Happy Meals for the toys. The Happy Meals were good in of them selves. So the whole concept of stopping child obesity by forbidding toys be sold with unhealthy food is pretty much guaranteed to have a nil effect.

The fact that the policy failed even to stop the toys being sold with the meals is just icing on the cake.

Milton Friedman on taxing the rich and government failure

2011-11-29T11:29:00.002-05:00

His ability to go straight to the heart of an issue is truly amazing. As good of an economist as he was, his true greatness was his ability to communicate.

Excercising is not a risk free investment

2011-11-29T10:31:00.001-05:00

In response to a survey that says Canadians don’t feel they have the time to work out, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada seems to want people to view exercise as an investment. If you spend time working out you will ultimately gain more time by living longer. Like any investment, however, this is not without risk.

This is the basic calculation that the HSFC wants us to make:

This includes getting 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous exercise, which the foundation said can reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and diabetes by 30 per cent. On the other hand, inactivity can shave four years off a person's lifespan, it said.

On the surface this looks like a good deal. Working out 150 minutes a week from the age of 20 and 80 amounts to a little less of a year in total and for that you get an extra 4 years of life. If only my other investments could match such a return.

Of course the 4 years claim is likely based on actuary data which means that it is an average over the general population. For you as an individual the results are far more variable than the claim would have you believe. After all there are other factors at work besides exercising. Genetics and other environmental factors play an important role. It is possible that you work out religiously from a young age and still die of a heart disease at the age of 50.

Furthermore there are a lot of other things you can die of. You don’t get any return on your investment if you get hit by a car and break your neck.

I don’t say this to imply that exercise is not worth the time or effort. I merely point out that the long term benefits might not be worth the time or effort (personally I put greater stock in the short term benefits of exercise). It probably is worth it but we should understand that there is what economists call a knowledge problem; as an individual I don’t know how beneficial exercise will be for me.

This is important to keep in mind because too often governments make policies on the misguided notion that encouraging people to exercise would be universally beneficial. Governments should allow individuals to make their own choices and take their own risks.

Just wait until we get a majority! (Part 7)

2011-11-29T08:54:00.001-05:00

I am sick of this minority parliament. I'm sure it is the opposition coalition of the Liberals, socialists and separatists are forcing Harper to make decisions like this: Minister of Agriculture defends protectionist policies in the poultry and milk industries. We need a stable majority government so that we can start standing up for free trade.

Marijuana problem: Parents do want it legal

2011-11-25T10:02:00.002-05:00

Kelly Egan authored a column in the Ottawa Citizen that claims that “ordinary people” don’t want pot legalized. I suppose it Egan world “ordinary” is the minority of people because fifty-three per cent of people do want it legalized. I’m pretty sure that 1 or 2 of that fifty-three per cent are parents, and so I feel comfortable saying that at least some parents want it legalized.

That’s not good enough for Ms. Egan. You see, she has “eyes” and her “eyes” tell her that at least one parent doesn’t want it legal, and of course that means that no parents want it legal.

You know all that academic evidence that prohibition is bad for individuals and society? That doesn’t matter!

Ordinary people are not going to read academic studies, unravel complex science on addictions or solve a harm benefit equation.

They are probably going to ask themselves: Would you buy a bag of weed and give it to your teenager?

My parents wouldn’t buy me alcohol when I was a teenager, therefore alcohol should be prohibited by the state. Try to parse that as a logical argument if you dare.

Freedom of Religion should not be in our constitution

2011-11-24T16:54:00.001-05:00

Federal Court Judge Michel Shore dismissed Christopher Bennett’s claim that, for him, marijuana is a holy sacrament and thus him smoking it is protected under the Charter as a freedom of religion. Judge Shore said that Mr. Bennett’s pot smoking is a “life style choice.” Yes it is a life style choice, but so are all religions.

A person must decide to belong to a religion. Even if they are born into that religion they are still given a choice at some point in their life (at least in this society). Some religions require a very strict commitment and others are more liberal, but there is no religion in the world that doesn’t come with a particular life style. This makes being a member of a religion a life style choice, the same as being a pot head or being a hipster is a life style choice.

So why would being religious be a life style that is particularly protected?

At least on the surface it would appear that belonging to a particular religion is the choice that has led to the most discrimination in history. It wasn’t until the early 19th century that the British allowed Catholics to be public employees and it doesn’t take much education to think of much more horrific discriminations based on religion. There is, however, another life style choice that has been more consistently discriminated against than belonging to any religion, and that is atheism.

It wasn’t until very recently that someone could be an atheist openly and not fear public ire at best and horrible death at worst. Yet we have no specific protection for atheists beyond the normal protection of freedom of expression.

There are other less notable examples that also don’t receive special comment in the constitution. For example, at a certain time in Russian history bearded men were legally discriminated against. There is no provision anywhere in the charter that assures beard growers that this will never happen in Canada, besides of course the same assurance that the baby faced among us have in the section referring to the freedom of expression.

It is puzzling to me why, if freedom of expression is enough to protect atheists and beards, the choice of religion would need special mention. If the purpose of the constitution is to ensure that people can live their lives as they wish (within reasonable limits) then why does one particular set of choices need extra protection? Why should the individual’s reason behind the choices he/she make have any significance?

In a truly free society Mr. Bennett should not have had to justify his life through religion. All he should have had to say is “it is my choice and I am not hurting anyone.” Case shut.

3 Reasons we shouldn't bail out student loans

2011-11-18T14:19:00.001-05:00

We should as a society decide if we can treat an 18 year old as an adult or not. If they are an adult then they live with the consequences that adults must live with.

