The Shotgun
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
America's only hope: Octavia
U.S. Government Stages Fake Coup To Wipe Out National Debt
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 24, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Saskatchewan’s anti-scalping legislation an attack on free markets
In Defending the Undefendable, libertarian author Dr. Walter Block includes a chapter in his book dedicated to defending ticket scalpers. You can listen to a reading of this chapter below:
A defence of ticket scalpers is needed now in Saskatchewan, as Justice Minister and Attorney General Don Morgan has introduced needless and intrusive legislation today to shut down the secondary market in event tickets, a practice known as scalping. The Ticket Sales Act will:
...prohibit the primary seller from having links on their website to reseller websites, prohibit secondary ticket sellers from selling tickets to an event that are primarily being sold by a company legally associated with them and prohibit advertising the sale of tickets by a reseller until 48 hours after the tickets go on sale to the public. The Act also makes it illegal to use computer software to automatically buy tickets. The accompanying regulations will contain reporting requirements to allow the Minister of Justice to get information from venues about the numbers of tickets that were available for public sale.
Calls to expand the power and scope of government, and to limit commercial freedom, should always be treated with scepticism, but this legislation is particularly offensive given the important role ticket resellers play in the market.
In an article published in The Freeman, William Peterson provides a defence of ticket reselling using the case of the Broadway hit The Producers. (Scalping is illegal in New York.) Peterson answers the question “What’s wrong with scalping?” below:
Nothing really. It’s simply an aspect of our market, or voluntary-exchange system. A hit’s a hit, and The Producers is a super hit. Supply and demand are at work, with here a daily fixed supply of tickets at set prices. It’s that fixed supply and those set prices that change things. Prices ration goods and services, as almost everybody knows. When demand is off, producers can cut prices, as attested by that same-day discount ticket pavilion in the middle of Times Square. But when demand is red-hot, as with The Producers, in come, at least until recently, the scalpers to collect what the market -- that is, the buyers -- will bear. They perform a service by saving time for those anxious to see the show without standing in long lines to do so. For isn’t the scalper but a middleman performing a valued service, despite his putdown name and often illegal but not necessarily evil status? Scalpers convert time cost into money cost for those who buy tickets from them. Outlawing scalping favors those with time to spare over those with money to spare. Why should the government take sides?
Once this legislation passes, scalpers who continue to bravely serve those consumers with “money to spare” could face fines as high as $500,000 and up to a year in jail.
Learn more about scalping and Dr. Walter Block by purchasing one of his books below.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 24, 2009 at 03:09 PM
Permalink
| Comments (13)
Minister: Let the WIND blow.
Tony Clement is being encouraged by the incumbent wireless industry players, and even one future entrant, to forgo overturning the CRTC ruling on Globalive, who was to launch their national wireless service under the WIND Mobile brand this month.
Telus, Bell, and Rogers have all made the same argument in varying degrees; seeing the inevitable long-term trend towards further liberalization of regulation in Canadian telecommunications, they have opted for the obstruct and delay tactics.
Essentially, these companies are arguing that since it's currently illegal for them to seek foreign financing, it is unfair to allow Globalive to enter the market as a company which is principally financed by foreign dollars--in this case, Egyptian-based Orascom Telcom Holdings, which helped front the CA$430 million which Toronto-based Globalive in turn, used to purchase wireless spectrum licenses last year.
Given the finite amount of radio frequencies available, national governments usually regulate their use, granting exclusive rights to certain radio frequencies for commercial and non-commercial purposes. For instance, there are licenses which are issued for the exclusive use of emergency services as well, so as to prevent a free-for-all on radio frequencies. It is illegal to transmit on these frequencies without a license.
In what is a strange state of affairs in our regulatory system, there are two licenses from two completely different government agencies that a wireless phone carrier must obtain in order to operate.
Ultimately, Industry Canada has the authority to issue wireless licenses, and the Canadian Radio and Telecommunication Commission has the authority to license their use.
Effectively, you can own a license for a set of radio frequencies, barring anyone else from their use, but not have a license to use it yourself. Makes a lot of sense, I know. But such is life in the world of big government.
This is effectively the limbo where Globalive finds itself. It possesses a national spectrum license, but it's not legally authorized to employ it's use by offering cellular phone service to prospective customers.
The reason for this, is that the CRTC found, quite legitimately mind you, that Globalive is de facto: a foreign-owned and controlled company. Even though the management structure is such that it's Canadian directors hold sway over the day to day operations: in the event of any financial trouble, it's creditors--who are almost entirely foreign--would by any stretch of the imagination have ultimate control over the company. Given this, the CRTC decided that it violated the legal requirement: that any company providing telecommunication services to consumers must be eighty-percent owned by Canadians.
Such is the case that Telus, Rogers and Bell are almost exclusively Canadian-owned. Bell, in particular, having failed to find a buyer for the company last year after the takeover deal by the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan fell through, is probably the first company which would want to cry foul. They were, of course, barred from seeking international financing or sale to an international company in order to best serve their shareholders.
While these arguments against allowing Globalive to compete would appear to speak to an issue of fairness, I think the truth of the matter goes beyond their oversimplified definition of fairness.
One issue of fairness which is not communicated by "Robelus"--a pejorative word comprising the names Rogers, Bell and Telus often used by consumer advocates to refer to their collective monopoly--or oligopoly--is the fact that they have been able to collectively enjoy windfall profits at prices which are, to say the least, high by international standards.
In terms of the state of competition in Canada's wireless market, Canada is the only OECD country which has seen a drop in wireless penetration in the past five years.
Despite Canada's economic boom through the first part of this past decade, less Canadians--as a proportion of the population--owned cellphones in 2007 than did in 2002. In the same period, profit margins for Telus and Rogers, in particular, skyrocketed. High prices and the three-year commitments that most cellular phone plans push (most plans in Europe and Asia bolster an 18-month commitment) resulted in a smaller base of cellphone users paying higher rates--which as it turns out, more than made up for the lost customers who could not afford or were not willing to pay those rates.
