Human Rights Commission as Criminal
Canadians used to be free to talk about anything including judging other peoples character, even if they were wrong. But forced multiculturalism, diversity and the Human Rights Commission has destroyed rational discourse between people of different backgrounds. Political pretence reigns.
Historically this wasn’t so. Canadians used to voluntarily rely on reasoning in communication.
A culture of reason and freedom going all the way back to ancient Greece, had forged centuries of just relationships. The result was the Dominion’s successful struggle in making an honest, productive living from the wilderness and pioneering. Basic civil standards became recognized and codified by institutions. Canada became a western, civilized country rooted in individual rights and supporting a body of knowledge called the western canon.
The European and Asian theatres, 1914 – 1945 by contrast, offered clear lessons when moderns turned barbaric and uncivil.
After the great wars, generations took for granted the freedoms they fought for. They didn’t dream, after seeing with their own eyes the slaughter and murders by tyrants, that anyone would establish the same kinds of collective powers they fought against. Little did these generation realize that by taking for granted individual rights, individual freedom had no form and would lose expression. In addition, individual rights was actively disdained by Canada’s elites. They rejected the pinnacle of rights: America.
So, despite the fight against collective tyranny, we now live under the haunting spectre of censorship, by being not allowed to speak against collectives.
When the (Maoist) revolution took place. Canadian students followed and revolted here in North America. They placed anarchy, and the mob above the individual. Morality was thus realigned to protect tribes and not the person, thus changing the Human Rights Commission into a destroyer, not a protector of rights.
Crime has risen as a direct result.
Canada’s Human Rights Commission is now criminal in nature.
July 1, 2018
Guiding the Trade War
The president of the United States putting up tariffs to counter the world’s unfair politics constitutes a seismic shift in American politico-economic policy. The measures are more political than economic due Canada’s and the worlds, long standing politically embedded trade.
Whatever the end road, may I suggest, Ontario best prepare by deregulating its own economy for more flexibility and maneuverability to meet the trade challenges ahead.
American and tariffs affecting Ontario will increase the domestic retail prices for Ontario citizens, so it will become necessary to open up our internal markets for greater competition. This can greatly lower costs and prices. Objectively speaking, it has been internal politicizing of our economy that cause tariffs in the first place.
Politicizing of our economy is merely turned outward towards friendly countries.
Trade corruptions lie in a fact.
A broad fact, and least mentioned, is that economies world-wide do not have a clear and distinct separation of politics and economics. Due to, “mixed economies” innumerable corruptions exist that undermine capitalist producers. Many countries, including provinces like Ontario have used political leverage, not economic value to manipulate their sales to the U.S. and North America.
Internally with this trade war underway, Canadian companies will not be without their own devious plotting. Canadian companies will take advantage of Canada’s restricted domestic market and exacerbate problems by jacking up their own prices unnecessarily simply because Canada does not have a separation of economics from politics. Competitive and uncompetitive companies will put themselves behind walls of government favour, generally tax money. This is unacceptable.
If this new Ontario leadership truly cares for citizens, deregulating would be the order of the day to off-set American and Ontario tariffs which are setting the conditions for a massive price rise of everything.
The current tariff trade war will be long and protracted which will, recognized or not, be a cultural struggle for freedom or tyranny to eventually rule the day.
The end result wanted, a free economy, means Ontario and Canada must find a way to separate its own economics from politics. The separation of government from economics must rule if we in North America want freedom and not tyranny.
Will you work towards freedom and away from coming tyranny?
Thank you for your reply,
cc. Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau
Leader of Opposition Andrew Scheer,
I will continue the monthly Ayn Rand discussions, the 4th Sunday of every month.
The discussions start at 7 pm and last a few hours. We cover various branches of Ayn Rand’s philosophy; Objectivism.
If you are interested, please feel free to listen or join in the discussions.
You will find all the details at, “Brampton Objectivist Association” in Meetup.
Any current attempt to reduce Ontario’s deficit (annual running payment) will not begin to address the massive weight of already misspent tax dollars.
Interest payments of Ontario’s debt are the third biggest budgetary expense, and destined to grow even larger post election of 2018.
Our energy markets have been mindlessly slaughtered; coal needlessly banned, electricity manipulated right out of affordability, and we are still paying for the PC’s nuclear programs of yesteryear. The Liberals have greened their efforts as a blind, mad drive for electric monopoly and control.
Due to these failed strategies, Ontario now has dysfunctional finances where minimum wages have been introduced as a supposed cure for our now high cost of living. Small business owners are simply expected to pay for decades of massive public failures. This shift of responsibility to taxpayers is black indeed.
Take a step back and read the writing on the legislative walls, or within the Liberal/PC/NDP party promises. You will see an unconscionable war on capitalism. A war on the able and productive has emerged as a full lock down against freedom of choice and movement.
If you can’t figure out why we got to this point, consider…
Dr. Spock (Star Trek) once said, “…if all logical avenues have been explored on a problem and no rational answer is found, one must assume the problem has an irrational reason.” To figure out the historical and wayward behavior of our taxes and debt which are not paying back, dare consider the irrational.