CD Howe fiddles while Canada's health care system burns

2011-11-18T11:23:00.001-05:00

Don Drummond, through the CD Howe Institute, has recently published a paper on Canada’s Health Care system. It is an interesting piece of work. The interest is not so much because of the conclusions it reaches, there isn’t much there that’s new or innovative, but because it is an example of what is wrong with the health care policy debate in Canada. There is a blatant and conscience effort to avoid discussing changes that can be made to the single/public-payer model. That is to say, no one wants to talk about private financing in Canada’s health care system.

The report itself is an effort to come up with ways that health care spending could be reduced without touching the financing of health care. Mr. Drummond discusses creating incentives that will reduce overuse on the part of the patients and encourage efficiency from suppliers. He suggests that fees to providers should constantly be reviewed to reflect innovations and cost changes. He wants funding to shift from one area of health care to another where he believes that demand is rising.

Throughout the whole paper he completely ignores the fact that there already exists a method that would accomplish all of this in one shot: price signals.

Price signals allows for the consumers to act as if they know without actually knowing how much supply there is available of a good. Price signals encourage providers to adjust to changes in demand and the accompanying profit motive gives them an incentive to be more efficient. Price signals will do everything that Mr. Drummond wants done, but he won’t even talk about it, because for price signals to work private financing would have to be introduced to the system.

To the CD Howe Institute’s credit they are pretty blunt about why they won’t talk about financing. The president of the Institute writes that changing the financing “would be so politically inflammatory as to block reforms.” What he means is that he is too afraid of a public backlash to speak truth to power.

The truth is that governments can fiddle with the administration of the public funded system all they want but all they are doing at best is kicking the can down the road.

The single/public-payer model is at the core of the unsustainability of Canada’s health care system. It is the inability to solve basic knowledge problems of supply and demand through the price signals that creates waste and inefficiency. A central planner simply cannot mover fast enough nor can it know enough to replace prices as a solution.

The public is not being well served by respected academics like Don Drummond refusing to talk about this issue. The health care debate in this country is incredibly incomplete, with only a few individuals or organizations, like the Fraser Institute, willing to address it. Fear of the public not liking what it hears is no excuse. Real change does not happen from following a crowd but by leading it.

Federal government's pension proposal is better than CPP expansion

2011-11-17T10:20:00.001-05:00

The federal government is set to announce today a new method for Canadians to save and invest for their retirement. I am unsure about the details of this plan and I imagine that I could easily find something objectionable about it once I learn the details, but it is already clear that it is better than the alternative. There has been pressure on the government to increase CPP payments, and that would have certainly been a bad idea.

First of all the claim that the CPP is cheaper to manage than a private firm is at the very least exaggerated but could also be simply false. The claim is based on the administration costs of the CPPIB (Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board) versus the usual costs of a private investment firm. The problem is that the operational budget of the CPPIB does not cover all the costs that private firms face. These costs are carried by other government agencies (such as Revenue Canada), so the straight one on one comparison is false.

Secondly and more importantly, the proposed plan is another voluntary method rather than government mandated. Putting aside the morality of forcing people to invest in something that they don’t want to invest in, it disadvantages some individuals. In general it is a good thing for people to invest in retirement, but there can be pretty compelling reasons why that money is needed more immediately (or perhaps needed for another long term project such as a new business). By allowing the individual to choice we are allowing them to set their own priorities and not disadvantaging those that wish or need to do something else with that money.

Thirdly CPP is not the safe investment that its proponents claim. It has the same disadvantage of any defined benefits plan. It is possible if not likely that the liabilities will outstrip the contributions. At which point it becomes unlikely that younger investors will get their full return. Also it is subject to the whims of governments that might change the contribution levels or benefits at will.

Fourth and finally, the CPPIB is about at the end of its effectiveness as an investment manager. Neil Mohindra of the Fraser Institute released a study a few months back that looked at the literature on the diseconomies of scale for investment managers. The study demonstrated that there are several disadvantages to having a too large money pool. These disadvantages can be offset in limited ways by various practices but the CPPIB has already put these methods into place. The return of an enlarged investment into the CPP is very likely to be minuscule because the diseconomies of scale would be too great.

The government’s new plan would have to be pretty awful to be worse than the disadvantages I have just mentioned. So even if it is not perfect, and I am sure that it will not be, I am confident that it will be the better of the two policy options.

Occupy Toronto has no right to St. James Park

2011-11-16T09:50:00.002-05:00

On Tuesday the City of Toronto issued eviction notices to the Occupiers at St. James Park, I am sure in response to my post on Monday. A group of the Occupiers went to a judge for an injunction claiming that the eviction would violate their charter rights. The judge put a stay on the enforcement of the eviction notices until he had heard the arguments on Friday. This puzzles me.

I am not a lawyer. I have zero legal training, but I believe that I have a reasonable grasp on the constitution for a layman. I would have thought that this would be a pretty open and shut case. Isn’t it pretty well established that in Canada if you want to protest on public ground you need a permit? I hadn’t thought that this was a controversial limit on free speech.

As I say I am not an expert on constitutional law, but that doesn’t really matter because regardless of what the judge decides this is a reasonable limit on free speech and the Occupiers should be removed.

Lorne Gunter put it pretty well in his column published earlier today:

You don't have an unreserved right to live in a public space, no matter how fervent your opinions are nor how noble you believe your cause is. Your actions diminish the ability of other citizens to enjoy that public space, too. By demanding that you be permitted to camp out in a city park until income parity is reached or caps to CEO pay are legislated or the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved, you are, effectively, insisting your rights trump those of other members of the public who may wish to use the common space differently. What gives you that right?