It's hard to blame Robelus (sorry, I just think the word is funny) for trying to maximize their profits. But it's equally hard to feel sorry for them having to face down potential foreign-competition.
They've had their shot at being the robber barons, protected from competition by archaic and illiberal ownership rules, and now is as good a time as any to bring and end to this unjustifiable status quo.
While, on the face of it, it may not be "fair", if only in an isolated sense, that Globalive was able to use foreign financing, it is less "fair" that consumers are restricted from having more market choices, and as it turns out, I do believe that Robelus should be able to access foreign investment in the same way that Globalive has; we should waste no time in drafting the appropriate legislation. But as far as the status quo goes, now is as good a time as any for a change. As such, Minister Clement should overturn the CRTC ruling, granting Globalive the ability to operate, and simultaneously announce his intention to repeal the foreign-ownership laws.
Robelus is neither deserving or entitled to "fairness" in the way they are asking for it, given the market advantage they have as incumbent players, large customer bases, and years of charging customers prices which would not be justifiable in an open market. It's time that the consumers saw some "fairness".
Minister Clement: tear down this [wireless] wall.
Posted by Mike Brock on November 24, 2009 at 02:34 PM
Permalink
| Comments (3)
Tommy Chong sports Free Marc Emery t-shirt everywhere
Canadian Tommy Chong, of Cheech and Chong fame, has started to don a Free Marc Emery t-shirt (which you can purchase here) for his television appearances.
Marc Emery, dubbed the "Prince of Pot" by the Seattle Times and popularized by CNN, is out on bail, awaiting his penultimate extradition to the United States to face a five-year prison term for selling marijuana seeds over the internet.
Many Canadians and Americans are outraged by the efforts of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency to extradite Emery. Similarly, many are surprised and dismayed at the failure of the Canadian political establishment to speak out in defense of a fellow Canadian.
Here's Chong on Bill O'Reilly:
And here he is on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
Climategate: The emails that are shaking the world of climate science
I haven't had a chance to read through the emails that hackers have managed to get and post on the internet from the University of East Anglia, but the few snippets that I've read appear to be damning.
The Washington Times explains:
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
The few excerpts that I've read have come mainly from James Delingpole at the Telegraph. Here are some of those excerpts (Delingpole provides the headings):
Continue reading "Climategate: The emails that are shaking the world of climate science"
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Permalink
| Comments (14)
North of the Border: Mexican Food At Its Worst
While Calgary isn't well-known for its variety and caliber of Mexican restaurants, it used to have a stable of decent Mexican or Tex-Mex joints to hit when you had that craving for a margarita and a burrito or a plate of sizzling fajitas. However, it seems that the Mexican restaurants that were in that category have lost their thunder and those that have sprung up are nothing to write home about.
In terms of the former, take the Santa Fe Grill on MacLeod Trail. This longtime Tex-Mex stalwart was always in my Top Ten List and seemed to be a no-brainer for a lazy weekend lunch laden with ice-cold Pacifico beer, a screeching hot plate of fresh fajitas preceded by fresh chips and salsa or one of the dips or accompaniments (read chili con carne) that were offered with them. I returned recently however to learn that this place has experienced a rather shocking fall from grace, which screamed out a change in ownership, whether or not that is, in fact, the case. The service was marginal, the decor was run-down and the food was cold and seemed, to my palate anyway, to be far from fresh. Pre-cooked and re-heated food seemed to be what was before me, whereas before freshness abounded. While I have not returned for a second look and perhaps should, the Santa Fe Grill is not a destination for Knox any longer.
In terms of the latter, you have Julio's Barrio. While not exactly "new", I have never set foot in the place, largely due to its awkward location at the corner of 10th Street SW and Memorial Drive and its related awkward parking situation, so it is "new" to me. Well, it was the parking situation coupled with the fact that despite screams of adoration from Edmontonians, I never enjoyed the fare served at Julio's Whyte Avenue location in Edmonton. Anyway, I decided to give it a whirl last weekend with several of my dining cronies, as we felt like a Mexican feed. Wow. The only word that comes to mind is -- "grim". While the server was great and brought forward a basket of chips and salsa in a most-timely fashion, the chips were not house-made and seemed to be right out of a bag that had been opened several days earlier. The salsa was "ok". Not a good start. Then we tried the Ranchero Dip, which was promised to be a layered dip comprised of refried beans, sour cream, guacamole, salsa and a variety of cheeses. It too was "ok", but really after a half-inch of all of the other ingredients, was just a giant bowl of refried beans. A more boring offering defies the imagination. For my main course, I had, you guessed it--fajitas. They were ice-cold, with plenty of raw (given the temperature of the skillet) vegetables piled on top. Despite the server's admirable efforts, the tortillas were also significantly delayed by some kind of kitchen confusion made obvious by the scrambling and discussion among the kitchen staff. My guests had a variety of burritos and traditional Mexican fare that was also cold and bland. A disappointment to be sure.
There are some brighter spots in Calgary however --the Boca Loca market serves good, authentic Mexican food, albeit in a less than charming surroundings, Salt + Pepper can be decent on occasion and Avocado Fresh Mexican Grill shows promise although it has the feel of an American Tex-Mex chain (despite the fact that its only other location appears to be in Saskatoon) like Chili's or Chevy's (if you ever find yourself in Arizona). El Sombrero on the "Red Mile" portion of 17th Avenue has also always been squarely average, although in fairness I have only ever ordered their food via delivery, which might be an unfair measuring stick.
While hardly surprising I suspect, if it is great Mexican food you seek, head South of the border--and I don't mean Taco Bell.