However, understanding it all, including a solution requires reasoned interpretation. For this, check out the Freedom Party of Ontario’s, “Opposition Budget.” There you will find running commentary, as it happened, that explains it all.
Political leaders stock phrases, much like a copied form letter to the public will be scorned by citizens world-wide, and most notably by Islamic ideologues. Here they are…vowed to fight terrorism…My heart is…our thoughts are…shared emotion[s] and full solidarity…be vigilant…the attack…“abominable crime”…cowardly form…utmost vigilance…confronted with a threat…
“incomprehensible”…strengthen our determination…unites…our thoughts are with the victims…sending condolences… defeat [terrorism] everywhere.”
anti-terror cooperation”…condemn the attack…“deeply shocked”[at] “this appalling act of terrorism…”…heartfelt condolences…sympathies..feels shocked…filled with sorrow…extend our sincere sympathies… message of solidarity… firmly standing together…difficult time… appalled… “barbaric and cowardly attack…heartbreak… stands united…be firm, determined…ready to confront terror swiftly and decisively wherever and whenever it manifests itself…never surrender..support…
The following is a carbon copy of carbon copies by Canada’s Prime Minister, “Canadians are shocked by the news of the horrific attack in Manchester tonight. Please keep the victims & their families in your thoughts.”
Please observe, after sympathies are done, what is the news? What concerted actions have you seen that actually stops Islamic terrorism? What major gains are recorded or in media that can be called a victory? There is none.
Is the president of the United Stated of America dancing with Egyptians a victory? Is selling the Muslim world billions of dollars worth of arms a victory?
While Canadian citizens are fighting legislative bills like M103 in order not to be shut up over honest criticism of Islamic totalitarianism, our political leaders offer – nothing, nothing but emotional platitudes without intellectual content and no plan to defeat continued domestic Islamic encroachments and direct attacks.
It is up to citizens to speak out and fight these obvious failings.
The fourth Sunday of every month I hold a meeting specifically about Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism.
These meetings are in Brampton so if you live close enough and are interested to attend, please contact me here.
Ayn Rand has some very interesting, if not advanced views on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and art.
If you first wish to know more know about objectivism, visit the AYN RAND INSTITUTE.ORG website as well as the Ayn Rand Lexicon for introduction. Ayn Rand’s fiction and non-fiction books are also very good ways to learn about her views and refreshing philosophy.
Let’s get together and discuss her views!
Ontario’s Liberal, PC, and NDP are often heard and seen in media as taking a pragmatic approach. Each party openly states they indeed are pragmatic with approach to societal problems. All the major political parties are rife with pragmatism. That’s all they have.
To the uninitiated, pragmatism is taken for granted, and even seen as plausible, without further thought. I want to pull back the curtain a little bit to expose the meaning of political pragmatism by showing concrete reasons for this pragmatic doctrine.
A major theme Ontario’s political parties as pragmatic is due to the nature of Ontario’s public social services.
Ontario’s public social services are in continual flux, not stable, fixed or settled. There are three basic reasons for this; Institutions continuously change and therefore necessitate public policy changes. However unlike vague social policy references, I will be very specific.
Free market institutions are never still and are by nature disruptive of any status quo. The second reason directly ties to this disruption. Policy makers have an extremely difficult time estimating what the needs (or new needs) are due to human actions. The third reason is continuous, “outside” influences. With constant disruption and change, factors involving pressure groups, collective and individual, private and public create further uncertainty in public policy making.
As remedy, Ontario’s public social service goal is, “stability” but the only way to establish this is by institutionalizing social services permanently. Until this goal, “From each according to his ability, unto each according to his need” is fully established, or anchored on the backs of the productive, i.e., fully institutionalized, public social services will remain in a state of constant revision.
Unlike businessmen and women who must adjust to nature and face facts, whether it is in their primary role as miners, logging companies, or secondary role as retailers, or even the role as distributors, political pragmatists do not want to, “get their hands dirty” with such realities because it puts constraint on their pragmatic, altruist visions. Pragmatism offers and justifies a blind eye to reality while day dreaming.
However, market forces are moral in their practice and endeavors, not the altruist stultification of policy makers. This requires greater freedom, not less.
With capitalist activity constituting only 1% of thinking in most people’s minds, this needs to change or we will all go belly up.
— Ted Harlson March 21, 2017
A better alternative: https://mises.org/system/tdf/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf?file=1&type=document
Professor John David Lewis. May his wise words live forever in the minds of every member of Congress and for Canada’s sake, every member of Parliament:
An Open Letter to Members of Congress on the Financial Mess
by John Lewis (September 30, 2008)
Dear Members of Congress:
On September 16  I sent a letter to my congressman, and to other senior US government officials, that consisted of three sentences:
“I oppose all bailouts of financial institutions by the US government. Government regulation and meddling is solidly to blame for this crisis. We must reduce government involvement in the economy now.”
My congressman replied with a frank letter that opposed my position, and that revealed his own. Among his concerns was the inability of a local government to raise millions of dollars for the purpose of “open space acquisition.” In other words, a local government was unable to buy land, using deferred taxpayer money, in order to prevent the development of that land.