It is a key point that the Occupiers are restricting the ability of others to use the public space. This restriction is a cost that the rest of the public who may wish to use the park must pay. At the same time the Occupiers are completely ignoring the usual method of assigning usage of this public good. Essentially the Occupiers, by claiming exclusive use of the park, are demanding a public subsidy for their free speech.

Here we come to one of the misunderstood aspects of the right to speech and peaceful assembly. For it to be truly peaceful you cannot force others to pay for it. Magazine owners do not have a responsibility to publish everything that is submitted to them. I am not obligated to listen to every speaker with equal attention. And no one has an exclusive claim on a public good for the purposes of voicing an opinion.

The people presently squatting at St. James Park have the right to say and believe what they like, but that right does not allow them to continue to squat on public land.

Giving up agriculture supply management to join free trade group

2011-11-15T10:25:00.003-05:00

So let me get this straight. In order to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade group Canada will have to agree to stop a policy that makes common foods more expensive. I think this has to be the very definition of win-win.

Of course the caveat is that Canada won't have to eliminate supply management immediately. It seems likely that they will be on a "liberalization schedule." Which is diplomatic speech for you don't ever have to really do that. But still it will at least create one pressure to encourage liberalization that will counter the special interest groups that try to stop it.

Note to Rob Ford: either deal with Occupy Toronto, or shutup

2011-11-14T16:32:00.002-05:00

For a week or so I have been reading articles like this one where Rob Ford says that the Occupation at St. James Park is illegal and at some point the law will be enforced. When asked at what point the law will be enforced he says that it will be soon. Then he claims that they will likely go away by themselves anyway.

I understand Mr. Ford’s dilemma. It is the same problem facing every municipal leader that is unfortunate enough to have to deal with one of these Occupation protests. They are clearly committing a crime by squatting on public land, but if police are sent in to enforce the law the situation will be uncontrollable by the elected officials. Regardless of how much blame the mayor actually deserves, it is guaranteed that if violence ensues the mayor will be blamed.

The problem is that by saying the police will eventually be sent in but not saying when, Rob Ford is likely breathing life into the protesters.

Many of the protesters already despise Rob Ford (if their signs are any indication), so by being critical of the protest Rob Ford is setting him up to be the perfect vocal point of the Occupiers. Rob Ford is providing an enemy that is not abstract. He could become the embodiment of the great evil power that must be defied.

At the same time by not actually doing anything about it, Rob Ford is making it appear that defiance is not just possible, it is easy.

“I can have all the fun of standing up to the man (i.e. Rob Ford),” thinks one inclined to join the protest, “but without actually having to risk a baton to the head or a night in jail.”

Rob Ford needs to stop pussyfooting around and either be the man of action we all thought he was, or stop saying anything on the issue at all.

More corporate welfare in the UK

2011-11-10T11:08:00.000-05:00

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced today that he will be spending an additional £95 million in corporate welfare. This will apparently create more jobs and grow small and medium businesses (presumably if this program is really successful these businesses will become large and thus will no longer qualify for government support).

It just baffles me why the argument that government doesn’t efficiently allocate capital continues to fall on deaf ears.

The new Ontario minority Parliament may turn out alright

2011-11-09T10:26:00.002-05:00

This article from the Toronto Star has given me the clearest vision, thus far, on how the new Liberal minority government can be made to work for the benefit of Ontarians.

Tim Hudak is pushing for the government to make some cuts and the Liberal government appears to be agreeing to work with the PC Party to bring forward such cuts. The rhetoric on both sides, in contrast the former federal minority Parliament, has been highly cooperative.

I was afraid that the PCs would see it as their mission to bring down the government, but instead they appear to be acting responsibly and are willing to work with the government to push for better policies.

All that being said, the Taxpayers Federation is right to say that both parties are being far too timid.

But for the first time I see a glimmer of hope that this new Parliament can actually do something, anything, to tackle the numerous problems now facing Ontario.

Flaherty confirms that the budget will not be balanced in 2014

2011-11-08T15:29:00.001-05:00

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has announced that the deficit will not be eliminated as quickly as the government had promised. The plan to get out of deficit was based on an assumption that the economy will continue to improve at a certain rate. As has become increasingly clear the economy is not going to improve sufficiently. Who could have possibly have predicted that this would happen?

Oh wait…

I did!

And I wasn’t the only one.

Hell, anyone paying half attention to what was happening in Europe and the United States even back in April could have easily predicted that the Ministry of Finance’s optimist was misplaced. The only thing I can conclude is that no on at the Ministry reads financial news.

History has shown, time and time again, that deficit slaying does not take place on the back of economic growth alone. Real cuts and hard decisions have to be made. If the Government of Canada truly wants to put its finances in order, it has to be far more proactive.

In America the rich is not a closed caste

2011-11-08T12:02:00.000-05:00

Pundits and Occupiers talk about the rich or the “super rich” as if they were a closed caste. They seem to think that the wealthy in America are the product of generation after generation of rich families. It is true that some of the wealthy members of American society can trace their wealthy ancestors to the 19th century, but this is actually really rare.

In a recent op-Ed Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute pointed out that 80% of America’s millionaires come from families that are not rich.

So the vast majority of the wealthiest came about their wealth by moving up the income scale. I would also point out that it is not uncommon for the children of millionaires to lose all their parent’s money after inheriting.

What we have here is a society where people are rising and falling to the top of the economic/social scale as fortune and skill dictates. This is incredibly rare in the history of humanity and it should be celebrated more.

Just wait until we get a majority! (Part 6)

2011-11-08T08:53:00.001-05:00

I am sick of this minority parliament. I'm sure it is the opposition coalition of the Liberals, socialists and separatists are forcing Harper to make decisions like this: Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will confirm that deficits will run longer than promised. We need a stable majority government so that we can start standing up for fiscal sanity.

Occupy Toronto, a local smelly nuisance

2011-11-07T16:19:00.002-05:00

I hadn’t checked out the Occupy Toronto crowd since the first day that it started. So last Saturday I figured I’d stop by for a peek. What I saw there was pretty underwhelming if you consider this movement is being touted as the source of revolutionary change. In fact the only thing that they appear to be achieving is earning sympathy for the people who live around St. James Park.

The first thing I noticed about the tent city is the smell. It absolutely stinks. I feel sorry for anyone who has to walk past it on their way to work.

The second thing I noticed is that the place was incredibly dirty.

The third thing I noticed was that the few people who were there were also incredibly dirty.

A friend of mine told me that his colleagues at work had, charitably, gotten together the week before the Occupation began and cleaned the park. Their good works had been completely thrown out the window because I have never seen St. James Park look so disgusting.

The most attractive feature of what is otherwise a rather plain looking neighbourhood has been turned into what smells like a garbage dump and looks like the worst kept camping site in Canada.

Keep in mind that the park is next door to a church, a very popular church to hold weddings. I shutter to think of the poor couple that thinks they had paid for a beautiful wedding at one of Toronto’s nicest churches, but instead are getting married at an open air homeless shelter.

All of this is pretty benign (unless you are the poor sucker that has to clean the place up) but their only achievement is being a nuisance. After a month of not showering the movement continues to be pretty vague and dominated by those that are shouting ideas that have been discredited for decades. There is no plan on how to achieve any ends beyond, “starting a conversation.”

So even if you are sympathetic to the goals of the movement, you have to wonder if all this is nothing but sound and fury, and stink. Mostly stink.

Unsustainable health care spending and the government system

2011-11-04T15:46:00.001-04:00

The Canadian Institution for Health Information has released a study claiming that the steady increase in health spending is not due to the aging population demographics. Considering that government health care expenditure has been on average rising faster than GDP since 1975, I think that the CIHI is correct. After all the demographic time bomb hasn’t gone off yet, most boomers are still not in retirement. So why would expenditure be so high already?

The study’s explanation is that the increase spending is a political choice. Significant segments of the electorate demands improved services and political parties respond by promising increased spending. Again, without having examined the study closely, this makes intuitive sense to me. It is difficult to find any major provincial party that does not routinely promise spending increases that outpace GDP growth.

This serves as a good example of how demand operates in a government system compared to a market system.

In a market system if individuals want better service they pay for it out of their own pockets. Since the individual pays the cost they would balanced the increased spending with their other desires and needs. Providers of the services know this and they realize that they are competing for dollars. To succeed the providers would not price themselves so high that they chase away the customers. Thus in a market system there is a built in restraint on unsustainable growth in health care spending.

In a government system individuals that want better service won’t be paying directly for it. Instead they will vote for politicians that will use tax dollars to pay for it. The cost would be spread out among not just those that want better service but to those who are either already satisfied or indifferent as well. Politicians would attempt to outbid each other in spending increases to secure the pro-health care increase segment of the electorate. Governments do have to balance priorities, just as an individual does, but the main incentive of political leaders is to win elections and often priority balancing takes a backseat to that. Thus money appears to be unlimited and there is no natural restraint on unsustainable growth in health care spending.

Of course money isn’t unlimited and eventually governments do become bankrupt, but usually the politicians who have caused the problem are safely retired by the time it becomes an issue. There is a clear agency problem in entrusting health care spending to politicians who are making decisions that are based on their own needs not the general public’s wellbeing. The only true solution to the unsustainable spending in health care is take it out of the hands of politicians and put it into the hands of consumers.

Liberty and equality

2011-11-02T15:00:00.003-04:00

A couple of days ago I posted a video that explained why liberty is more important than equality. Yet there are some equalities that are important and not hostile to liberty.

Liberty or equality?

2011-10-31T09:31:00.002-04:00

It is pretty clear that the main social goal of many socialist activists, such as the Occupiers, is equality. The problem is that equality does not mean life is better. Equality is not something that intrinsically improves the well being of individuals or the prosperity of society. Equality should not be the goal, liberty should be.

I will allow Milton Friedman to explain why:

Support raw milk food freedom fighter on hunger strike

2011-10-26T15:12:00.002-04:00

Food freedom fighter Michael Schmidt has gone on a hunger strike after the Ontario Court of Justice reversed a lower court decision and found Mr. Schmidt guilty of crimes related to the distribution of raw milk. Mr. Schmidt had started a business where people who wanted access to raw milk could own part of a cow and thus be allowed to drink the milk directly from that cow. The government disapproved of this business and thus has taken action to shut it down.

This is an issue about individuals deciding what they can put into their own bodies of their own free will. You may not be interested in consuming raw milk (I’m not) but you should be interested in preventing the government from interfering with that decision. For that reason I ask that you participate in this Saturday’s Money Bomb and support Mr. Schmidt’s fight for food freedom.

From the Canadian Constitution Foundation's Facebook event:

This Saturday will mark the 30th day Michael has been fasting on his hunger strike.

Let's have a moneybomb fundraiser to support Michael and help defend him.

We have so many people in our facebook group, if most us gave only 5$, we could easily raise over 15,000$ !!

Another suggested donation is $30 for each day he's been fasting.

Use this link to donate: http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/toc.php/40

Please share this event with all your friends who care about food freedom, and publicize it too!

One good crime reform

2011-10-25T16:38:00.003-04:00

As bad as the Conservative government's crime reform agenda is and has been, there is one bright spot that I think should be noted. The Conservatives are planning on altering the criminal code to allow greater discretion for the individual to defend himself or herself against an aggressor.