Posted by Knox Harrington on November 24, 2009 at 08:30 AM
Permalink
| Comments (1)
Revolt of the Ontarians
In boring and sensible Ontario, the masses are getting angry:
Premier Dalton McGuinty has certainly come up with a novel way of selling his 13% Harmonized Sales Tax to Ontarians, coming everywhere July 1.
His messaging appears to be: "You're too stupid to know this tax is good for you, so I'm going to impose it on you for your own good."
It's an arrogance typical of second-term majority governments, similar to the mistakes McGuinty's predecessors, former Conservative premier Mike Harris, followed by Ernie Eves, made during their second terms in power before they were defeated by McGuinty.
While the Conservatives came into office in 1995 claiming to be common sense revolutionaries who would "fix" the problems created by the previous NDP government, by 2003 they were the problem -- adrift in scandals and political patronage and disconnected from the public they claimed to represent.
I'm not sure it's arrogance exactly. There is a kind of resignation in the whole HST business. The Dalt seems to have reached the conclusion that he is not going to win the next election, so might as well go out with a bang. His victory in 2007 had very little to do with his own virtues. By all rights John Tory should have utterly thumped the Liberal leader. As with Dion and Harper, one looked like a leader, and the other clearly was not.
There was not much policy difference between Dion and Harper, or Tory and McGuinty, except on that one issue that sealed the election: religious schools. Images of public funds going to Mississauga Madrasahs, and Christian Academies for evangelical rednecks, were enough to destroy the idea in the public's imagination. Catholic Schools were introduced in Ontario over bitter opposition a century and a half ago. They are tolerated today as a historic exception, allowed on political grounds, and on the condition that the Catholicism taught stays within the confines of PC fluffiness.
It's unlikely that Tim Hudak will display the remarkable tin ear of his predecessor. The game plan is simple. Being as righteous as possible on the HST, but also as vague as possible. There is nothing Hudak, or anyone outside of cabinet, can do about the HST. It's coming and when it's here it's gonna stay. Too complicated and expensive to replace, a Hudak government will offer some cosmetic mitigation, declare mission accomplished and move on. He can't do anything else. But he can make political hay on this disguised tax grab. Hudak needs to show himself as the clean, sensible and reasonable alternative to the Dalt. If he can successfully signal competence to the middle class 905 voter, the Dalt is toast. It's two years before the next provincial election, which gives the premier about six to nine months to decide whether he will run again. A decision to spend more time with his family will not augur well for the Grits.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 24, 2009 at 07:17 AM
Permalink
| Comments (4)
Monday, November 23, 2009
The line between what we want and what is
I've come to realize something about human nature which seems to be an almost immutable trait; we tend to believe that everything will work out in the end, and only when we're faced with disaster, will we wake up to reality.
We believe absurd things in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
We accept the claims of the peddlers of "alternative medicine", despite the lack of scientific evidence for their efficacy, and tend to believe that the evidence exists, suppressed only by rich interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
We buy into the absurd claim that evolution is only a "theory"--misrepresenting what a theory in science actually means--in favour of a fairy tale involving a big bearded man in the sky that spoke some magic words and made the universe magically appear.
However, it is not these examples of anti-intellectualism that I wish to explore here. It is the anti-intellectualism that runs rampant around economics.
Continue reading "The line between what we want and what is"
Posted by Mike Brock on November 23, 2009 at 07:11 PM
Permalink
| Comments (2)
"Judge tosses stunt-driving charge as unconstitutional"
Interesting. Very interesting.
Justice Peter West, a provincial court judge in Newmarket, found that a potential penalty of up to six months in jail violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not permit an accused any defence.
[…]
An absolute liability offence means someone may not argue they took precautions and did not realize how fast they were driving. More than 20 years ago the Supreme Court of Canada stated that potential jail terms for offences that do not permit a defence breaches the Charter.
In other words, the law comes perilously close to making police officers judge, jury and executioner. Note the corruption of the language. The law was marketed as going after street racers, but it's real intention is targeting high end speeders. An interesting figures is that 10,000 drivers have been charged with "stunt driving." If driving 50 km/h over the limit is so dangerous, why do so many do it? If 10,000 have been caught, how many do so on a regular basis undetected? Where, then, is the mass carnage? How many people actually die, or are injured, each year because of those driving at such speeds?
Saying one is too many is an evasive answer. Road fatalities could be virtually eliminated tomorrow if cars were banned from going faster than 40 km/h. Speed limits are not about some platonic conception of safety, but cost vs. benefits. It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of European countries have highway speed limits in the 120 km/h to 130 km/h range. A friend of mine visited China this summer. Aside from designated areas - where photo radar stations are clearly visible - the police pay little attention to speeding, the average cruising speed being about 130 km/h. Ontario's 400 series highways were designed nearly half a century ago for speeds of about 130 km/h. That was in an age without anti-lock brakes, air bags, seat belts and modern tire technology.
In other words, how much is this law, and speeding laws in general, based on genuine public policy concerns? How much is this law based on making the McGuinty government look tough on something - a hard thing for the Dalt to do - and lining the pockets of municipal governments? The point isn't that reckless speeding isn't dangerous, and that there should no be laws against it - the roads being publicly owned, there is little alternative - but that the laws are drafted with things other than public safety in mind.
While the Ontario government hunts down speeders, owners of pit bulls and other such threats to the general peace, Caledonia remains occupied. Far easier to target ordinary Ontarians going about their way, rather than those who might fight back. Governments, like water, follow the path of least resistance.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 23, 2009 at 03:41 PM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
None So Blind
From the NYT:
Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between the military psychiatrist accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings.
But the federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages from the psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, did not suggest any threat of violence and concluding that no further action was warranted, government officials said Monday.
Major Hasan’s 10 to 20 messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshiped, indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but that the authorities left him in his post.
To those who doubt the power of ideas, here is a classic example of how belief over powers evidence. The most obvious reason given for the authorities evasion of Hasan's beliefs is reverse racism. Army brass were too afraid of being called bigots if they transferred or discharged Hasan. If you were Hasan's CO, would you risk the media circus that would been provoked by following the correct and obvious course of action? Driving a man, a highly trained doctor no less, from the service because he expressed some controversial beliefs? Beliefs that can be heard from the mouths of countless university professors in modern America?
The left-leaning lynch mob would have followed the officers responsible to the end of their days. The international media would make hay for years to come, hailing Hasan as a martyr for his beliefs. A comfortable living on the lecture circuit for Hasan would have been a strong possibility. Doing the right thing, perhaps a year back, would not in all likelihood have saved those who died at Fort Hood. A few brave officers trying to force an obvious traitor out of their ranks, and in an extremely sensitive position no less, would probably have failed to do so. The most likely result would have been their own disgrace and embarrassment, while making Hasan even more invulnerable to discharge or even criticism. Islam is the new third rail of American politics. Touch it, and you die. Not a literal death, but a political one. Above the rank of Brigadier, an officer becomes a part-time politician. No politician is going to take a chance of being accused of racism, however frivolously the charge, however grave the circumstances that compelled the necessary action.
The false choice that underpins the actions of the anti-racism inquisitors, ranging from the Canadian Human Rights Commissioners to the Diversity Co-ordinators that infect North American campuses, is that either you hunt down every slightly disagreeable thought on race, ethnic or religious, or the Klan will emerged from darkened embers of the past. To borrow a phrase from the previous American President, either you are with us, or you are with the racists.
Between the sunshine and the darkness, there is no middle ground. It has been one of my running observations, over the last few years, that when Christianity was marginalized as an intellectual force in the twentieth century, many of its less pleasant tendencies resurfaced in secular garb. Only a tiny minority of North American Christians would countenance a return to enforcing blasphemy laws, yet in effect the secularized establishment thinks nothing of establishing anti-racism commissions - whatever their official labels - to root out people who fail obeisance to the modern gods. Their success is so profound and widespread, that an obvious traitor to his country, and to the free world at large, was allowed not simply free rein at one of America's great military bases, but honour. The great honour of being an officer of the Army of United States of America. An armed force that has liberated millions from exactly the sort of tyranny that Major Hasan would have wanted to flourish.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 23, 2009 at 06:53 AM
Permalink
| Comments (11)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Not For Sale
The Island for the Islanders.
An American who broke P.E.I.'s non-resident land ownership rules has been fined close to $29,000, with a further fine expected.
This is only the second time the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission — which administers a number of laws for the province, including the Lands Protection Act — has held hearings on an individual's property ownership.
The case dates back to 2003, when Melvin Griffin of Florida was visiting the Island and a 76-hectare piece of land in Pleasant Grove, north of Charlottetown, caught his eye. It had almost two kilometres of shore frontage along the Winter River.
P.E.I. has strict laws regarding non-resident land ownership under the Lands Protection Act. Anything more than two hectares needs to be approved by cabinet, and in this case cabinet said no.
A wee eccentric, as property laws go, isn't it? There is a historical angle to all this:
But when she arrived on the Island in 1867 to inspect her estate (Lots 9, 16, 22 and 61) the P.E.I. legislature was making moves to end absentee landlordism for good.
In order to protect her interests, she started working with the Prince Edward Island Association, a London-based lobby group that promoted landed interests.
But after P.E.I. became a Canadian province in 1873, the government enacted a Land Purchase Act in 1875 that forced landlords to sell their estates to the provincial commissioner of public lands.
In her quest to hold onto the land that her father had given her, Sulivan took her case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
That's the history. Naturally it has pleasant side effects for the locals. By limiting the pool of potential purchasers, it keeps housing affordable for the locals. It also holds back the province's economic development. Less capital flowing into the island. That may not make much economic sense, but perhaps they're not interested in making money. Maybe they like PEI the way they remember it growing up. Few strangers from "away." Not much traffic. Picturesque cottages and only modest resort developments. PEI today looks more like Anne of Green Gables than a modern tourist destination. Using government to preserve the past.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 20, 2009 at 07:14 AM
Permalink
| Comments (10)
Shut up Lisa MacLeod (VI): Six things you should know about Lisa MacLeod shutting up
It was demanded upon me to make this next installment of my popular series: Shut up Lisa MacLeod.
Today's episode involves an opinion piece that she co-wrote for the National Post, regarding the HST. In it she isn't as mind numbingly foolish as she has been previously, so maybe she should get someone to co-write everything she says. But luckily for my readers there is still plenty of silliness to mock.
She makes six points in opposition to the Harmonized Sales Tax:
1. Ontario is surrendering its constitutional taxation powers.
Canada is one of the few countries in the world that allows regional governments unlimited taxation powers. Believe me, many in the Scottish Government looks towards Canada with envy. So this indeed is an important power to protect. Luckily it isn't actually in danger. The Parliament of Ontario is still free to levy all the taxes that they want thank you very much.
I admit that most of the knots and bolts issues regarding the sales tax will be handled by the Federal government. MacLeod claims that this means taxation without representation. As if Ontario wasn't represented in the Federal Parliament. Wait...what province is the Finance Minister from again...I forget...
2. There will be a hidden tax
The GST is currently at 5% and the PST is currently at 8%. What exactly is being hidden here? Is it that she's afraid Ontarians can't do basic math?
3. There is no evidence that harmonized taxes work in other federal jurisdictions
Her argument here is basically that just because it has been done in other countries doesn't mean that it will work well here. This is not an entirely unfounded complaint. One of the things I'm learning about in Grad school is pitfalls of cross country policy analyses. It is not so simple to say that something was done there so we can do the exact same thing here. The institutions and organizations are different in every country.
That being said it is possible to learn from the mistakes and successes of other country's policy. We can take those lessons, adjust them to particularly Canadian needs, and apply them. How do I know that this can be done? Well because it is done all the time. You wouldin fact be hard pressed to find policy proposals in Canada that wasn't in some way partially based on policies in an other jurisdiction. So why won't HST work in Canada again?
4. It will cost businesses money and resources to learn the new system
This is true. It is also true of any policy change made ever. There is always a capital investment made into learning how a law, policy, or institution works. That is part of the reason why it is so hard to change things, people don't want to give up that investment. This is basically an argument against the government doing anything...hang on...hmmm...
But anyway I doubt the cost will be as much as say MPPs moving to half day or MPPs recieving free childcare.
5. Companies that are exempt won't be exempt anymore
Well good. It is bizarre to me that the government picks and chooses who pays more taxes and who pays less. The government shouldn't be giving unnatural advantages to companies or industries. If her argument here is that taxingbusinesses ultimately hurts consumers, then yes I agree. So we should get rid of all corporate taxes right?
6. It would be hard or impossible to undue the HST
This is a good thing if you think the HST is a good thing. It isn't really an argument for not doing it. I guess if you were unsure about the HST you would rather that it be easily reversed once it has been tested. But still, this isn't anactual argument against the HST.
Nice try though...
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 20, 2009 at 05:17 AM
Permalink
| Comments (10)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Profiteers
At Manchester Avenue and Figueroa Street, accidents more than tripled from five before the cameras were installed to 16 afterwards. Westwood Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard tripled from three to nine. At Rodeo Road and La Brea Avenue, collisions nearly tripled from seven in the six months before the cameras were installed to 20 in the same period afterwards.
The reason?
"People see the light flash and they slam on their brakes," Ellison said. "That's just human nature. As a result, more accidents, more rear end accidents."
That's what happened to Dale Stephens, who knew the yellow light up ahead had a camera.
"Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it's so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no inclination to stop," Stephens said.
"They" are the two cars that hit him from behind.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 19, 2009 at 06:46 AM
Permalink
| Comments (6)
I Think We've Seen This One Before
Like a bad penny, this guy:
The current PQ leader, Pauline Marois, was asked the other day if she's worried about what Parizeau will have to say in his book, La souveraineté du Québec: Hier, aujourd'hui et demain, which hits stores a week before a PQ national council meeting in Montreal to be attended by péquistes from across Quebec.
"I do not fear Mr. Parizeau's book," Marois told reporters. "It's about sovereignty. We need people to continue to reflect and feed us ideas on sovereignty. I work closely with Mr. Parizeau. We speak regularly and I have a very positive relationship with one of the particularly great leaders of our political party."
Traitors betraying each other. Bleak comfort, yet comfort.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 19, 2009 at 06:44 AM
Permalink
| Comments (22)
Natives and Property Rights
It has long been a problem of the Native nations that their members could not own land on the reserves. All land was communally owned thus no individual could leverage their home for a loan. This prevented Natives from being able to start businesses or otherwise invest in their community.
Now in BC, at least one tribe is trying something different. The Treaty nation of Nisga'a has decided to allow its members to sell and mortgage their homes.
Hats off to the Nisga'a. It would be interesting to see how much this will improve their community.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 19, 2009 at 02:54 AM
Permalink
| Comments (9)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Keeping Their Stick on The Ice
Quebec. Tories. Hockey arenas. The three most expensive words in the Canadian lexicon.
Consider the linkage between two recent news items flowing out of the Quebec City mayoralty race. During that campaign, the eventual winner Regis Labeaume talked openly about constructing a new NHLsized hockey rink and working to bring a team back to Quebec City.
It then emerged that the provincial government was going to undertake a feasibility study to determine whether the city should launch a bid for the Olympic Games. A new arena would be part of such a plan.
When the federal government undoubtedly jumps on this bandwagon, voters in the Quebec City region will get stars in their eyes about all of the world attention, and fancy new things that will be built in and around the city.
The Olympics are a notorious boondoggle. Sports arenas are notorious boondoggles. The Tories are desperate for a breakthrough in Quebec - which thanks to a by-election victory last week - now looks plausible. Reach for your wallets people.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 18, 2009 at 07:50 AM
Permalink
| Comments (4)
How Selfish
This G&M article carries the provocative title: "Refusing to get vaccinated is selfish." Now, I know what you're thinking. Old Publius is about to get on his high horse and start quoting Rand for several pages. I'll keep it to one of Rand's key observations today, that individuals legitimate interests do not conflict. The author walks right past this insight, and keeps walking:
The public nature of Canadian health care creates both individual rights and individual responsibilities. But people can assert rights to a public resource without recognizing a responsibility toward its limited nature. This problem was brilliantly described in 1968 by ecologist Garrett Hardin in the journal Science as “the tragedy of the commons.” In this hypothetical case, individual actors operate on self-interest and ultimately destroy a shared limited resource – even when such destruction is clearly not to anyone's long-term benefit. Canadians are familiar with this tragedy because it describes the collapse of the Atlantic cod fishery.
Mass H1N1 vaccination refusal similarly might destroy (at least temporarily) our health-care system, with the threatened 100,000 people in hospital. We have a limited number of hospital beds and respirators and a finite number of people who know how best to use them. Every vaccinated person increases the likelihood that health-care professionals will be free to treat other people. What's more, inoculation reduces transmission. If unvaccinated people make health-care workers sick, they cannot look after other patients.
Health resources are finite because they are "publicly," i.e. state, controlled. The tragedy of the commons is that it is public. Everyone owns the commons and so no one does. The commons ceases to be a tragedy once it is divided up among private owners, each with a benefit in protecting their property, and a corollary responsibility toward it.
Assuming for a moment that the vaccine is both safe and effective, refusing to get it would be profoundly unselfish. Even the most determined altruist has to concede that taking steps to keep healthy is selfish. A corpse cannot have any self interests, and a diseased body is a poor vehicle with which to pursue one's goals. Unless the author means selfish in the sense of simply being reckless toward others, then his argument is blatantly illogical. I suspect he does mean "selfishness" in that sense, in being callous or reckless toward other people. Being "selfish" is a sort of ethical mark of cain to many people in modern Canada. In effect, the author is trying to guilt people into doing the "right thing."