My congressman also wrote that he was opposed to “bailing out Wall Street firms and business leaders who have speculated recklessly, endangered our country’s consumers and homebuyers, and resisted regulation that would protect the public interest.” But apparently he is not opposed to simply nationalizing their property, should it serve his version of “the public interest.”
Well, I beg to differ. This crisis was not caused by financial executives who resisted the whims of regulators. Those executives spent millions of dollars trying to obey the regulations. The cause was the regulations themselves: decades of coercive government interventions in the economy, all of which distorted the markets and undercut the ability of business managers to make sound financial decisions.
I am indeed opposed to bailing out financial companies who made bad investments and must now pay the consequences. But what I am more deeply opposed to is the entire political culture of regulation–including manipulation of interest rates, Sarbanes-Oxley and similar acts, changes in accounting rules, the Community Reinvestment Act, and a scad of others–that has fostered this mess.
Attempts by politicians to address the problem have to date been extensions of the same basic approach. Two weeks ago no politician in Washington knew this crisis was coming. Suddenly, after several all-nighters, they claim to have enough knowledge to grant a quarter of a trillion dollars to a government bureaucrat, to dole out as he sees fit–and to promise him another half-trillion, should he make it worse.
These politicians are willing to destroy the free enterprise system itself rather than to challenge the culture of regulations that has distorted it.
Meanwhile, pundits and politicians focus on the allegedly evil CEOs, “speculators” (in reality, “investors”), and loan initiators who were earlier damned for NOT making loan money available to high-risk borrowers. I remind you that the Community Renewal Act penalizes firms for not making such risky loans. Firms that refused to do so were accused of racist “redlining.” Now those firms are villified for following the law. Well, that’s government–it faces no penalties for its misjudgments except a periodic popularity contest, and can contradict itself with impunity. Any financial firm that did this would be soon out of business.
To make their case, these same politicians are claiming once again to be saving “Main Street.” Well I resent their claims, contrary to evidence, that it is now “impossible to get a loan” for a home or a car. It is indeed much more difficult to borrow millions on Wall Street, or to buy a home with nothing down and cash back to boot. But many regional banks that made sound investments are solvent. They will work through this–unless the government destroys their ability to act on their best judgments.
The government is not saving Main Street–it is confiscating it and nationalizing it. Is it not true that, with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal government now holds paper on tens of millions of American mortgages? What does granting American citizens “equity positions” and “profits” in companies seized by the government mean, except communism? Who is to run this new communist state–“Hank” Paulson and his Legions of Morale Conditioners? My congressman thinks that this serves “the public interest,” but that private enterprise does not.
Why then do we condemn Hugo Chavez for nationalizing oil companies? Why should those companies “resist” his regulations? Is he not simply following the Paulson plan for the “public interest”?
History demonstrates the consequences of such coercions. The Great Depression that followed the stock market crash of 1929 was caused by a string of obnoxious legislation, and was then cruelly extended by massive government interference. Contrary to prevailing, but long-discredited, opinion, the government did not save us from that mess. It created, and prolonged, it. Twenty years earlier, JP Morgan had ended the panic of 1908 in a few weeks–but bankers in 1929 could not so act. Today, Morgan would have been jailed for the private pooling of assets he arranged.
Is it not true that AIG was told by the Attorney General of New York that it would not be allowed to sell sound assets in order to save the holding company? Who is to blame for the collapse of a huge, and largely sound company, except those who forbid its executives from acting? And if this crisis spreads, who will be to blame–those executives who were not allowed to act on their best judgments, or those politicians who wrote the regulations?
I will state plainly that I have no respect for the likes of Senator Schumer, who started a run on a bank with his irresponsible statements and then claimed virtue for them, or Senator McCain, up to his neck in the Keating scandal, or Senator Dodd, whose reputation was on the rocks until this crisis saved him, or Senator Obama, who had not a clue at a White House meeting last week, and then went on-script before the press to cover his ignorance. Promises of “oversight” by such PR men do not instill confidence.
I much more respect the CEOs who have spent their years in the financial business, and who face real consequences for their errors. They do not have access to hundreds of billions of dollars of other people’s money–and they do not expect their stockholders to approve business plans that cannot predict whether they will lose three-quarters of a trillion dollars, or get some back in five years. They do not have their hands in the pocket of every honest person who produces something and lives by means appropriate to his resources.
The truly brave politicians are those who recognize that the government is largely to blame for this mess, and should start emergency repeal of regulations now. Only this can allow responsible CEOs to start making decisions based on sound economics rather than fear of breaking a law.
Dr. John David Lewis
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University
The Undercurrent is created and published by university and college students. The magazine is sophisticated. Direct, yet easy to read . It is an exciting world of reason at your fingertips.
The undercurrent student magazine is now available in Brampton! Get your copy of the undercurrent today while supply lasts! Contact the undercurrent directly: http://theundercurrent.org/
or contact Ted Harlson in Brampton for your local copy. Just message me in the comment section here: