All posts by Ted Harlson

About Ted Harlson

Born in lower Central B.C. Canada, I grew up in the lakes and mountains of the Okanagan. I've traveled in many Canadian cities, settling in Toronto mid 1980's where I married my lovely wife, Rose. Thanks to Ayn Rand's books and ideas, we have a happy and productive life, both with careers we enjoy! Life is a joy!

Islam suicide bombing May 22, 2017 Manchester

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you know?…

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!

A note on Ontario’s pragmatist politicians

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

As “we” move forward

A better alternative: https://mises.org/system/tdf/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf?file=1&type=document

A man I admire very much.

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 [2008] 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.

Sincerely;

Dr. John David Lewis

Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University

 

Exciting new magazine in Brampton.

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:

Canadians built this country but are of secondary interest by its political leaders

A Canadian political leader, including from Brampton “invests” in a foreign country. Little is known or said by media what actually transpires. However the opposite of good results from  these “investments” occur. Your taxes go up and your life is further restricted, not enhanced. This result is the opposite of economic production.

https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2014/11/premiers-china-trade-mission-helps-ontario-businesses-grow.html

If you were to do some checking, you’d soon see all these so called trade missions are international relation exercises first, and many times with despotic countries.

But here is the important point.

Canadian citizen interests are not on the international table except as sacrificial animals. Money (your savings and hard earned knowledge) are compassionately transferred which ultimately makes our lives poorer, harder, not easier.

Trade missions aren’t cheap. The province and cities have become much bolder by promising your taxes will go up and your lives will be restricted for some utopia in the future. This decade, its a green utopia. Next decade, it may well be global cooling.

If you’ve been around awhile, you know Russia had these kinds of five year plans for their citizens long before Canada borrowed the idea. The parasitical Soviets were not self supporting but depended on genuine producers (America) and despite this, their socialism failed. Canada’s socialism too will fail to the degree Canada, Ontario, and municipalities hold to socialist principles. 

Hard working Canadian’s built this country but are of secondary interest by its political leaders. Hard working Canadians are merely viewed as sacrificial animals. Our governments are bankrupt, except as it pilfers private savings, both the small percentage of businesses and vast pillaged middle class savings.

Finally, it is not “the governments” future that is being drained, but your personal savings in prestige troupes across foreign borders. Only you can put an end to this.

 

Electricity monopoly

 

Green Kills!

Province has 37 Billion wasted on

above market electricity monopoly

and more waste – higher taxes promised.

Join me in Brampton

Tax Revolt

Discussions

Coffee Culture

(Hurontaro.Main)

Sunday 7 pm

Email:

Ted Harlson: tharlson@hotmail.com

Permit to live or freedom of action?

Brampton needs what it does not have now, market development.

The needed principle that underlies this positive activity is freedom, plain and simple.
Identified, freedom is freedom from physical coercion. Individually this means sovereignty and property ownership. A society of voluntary contract, not permissions.
The greater freedom of choice and freedom of action we have as citizens, the better our lives will be. The results of greater freedom of choice and freedom of action will result in a more valued, more stable, secure future for citizens here. The unnoticed benefit of freedom is a culturally healthy place to live. People will be happier by being more secure with their personal choices and greater savings.  Can we make this happen 2016?
– Ted.

What about Winston Churchill and our dark clouds?

I quote Winston Churchill:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as
hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  The
effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly
systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of
property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A
degraded sensualism deprives this life of its … grace and refinement,
the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan law
every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a
child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery
until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the
religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.  No
stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund,
Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.  It has already
spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step;
and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of
science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the
civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of
ancient Rome.”

Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol II, pp 248-250)”

I conclude, “terrorism” and terrorist acts are not the primary enemy in regards to coming attacks on our soil. Attacks are not a primary cause. The core problem is the same as the Japanese problem used to be: Blind theocracy and blind belief underpinning a drive towards global domination. Islamic totalitarianism is the enemy, not its tactics of terrorism. Terrorism is the method.

https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign-policy/self-defense-and-free-trade/POV-Faith-and-Force-Destroyers-of-Modern-World#filter-bar?utm_source=bluehornet&utm_medium=impactweekly&utm_campaign=11192015

(copy and paste the website if it does not appear in link form).

 

 

Intellectuals?

The philosophy of [conventional] knowledge has been stated as too complex today for understanding in universal terms. It is said to be impossible for one individual to be a leader in all branches of learning. The various branches of knowledge in the sciences for example have become too numerous, too complex that a philosopher can no longer know logic without becoming a logician, or understand physics without becoming a physicist.

On this basis of complexity, philosophy breaks down and so branches out into various categories for specialized study. Philosophy then merely provides a “framework” for these branches of learning. We then have philosophy of biology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of law, etc.

Now, the problem with this view of complexity are many, however, can you see the root problem with this modern approach to knowledge? This is certainly a form of complexity worship but digging deeper, what is the nature of this complexity barrier?

Observe what is happening on this view. Knowledge is said to be divided, categorized, divided as many times as fits the situation. Knowledge then is thus, “stand alone” — unrelated to other knowledge, unrelated in principle.

But what does this mean?

It means this approach to knowledge is now lacking in general abstractions, abstractions which see and unite the various/divided areas of knowledge. This is a break down of philosophy itself. Knowledge today, as great as new discoveries may be, no longer has a fundamental basis or final attachment in reality. They are floating abstractions.

Philosopher’s today are ignoring what philosophy used to be: a fundamental integrating science. It is true knowledge can become very detailed, very complex, but this is no reason the premises or axioms of specialized knowledge no longer exist. Nor is this reason to believe axioms of knowledge cannot be also axioms to a branch of philosophy. All knowledge rests on deeper knowledge until it reaches the perceptual level, i.e., reality – no matter how complex or new the find.

I do not believe Leibniz (1716) was the last universal scholar. Objectivism today, is universal in the specific term conventional philosophy rejects. I believe the reason for the rejection of general abstracts is due to those who have rejected philosophy, yet pose as philosophers. This has been less so historically, but more obvious today.

Reality is knowable, including knowledge of whatever science you are studying – or it cannot be a science. If there are contradictions between science and conventional thinking, this can be corrected with integrity to reality and an absolute adherence to reason. However, you will need to clear away the rubble of failing ideas by integrating your own premises. For this you will need to understand Ayn Rand’s discoveries in philosophy.

– Ted Harlson. October 10, 2015.