As things stand now it is deeply ambiguous who would get in more trouble. The person that tried to rob you, or you for punching out the person who tried to rob you. Correcting this, and freeing the individual to defend his or her own self and property is an important positive move.

People who love F.A. Hayek a lot

2011-10-23T15:23:00.001-04:00

This makes more sense to me than Edward Cullen.

Death of Gadhafi does not vindicate Libyan campaign

2011-10-21T16:40:00.001-04:00

Pundits and politicians are trumpeting the death of Gadhafi as if it is a vindication of NATO’s involvement in the Libyan civil war. Is it a shock to people that a coalition of the richest nations in the world managed to knock over the dictator of one of the poorest nations in the world? I don’t think anyone ever doubted that Gadhafi could be defeated, it is just a question of should it have been a NATO mission to defeat him.

We can dispense with any pretence that this was a mission to protect innocent civilians. Mission creep began almost the second that bombs were launched. The objective was regime change plain and simple. The NATO forces had decided who they wanted to win the Libyan civil war and so, without looking too closely at the horse they backed, they ensured the desired outcome.

It isn’t so much that I object to the Libyan campaign itself, it is just that it is part of a pattern of American and, by extension, NATO policy that is neither sustainable nor beneficial. NATO can not indefinitely operate as the arbiter in every military conflict in every region in the world. The countries that have the real military capacity (i.e. the United States) are going broke and are unable to sustain the level of military spending that will ensure victory anywhere anytime.

Furthermore, this sort of involvement tends to breed resentment especially if the interference inadvertently installs a dictator that is even nastier and more brutal than before.

The unintended consequences of this sort of resentment are already clear. Ultimately the people living in the NATO countries become increasingly drawn into conflicts that are not of their making and have little to do with their interests. Blood and treasury will be spent maintaining a dominance that just barely keeps a lid on an ever growing boiler of violence.

Killing one man does not make these concerns go away.

Institute for Liberal Studies event: Monetary Policy in the 21st Century an Austrian Perspective

2011-10-21T08:51:00.003-04:00

The Institute for Liberal Studies and the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada are hosting an event tomorrow in Toronto that discusses Austrian monetary theory. Don't worry if it isn't a topic that you know a lot about. It won't be too heavy on economic jingoism and anyone is welcome to attend. I have found talks hosted by ILS in the past to be highly informative and the people are absolutely amazing.

Here are the details:

Presented by the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada and the Institute for Liberal Studies

Sponsored by Maple Leaf Metals

Registration is $20 and includes lunch. Full-time students can have the registration fee waived by registering at www.liberalstudies.ca/events.
...
As governments grapple with the daily news of doom and gloom in the wake of the great recession the question is being asked, who is to blame for the financial crisis? To answer this question, an increasing number of people are turning to the Austrian school of economic thought.

On October 22 the Ludvig von Mises Institute of Canada and the Institute for Liberal Studies will be co-hosting a seminar discussing monetary policy and free banking. Among the topics discussed will be:

- A comparison of free banking and central banking
- The ethics of central banks
- Canada’s history of free banking
- Central banking and the great depression
- How to unwind the Current system

Registration and bookstore open at 9:30 a.m., with the first session at 10:00 a.m., and the last session ending at 4:00 p.m.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada is a Registered Charity issuing tax deductible receipts for qualifying donations. (Charitable Registration number 81905 0113 RR0001)

A quick review of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing

2011-10-20T17:02:00.000-04:00

Gross Domestic Product measures the market value of all the goods and services produced in a given territory in a certain amount of time. This measure is often used by economists, social scientists, and politicians as a proxy for a territory’s wellbeing. This is despite the fact that pretty much anyone who knows anything about GDP would readily admit that it does not adequately reflect wellbeing nor does it even capture all economic activity. So there have been attempts made from a wide range of sources to replace the GDP and find some objective measure for the wellbeing of a population.

The latest attempt comes out of the University of Waterloo by the “Canadian Index of Wellbeing Network” headed by Roy Romanow.

It is a deeply flawed index.

Fundamentally the problem is that it attempts to measure wellbeing by using indicators that are laced with the values of the authors rather than an objective measure.

For example, why is democratic engagement fundamental to wellbeing? If I am satisfied to be ignorant of the process of government, why is this harmful to my wellbeing?

Furthermore why is the indicator for global engagement the Net Official Development Assistance as a percent of gross national income? Why is this form of international cooperation more significant than say free trade or military alliances?

The education section of the Index is even rifer with the value biases of the authors. Instead of focusing on educational outcomes the authors look at additional superfluous indicators such as socialization. They also look at student to teacher ratios and how many people attend post-secondary education. This stuff may be important to education and they may not be, either way they are not objective measures of the quality of education in society (If 100% of the population graduated from a high school system that failed to teach them to read that would not be a good outcome). It is pretty clear that these indicators are included because the authors think that they are important not for any objective reasoning.

There are other problems with the Index. The standard of living section alone deserves to be ripped to absolute shreds. But I think if they have succeeded in anything it is in underlining exactly why it is so hard to come up with a true objective scientific measure of wellbeing.

Wellbeing has to be defined theoretically; it is an ideological question. It is impossible to remove completely from any such index any hint of ideological allegiance because you have to make choices about what is and is not important. So we should recognize this Index for what it is and what it is not.

It is not an objective scientific measure of the wellbeing of Canadians.

It is an interesting (or not depending on your bias) aggregation of varied data.

It is not a replacement for GDP as an accepted proxy for wellbeing.

Crony Capitalism vs Free Market Capitalism

2011-10-19T08:48:00.000-04:00

Federal government can't spend money on infastructure, it has no money

2011-10-18T15:26:00.002-04:00

As pressure continues for the federal government to introduce another round of new spending, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are adding its voice and suggesting that commuter infrastructure would be a good way to spend all that money that the federal government doesn’t have.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that even among Keynesians the usefulness of government infrastructure spending as a way to improve the short term economy is disputed. The effects on the job market are too narrow when you consider that it only employs people with specific skills, and usually it takes too long for these projects to be launched. So even if you do think that boosting aggregate demand is the thing to do (which I don’t) you have to wonder if infrastructure spending is the best way to do that.

The next thing that comes to my mind is that Toronto desperately needs a better system for commuters. I spent two weeks commuting from the Newmarket area to midtown Toronto and I vowed never to do it again. “Stimulating” the economy may just be a convenient excuse to tackle the problem. Although I would think that even if there is disagreement on what should be done and how it should be done, pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be done.

The third thing that comes to my mind is something that I mentioned in the first paragraph: the federal government has no money. The Government of Canada has been in deficit since the 2009/2010 budget and the Minister of Finance was betting a return to surplus on a fast growing economy, which is a dubious prospect at best. So if the federal government has to borrow money without even having to take on new projects, you have to wonder where this new spending is going to come from. How much more money do we really want our government borrowing? Also, if you have to borrow just to pay your day to day bills, is that really the best financial moment to invest in a large capital project?

Back in 2007 the Government of Canada may have been able to afford the cost of improving commuter infrastructure, but over the last few years the gluttony of spending has made it impossible. It would be incredibly financially prohibitive to spend the billions it would require.

Fortunately there are things that governments can do to take pressure off the system, if they have the political will. But at some point governments will have to spend money to address the problem and that money has already been wasted away.

Should the libertarian movement engage with Occupy Toronto?

2011-10-17T18:56:00.006-04:00

My initial gut reaction to the Occupy movement was to dismiss it with a sneer. I had spent many of my post-secondary education years witnessing incoherent, ineffective, and politically-stunted protests, and I assumed that the Occupiers were cut from the same cloth. Most of the news reports I came across (both hostile and friendly) seemed to only confirm my assumption, yet the Occupy Wall Street concept has picked up steam in a way that other such movements have not. Considering that the main message, if one can be found, of the protest is against too much corporate power, libertarians in the States seriously debated if they are missing the boat by failing to engage with this crowd.

The case for engagement is that libertarians basically agree that corporations have too much power. This, however, is not a flaw with a free market system but the result of government cronyism with certain businesses. If libertarians participate and engage, then they can focus at least part of the ire on government interventionism. Perhaps they could even convert some of the current Occupiers to libertarian thought.

I was skeptical but the argument was strong enough that I wanted to test it, or at least satisfy my curiosity by looking into the Occupy Toronto protest.

Unfortunately the crowd that took over the St. James Park last Saturday was exactly the sort of people that I knew so well in university. Between giant posters of Chairman Mao and Karl Marx, I saw signs that ranged from the bizarre to the painfully ignorant. CUPE, Mohawk Warrior, and Communist Party flags were visible throughout the park and so were drum circles chanting such classic hits as, “state democracy, is hypocrisy.”

I saw a sign that blamed Rob Ford for the holder’s student debt and a sign that blamed Stephen Harper for the income distribution over the last 30 years. There was the shocking, such as a man holding up a sign titled “Kill the Rich.” And the obscene, such as a child wearing a sign asking “what is my market value?” As Plato himself once wrote, it is just not possible to enter into a rational discussion with a crank (I paraphrase).

Still there were those there who were trying. One of the first things that I noticed when I got there was a giant Ron Paul banner. After walking around a bit to see the place for myself, I approached this group and asked them why they were there. The apparent leader of the group agreed to let me record him and you can see his answer here, which is mostly the same as the argument I described above.

I asked him how he was being received and he said that he was getting some negative responses but mostly people appeared happy to see him there. While I talked to him a smiling man walked up to us to show us his Ron Paul tattoo.

I saw one other man in the crowd who was holding a sign declaring that he was against crony capitalism and not capitalism. Also I was told that there was at one point a man dressed up as Atlas--a reference to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. So it does seem that libertarian views were present even if they were dwarfed by the unabashed communists.

Encouraged, my girlfriend, who had come with me, wanted to make a sign of our own. We found some organizers who were providing material for signs and asked only that the sign couldn’t be “against anything.” With this vague instruction in mind we settled on the whimsical and obscure words “who is John Galt?” as our sign.

After walking around with this sign for a while we were set upon by a number of Occupiers. At first they couldn’t believe that our sign was serious and they demanded to know the meaning of it. I explained that we were trying to express, obliquely, that the 1% was needed.

What followed was what I can only describe as a waste of breath. As I tried to make my case, I faced absurd claims, such as citizens of the Soviet Union being immune to the profit motive, and derisive sneers in the place of argument. Eventually one of them accused me of being racist for saying that capitalism was primarily responsible for advancing standard of living.

Of the eight people that we were talking to, only one appeared at all interested in having an honest discussion and I suspect that the ire of the others would have been worse if he hadn’t dampened them repeatedly.

So no, I don’t think libertarians should bother to engage with the Occupy Toronto crowd because they are simply not interested in listening. Even if my experience was atypical, I have to wonder what the point would have been. Much like the protests in my old university’s quad, the Toronto Occupation isn’t going anywhere. It isn’t going to accomplish anything. By showing up libertarians are only confirming that they belong among the cranks and the fringe.

What if Chinese military bases were located in Texas?