This does not mean that the author has not raised a valid public health issue. People refusing to get vaccinated, assuming again that it is safe and effective, is a major public health issue that could overwhelm our tottering health care system. Misinformation is always a constant uphill battle in educating people about their health. The statist would shrug and say that ordinary people often don't know what's good for them, so massive forced inoculations might be necessary. No one has suggested this yet, but if the death count enters into the high thousands, which it might, expect the idea to be floated. Yet the origin of the problem, as the author correctly states, is the tragedy of the commons.
Being a public system Medicare encourages moral hazard. A person pays into the system based on their income, not their health. There is then little incentive to make wise and healthy choices. Not wanting to get sick would seem incentive enough. Not everyone, however, has the same assessment of risk. Knowing that there is little financial consequence to their action, that for most already healthy people they will simply miss a few days of work, many will skip taking the vaccine. If, however, they would have to bear the full financial cost of their recklessness, many would reconsider their decision.
A health care system in which the majority of the population was covered by private insurance, the second scenario could take hold. Refusing to take the vaccine? Fine. But the insurance company has the right to refuse your claim, on the same grounds that life insurance is not paid out in cases of suicide. German auto insurance contains a provision that an accident claim can be refused, if the driver was travelling faster that 130 km / hr, oddly enough the average speed on the Autobahn. Insurance companies are in the business of assessing risk, something they are better at than governments and private individuals. It's their job after all and they have a vested interest in being good at it.
Politicians and bureaucrats, beyond whatever consciences they might have, are interested only in not being blamed and losing votes. Private individuals can make their own assessment. If they are right they save the bother of getting the shot, if they are wrong they bear the full consequence of their action, rather than having those costs socialized under the current system. A free market would encourage people to be selfish, i.e. to take responsibility for their actions rather than expect everyone else to take up the slack. Something crude guilt trips will never accomplish.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 18, 2009 at 07:37 AM
Permalink
| Comments (17)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
New Marc Emery documentary: "The P.O.P."
Paul McKeever, lawyer and leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario, has put together a documentary about the political activities of Marc Emery. The documentary will be released very soon, around the same time as the book, "Seeds of Liberty: The Marc Emery story."
Here is the trailer for the forthcoming movie (I admit, I'm really excited about this):
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 17, 2009 at 06:12 PM
Permalink
| Comments (14)
Canadian Constitution Foundation to defend freedom to sell raw milk
Here's the press release form one of our favourite pro-liberty organizations, the Canadian Constitution Foundation:
At a press conference at Queen’s Park today, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) announced its support for a court case involving consumer choice, freedom of contract, and the right to earn an honest living free from government regulation that is arbitrary, unreasonable, unnecessary and unfair.
The case concerns Ontario dairy farmer Michael Schmidt, who has been providing unpasteurized milk to consumers for approximately 20 years without a single incident of illness attributable to milk borne germs.
Continue reading "Canadian Constitution Foundation to defend freedom to sell raw milk"
Posted by Western Standard on November 17, 2009 at 05:48 PM
Permalink
| Comments (24)
The Price is Right
They may not love Canada, but they love Canadian money:
In the former sovereignist stronghold of Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, fatigue with opposition politics decisively trumped the Bloc Québécois's anti-Conservative message.
The lure of millions of stimulus dollars and the sight of Quebec's 10 Conservative ridings awash in federal cash made a difference. On that score, the Liberal strategy of drawing attention to the Conservative spending pattern seems to have backfired, at least in Quebec.
And pretty much everywhere else. Pointing out the obvious - that governments spend more money in ridings held by their own MPs - is a short-sighted strategy by the Grits. Sure oppositions love being righteous when the patronage flows elsewhere, but it's not really a killer blow. Adscam was seen as outrageous because well connected individuals got government largesse. When governments bring home the bacon to whole ridings, they're seen as doing their job. It's not something people like to admit publicly. One of the reasons they vote for parties they see as winners is greed. They want better roads, a new arena and a new hospital. Perhaps a nice fountain too. It's part of the political process. As Chantal Hebert points out, highlighting the Conservatives activities in Quebec works against the Grits. It reinforces the fact that the Tories are dispensers of largesse, and that the Liberals and Bloc are just ranting from the sidelines.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 17, 2009 at 08:09 AM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Monday, November 16, 2009
Ron Paul on socialized medicine
In Ron Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk weekly column, he writes:
Last Saturday many concerned Americans watched in horror as the House passed the healthcare reform bill. If this bill makes it through the Senate, it would massively overhaul the way healthcare is delivered in this country. Today, obviously, we don’t have a perfect system, but this legislation takes all the mistakes we are making with healthcare and makes them worse. Most of what is wrong with healthcare stems from decades of government intervention and the resulting unintended consequences. But the government’s prescription for the ills caused by intervention is always more intervention.
You can read Paul's entire column here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on November 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Permalink
| Comments (16)
The Old Canada Makes A Small Comeback
I don't believe government should be in the business of dictating culture. It's how the Trudeaupian state was created. Official "biculturalism" evolved into "multiculturalism." The nation of Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach became a nation peace keepers. It's been said that the British acquired the Empire in a "fit of absence of mind." So Canada threw away its heritage and freedom in a modernizing temper tantrum in the Seventies. Using one of the tools of the Trudeaupian state, the citizenship guide, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney, has struck a blow for the old pre-Seventies Canada.
The Defending Canada section invites newcomers to serve in the coast guard, police force, or fire department. "By helping to protect your community, you follow in the footsteps of Canadians before you who made sacrifices in the service of our country," the guide says.