2011-10-07T10:28:00.000-04:00

Reason and bleeding-heart libertarians

2011-10-06T16:11:00.003-04:00

I'm sympathetic to the idea of "bleeding-heart libertarians" although I am cautious about what specific values you want to include under the umbrella of "social justice." Social justice is too often used as a slogan for values that are inherently antagonistic to a free market system, such as economic equality.

Yet if by social justice you are talking about environment, fairness, and prosperity, then yes libertarians have the solution for these issues.

Paul McKeever of the Freedom Party responds to my post

2011-10-06T12:02:00.002-04:00

This post, that I published yesterday explaining why I was voting for the Libertarian Party and not the Freedom Party, was picked up by the National Post’s Full Comment page this morning. Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever responded in the comment section with this:

Hello Hugh:

Just one correction. Freedom Party does welcome you and does want your vote.

For all of the reasons you cite, voting FP is the best choice for anyone who wants the sorts of changes we are proposing (see here: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/... ). As always, everyone who supports Freedom Party's planks is welcomed by FP. Our candidates, supporters, members, and voters include a wide variety of people, having a wide variety of different beliefs or philosophies. Whether you live your life according to one philosophy or another is of no importance to me, or to Freedom Party. If you support Freedom Party's planks, you are a Freedom Party person, and that support is all that matters.

There are many people who genuinely want more individual freedom. One convenient/common handle often used by such a person is "libertarian". However, the reality is that a great number of people who label themselves "libertarian" are not advocates of "libertarianISM". Libertarianism is a word that refers to a failed, irrational, and morally subjective anti-government electoral strategy and movement. Libertarianism is, in fact, the strategy of the Libertarian party.

For those interested in why I condemn libertarianism (not those who merely, out of convenience, refer to themselves as "libertarian"), and for all who want to understand - properly - what "libertarianism" truly means and entails - I would encourage the National Post's readers to read/watch the following:

From my personal blog: "If you want freedom…" Q&A: Libertarianism - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/pa...

Video: "Damned to Repeat It" - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/20...

Regards,

Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario

All of this makes me think that Mr. McKeever has missed my point.

This is what I wrote yesterday:

I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting the Freedom Party is objectivist, rather than libertarian, Mr. McKeever is basically saying that you have to not just agree with his policies, but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist, because I agree with his political goals.

And so his explanation of libertarianism is beside the point. Why not encourage moral subjectivists to be members of your party? Why condemn them when you can work with them towards a mutual political goal?

I should say that I do not wish the Freedom Party or Mr. McKeever ill. I would have voted for them if I didn’t have the Libertarian Party as an option. My one and only issue with the Freedom Party is that they allow a narrow and largely irrelevant ideological distinction to get in the way of building a more united and stronger non-statist movement.

Ontario Election prediction 2011

2011-10-05T16:37:00.002-04:00

I predict that the Liberals and PC Party will be within 10 seats of each other with the plurality going either way. The Liberals will form a government with some sort of arrangement with the NDP. Most likely it will be the guarantee of no election for one year in the exchange for one or two key policies (hopefully not Buy Ontario).

To see how brilliant I am, check out my federal election prediction.

Should I vote Freedom or Libertarian?

2011-10-05T16:15:00.001-04:00

Voting tomorrow in the Ontario election will be difficult for me. I have never had as much difficulty making up my mind on how I would vote for an election as I have for this one. For the first time I have been given the opportunity to vote for one of two political parties that both have important things to say and are both offering platforms that will bring about true prosperity to the province of Ontario. I have had to take a serious look at both political parties and decide who it is that truly deserves my vote more. I speak of course of the Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party.

I am fortunate that both political parties are running a candidate in my riding (St. Paul’s) and so I don’t have to pick between vomiting and not voting.

Both parties offer a vision of a more modest state that does not unnecessarily interfere with the lives of the individual and recognizes the free market as the primary driver of prosperity. There are some nuanced policy differences but the differences are so small or so technical that there isn’t much to choose between them. I would feel comfortable that with either platform the individuals in Ontario will be better off.

So without policy to offer me a guide to choose I turn my eye to the parties as organizations.

I have to say I have been impressed with the Freedom Party during this election. I have posted several of their adverts, and with one notable exception, they have been the best political adverts of this campaign. They are clear, to the point, and offer a policy idea that makes me stand up and cheer (screw you Liquor Control Board of Ontario).

Furthermore the Freedom Party leader has been able to attract a decent amount of media attention given the low profile of his party. They have also organized themselves enough to run candidates in most of Ontario’s ridings. This is no small accomplishment for a political organization that is perpetually strapped for resources.

The Freedom Party has worked hard to earn my vote whilst the Libertarian Party has been pretty much invisible.

Still, I can’t bring myself to vote for the Freedom Party and the reason I can’t is the party’s leader: Paul McKeever.

Some of you, if not most of you, are likely pretty confused by all of this.

“Hang on!” you may be crying out, “what do you mean there are two libertarian parties? Why would there be two parties splitting the libertarian vote? It’s not like there are so many of you to begin with.”

The explanation to your reasonable confusion is silly: Paul McKeever insists that the Freedom Party is objectivist and not libertarian.

I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because, as my friend Peter Jaworski points out here, one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting that the Freedom Party is objectivist rather than libertarian basically Mr. McKeever is saying you have to not just agree with his policies but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. In fact I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist because I agree with his political goals.

This isn’t good enough for Mr. McKeever. In fact he can be pretty insulting about it. He has on several occasions spoken derisively about libertarians. To my mind this means he doesn’t really want my vote. If ideological purity is what he wants then he doesn’t want me.

So I will be voting Libertarian Party because I agree with the party’s policies and the party leader doesn’t purposefully alienate me.

National Post endorsement shows what is wrong with Tim Hudak's campaign

2011-10-04T17:45:00.001-04:00

The National Post’s endorsement of PC Party leader Tim Hudak in a weird way shows exactly what is wrong with his campaign. And make no mistake, win or lose on Thursday, something has gone terribly wrong with the PC Party campaign.

The endorsement begins with a long description of exactly how and why Dalton McGuinty has been a bad premier for Ontario. It seems obvious that such a bad government, for it has been a bad government, needs to be replaced. The National Post says that the NDP leader may be a swell person but socialism isn’t the thing and so there can only be one choice: Tim Hudak.

It has been pretty obvious throughout the election that this has been exactly the attitude of the PC Party. Ontarians don’t really have an option. Voters don’t like McGuinty and so Tim Hudak is the default choice. The campaign as a result has been pretty lackluster. They repeatedly say they are about change but they offer little of substance and most of their attacks have been extremely lazy and vague. Basically they didn’t think they would have to fight for it, and so they aren’t fighting for it.

The National Post tries to jazz up Tim Hudak by pointing out that he is proposing to change the government’s relationship with the public sector unions. Taking on the unions is something that is needed but that alone won’t fix the problems that Mr. McGuinty has caused. None of the other proposals that have come out of the PC platform would fix the fiscal mess either.

I am going to say that again because it’s important:

Nothing that Tim Hudak is promising to do will fix Ontario’s fiscal crisis any faster or any better than anything that Dalton McGuinty is promising to do.

Even the National Post in the midst of endorsing Tim Hudak expresses frustration that he has pledged to protect 2/3 of the budget while somehow ending the deficit at the same time. The National Post tries to get around this by saying that politicians are probably all liars anyway, but that is part of Mr. Hudak’s problem. He can’t credibly say that Dalton McGuinty lacks credibility on fiscal issues because he too lacks credibility of fiscal issues.

Ultimately the National Post is supporting Tim Hudak because he isn’t Dalton McGuinty and a lot of people will vote PC for the same reason.

But the PC party has yet to give anyone a good reason to vote FOR them. And if they lose that is why they will lose.

Reason TV: alcohol vs marijuana prohibition in the arts

2011-09-29T12:03:00.001-04:00

Raw milk champion faces legal set back

2011-09-29T09:26:00.002-04:00

Michael Schmidt is a diary farmer who established a business that allowed patrons to partially own a cow so that they could have a source of raw milk. The distribution of raw milk is illegal in Ontario and so Mr. Schmidt was arrested and charged. At first he defended himself in court but his case was later taken up by the Canadian Constitution Federation, the same organization that helped Peter Jaworski and his family.

Yesterday Mr. Schmidt’s case suffered a set back:

Newmarket, ON: Dairy farmer Michael Schmidt suffered a setback in his campaign to legalize raw milk today when the decision of Justice Peter Tetley of the Ontario Court of Justice reversed a lower court decision and found Schmidt guilty on 15 of the 19 charges.

Schmidt had been acquitted of all charges by Justice of the Peace Paul Kowarsky in January, 2010. The Ontario government and the Grey Bruce Health Unit appealed that decision. Justice Tetley allowed their appeal on some, but not all charges.

All claims that the legislation violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were dismissed.

The text of the decision has been posted on the website of the Canadian Constitution Foundation here.

Schmidt said: “This is just a temporary setback. We will continue to fight, both through the courts and through the legislature, for the rights of individuals to decide what they put into their bodies. The public supports us on this issue.

At this year’s Liberty Summer Seminar I had the opportunity to converse with Mr. Schmidt. He is an interesting and intelligent man to put it mildly and certainly the type who is willing to stand on principle. I have to say that I liked him.

But even if I didn’t like him, why the fuck can’t I buy raw milk if I wanted to?

Ontario Leaders Debate 2011: fiddling while Ontario burns

2011-09-28T10:14:00.001-04:00

To the credit of the three leaders of Ontario’s largest political parties, there was a great deal of talk about policy in last night’s leaders debate. That is always nice to see both from the perspective of a policy wonk and a voter. I found, however, that most of the policies that were being hotly debated were pretty irrelevant.

Ontario is in economic and financial trouble. This is the issue that should be dominating the election but by tacit agreement none of the major parties are really talking about it. There are two questions that were asked that should have brought this issue to the forefront but all three leaders allowed each other off the hook and gave incredibly weak answers.

The first question was how the budget is going to be balanced.

Dalton McGuinty responded by talking about how much spending he introduced and plans to introduce.

Tim Hudak responded by talking about how he will make sure that ¾ of the budget is defended from cuts (health and education).

Andrea Horwath responded by saying something about blank cheques to corporations which I think was referring to corporate tax cuts, but that doesn’t make any sense on a couple of levels.

The second question is closely related to the first question, although perhaps not many people realize it. The last question of the night asked if the party leaders would be open to more private participation in the health care system. With health care spending growing faster than government revenue and taking up about half of the budget this is an important question for deciding how to get Ontario out of deficits.

Dalton McGuinty responded by saying he will beg for more money from the federal government (forgetting it seams that there is only one taxpayer).

Tim Hudak responded with an anecdote about how it sucks to have a child that is sick (I have absolutely no doubt that it sucks a lot).

Andrea Horwath responded with a rant against the capitalist system (which to be fair is at least on message).

There was another question that asked why politicians aren’t bolder. Each tried to respond by saying that they are bold, but the answers described above makes a lie of these claims. Yet the solutions to Ontario’s problems will require boldness and none of the leaders last night showed that they have an ounce of it.