The revamped handbook, which moved the Oath of Citizenship from the back of the book to the second page, goes deeper into Canada's military history, including information on the First and Second World Wars, the Korean War, peacekeeping missions in Egypt, Haiti and Cyprus, and international security operations in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, the senior official said.
The guide looks back to the role of aboriginals, the Vikings and early explorers and the "struggle to build our country," the senior official said. The document also discusses the rebellions of 1837-38 and the fight for responsible government, and offers an expanded section on Confederation.
The guide hasn't been released yet, so I'll abstain from full judgement till I get a look at. Yet it looks promising.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 16, 2009 at 07:58 AM
Permalink
| Comments (27)
Guns Discriminate Against Women
I remember that day, some years back, when Darcey came over to Toronto. We were all at some dive, whose name I've mercifully forgotten, and Antonia Zerbisias showed up. She was a good sport and all. Completely out to lunch though.
Poll after poll has shown that women, including rural women, overwhelmingly supported the long-gun registry.
Since it was introduced in the mid-'90s, the number of women killed by their rifle-wielding partners has dropped. But, even with the registry, one out of three femicide victims is still killed by a rifle, with country women the most vulnerable, according to Statistics Canada.
Who knows how many women are intimidated by the shotguns and rifles – 91 per cent of the (registered) non-restricted firearms in Canada – sitting in the gun rack?
Which is why, if a person is arrested for abusing his or her partner, police can search the domicile, seize weapons and ban the suspect from owning guns, at least until acquittal – although this is not always enforced, to sometimes tragic consequences.
Still, Parliament, dominated by men although the majority of Canada's citizens are female, shot down women in order to satisfy the gun lobby.
Oh, Zerb. You need to get out of Toronto. See the country. Meet some farmers. Them rednecks you read so much about. Perhaps also study some biology. An abusive husband doesn't need a rifle to terrorize his spouse, his fists work perfectly fine. Firearms are the great equalizer. An armed hundred pound woman is the equal of any brute twice her size. If you really want to help women who feel vulnerable, teach them how to defend themselves, and allow them tools to do so.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 16, 2009 at 07:52 AM
Permalink
| Comments (11)
Sunday, November 15, 2009
PETA vs. Jan Narveson: Do animals count?
The success of PETA is a fascinating study in how an uncompromising approach to advocacy, combined with brilliant marketing, can push a radical idea -- animal rights -- into mainstream debate.
Disagree with them or not -- and I almost always disagree with them -- PETA's use of celebrities and provocative, timely messages keeps them, and their cause, in the media and on the public consciousness.
The images in this post are two examples of the organization's latest campaigns aimed at changing public opinion about the use of animals for food, fur and research.
There are a lot of arguments, however, against extending rights to animals, but the one that seems to present animal rights advocates with the most trouble has been advanced by Jan Narveson, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Waterloo. Narveson has written several scholarly articles on the issue of animal rights and has established himself as a prominent proponent of the contractarian argument against extending legal rights to animals. Narveson works within the Hobbesian tradition and argues that since animals can not enter into moral contracts they should not fall within the purview of the laws that come from these moral contracts. In short, animals don't count in any legal sense.
Here's Narveson in his own words:
What morality is is a uniform set of rules to be imposed by everybody on everybody. These amount to something like a social contract in the sense that we’ve got all these people that we’re relating to. Animals, on the other hand, are not part of this, because they can’t communicate with us. They’re not moral agents in the sense in which we are. And the question is, what is there about animals which makes us, who are moral agents, morally compelled to recognize rights on their part? And the trouble is that the answer to this seems to be: virtually nothing.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Learn more about Dr. Jan Narveson by purchasing one of his books below. A portion of your purchase price will go to the Western Standard.
Posted by Western Standard on November 15, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Permalink
| Comments (16)
Statement by Prime Minister Harper on close of Asia summit
Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the following statement Sunday at the close of the 2009 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders Summit:
While Canada’s economy was built through trans-Atlantic trade, our future prosperity will increasingly depend on our ties to the Pacific. The region is home to some of the world’s most dynamic and fastest growing economies.
Our discussions underscored the importance of continued cooperation on Canada’s number one priority - responding to the global economic downturn.
Since last year’s Summit, we have focussed on resisting protectionism, reforming the global financial system and stimulating our economies, which have helped set the stage for recovery.
Leaders also met and agreed on the need to keep focussed on the problem of climate change. Although we do not expect to get a legally binding agreement, progress can still be made at Copenhagen.
I met with several fellow leaders, including Prime Ministers Key of New Zealand, Hatoyama of Japan, Rudd of Australia and Presidents Obama of the United States and Triet of Vietnam.
I also look forward to meeting with Russian President Medvedev later this afternoon. I intend to raise a number of issues we share in common, including global security, the Arctic and, of course, the economy.
Looking forward, we will work closely with South Korea to deliver successful G-20 Summits in 2010 that follow up on commitments made in Pittsburgh, London and Washington.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on November 15, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Permalink
| Comments (1)
Free Marc Emery
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Permalink
| Comments (45)
Is Copyright Violation the Same as Stealing?
Ever since the rise of printing press, the producers of content have sought to have their work protected from those who would choose to copy and profit off their intellectual contributions, or even simply consume it without paying royalty.
In the twentieth century, the advent of the personal audio/video tape recorders and photocopiers brought new battlefronts for copyright holders to contend with.
When computers showed up on the scene, software programmers sought ways of preventing their work being copied from one computer to another.
In the twenty-first century, pretty much everything is on computers--and if it's not yet, it will be soon.
Now that everything is on a computer, "stealing" as defined by some, is as simple as clicking the button on your computer screen that says "copy".
But is this a rational definition of the word "steal"? I mean, I used to think so. But there's a few things that need to be said about the differences between stealing material goods and "stealing" digital goods.
We've all heard the classic open door analogy, in regards to software piracy. That, downloading say, a game off the internet, is no different than walking into someone's unlocked home and taking things off the shelves. Except that it is really different, if you think about it.
In one scenario, we are physically entering the private dwelling of someone. We're intruding on their privacy in the most offensive of ways, and we're taking their physical possessions away from them. We are depriving the other party of their privacy and physical safety, and we're outright depriving them of their property.
In the other scenario, we are downloading digital bits across a wire and saving them onto our computer. It's worth nothing, that by doing this, we haven't violated the privacy of the content creator. Nor are we depriving them of their content. The only thing we are depriving them of is the potential lost royalty.
Maybe if I couldn't obtain it by downloading it for free, I would have considered buying it. I don't know. Probably not.
Also, when I steal something from your home, you're probably going to pay to replace the stolen goods, or you're going to pass that cost on to your insurance company. By stealing from you, I've imposed a real financial burden on you.
The financial burden I place on software developers by stealing from them is less clear. Economists refer to it as "lost opportunity cost": the cost they incur by not having an opportunity to sell it to you. Anti-piracy folks will insist that this is exactly analogous to the stolen goods from your house. But it's not. They're just not being honest about it.
Digital goods are referred to by some economists as having zero marginal cost. Meaning, outside of the initial investment to produce them, the cost of shipping a unit of X digital good is zero. If I pay $10,000 to build X digital good, that is a fixed cost which is not dependent on how many people consume it. If one thousand people download it for $100 each, my average cost per unit is $10 with a profit of $90 per unit. If a million people download it, my average cost per unit is $0.01 (one cent!) and my profit margin is $99.99 on a $100 product.
This is the magic of a zero marginal cost business. Making it somewhat different than you jumping into a car coming off the end of an assembly line and driving off with it, without paying--another fabulously inappropriate analogy copyright holders have used. There's real fixed costs for each and every car that need to be recovered in order to be profitable.
Microsoft estimated years ago that more than 60% of all global installations of it's Windows operating system are illegal. That's right, the majority. I don't know how this trend is holding up, but it's clear, given Microsoft's tens of billions a year in profit, that having a majority of everything it produces "stolen", hasn't stood in the way of it being one of the most profitable companies in history. It hasn't stood in the way of making it's founder, Bill Gates, the world's richest man, either.
Other than the lost opportunity cost--which is not a real cost in any case, but rather a prediction for potential revenue--the direct cost of someone stealing Windows to Microsoft is zero. In fact, that's probably under-stating it in the sense that by stealing Windows, you are increasing Microsoft's install base, and therefore increasing the size of it's market.
Think about it: if you're Microsoft, would you rather have someone steal Windows, or install Linux? If someone steals Windows, you still might be able to make money off them in other ways, such as if they go and buy Microsoft Office--like many do. I know plenty of family members and friends who have illegal copies of Windows, but they still went to Best Buy and purchased Office so their kids could do their homework. And even if they stole Office, many of them still leave the MSN homepage that Microsoft sets as default in place, which brings in millions in ad revenue for Microsoft.
So Microsoft still makes money off you--even if it's fractional amounts--if you steal their software.
The direct cost to you walking into my house, and walking out with my TV is: whatever it costs me to replace the TV. Pretty big difference.
I think we've blown the hell out of this analogy. So when you talk to your children about stealing software, stop using the open door analogy. It really doesn't make any sense.
Which sort of brings us full-circle to the question: is copyright violation stealing?
No. The answer is no. It is what is is, and what it is... is copyright violation. But it's not theft. Theft is different. We established this. Creating a facsimile of something is not the same thing as depriving someone of something.
Posted by Mike Brock on November 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Permalink
| Comments (20)
Barrie Libertarian candidate launches website
Paolo Fabrizio, Libertarian Party of Canada candidate for the riding of Barrie in Ontario, has a new website. You can find it here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on November 15, 2009 at 04:23 AM
Permalink
| Comments (2)
Fort Hood shootings motivated by religious fervour, so now what?
Last week Syed Soharwardy, founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada but better known to Western Standard readers for bringing two human rights complaints against our little magazine, issued a press release demanding that the tragic Fort Hood shootings “must not be linked with Islam or Muslims” and that Major Nadil Hasan, the US soldier who did the shooting, was simply “an American who happens to have an Arabic name.”
National Post columnist Lorne Gunter has a different take on the tragic affair. He wrote:
The most disturbing aspect of last week’s Fort Hood shootings — aside from the horrendous loss of life, of course — has been the triumph of political correctness in the analysis of Maj. Nadil Hasan’s motives. Many “experts” have assiduously avoided the obvious cause: Hasan’s fundamentalist, radicalized Muslim views.
A man runs into a room of unarmed people and starts firing away while shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is Great”). He has had frequent arguments — many of them extremely heated — with several fellow officers in recent years over the alleged stupidity and immorality of the West’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He expressed public agreement with the Koran’s exhortations to kill infidels, justified suicide bombings, attended a radical Virginia mosque, sought permission from superiors to have Muslim-American soldiers exempted from service in Middle Eastern wars and, among other things, attempted to make contact with al-Qaeda recruiters.
Yet many analysts and commentators have ignored this evidence and put forward, instead, shallow war-psyche diagnoses they seem to have copied from M*A*S*H episodes. Most centre around the theory that Hasan snapped under the pressure of his forthcoming deployment to Afghanistan.
To his credit, Soharwardy said it is the “obligation upon all Muslims to condemn this massacre.” But notwithstanding his protests, Maj. Hasan is not just “an American who happens to have an Arabic name” and his murderous rampage is very much “linked with Islam and Muslims.”
Soharwardy is obviously concerned about a possible backlash against peaceful Muslims, but that legitimate concern doesn’t change the facts.
Maj. Hasan was clearly motivated by religious fervour, but what more should we take away from this tragedy? The answer to this question is not obvious to me.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on November 15, 2009 at 03:52 AM
Permalink
| Comments (36)