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,
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!
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.
Read with your young child. Enjoy!
Do you remember Sandra Pupatello, Ex- Minister of economic development? Do you remember she was in Brampton at a Business breakfast with Susan Fennell and pull – peddling businessmen? She wanted government to be like a “lion” towards business. She meant more intervening. Here is a response I wrote and gave to a few associates. Happily I can say Brampton did vote out the majority of councilors and also replaced the Mayor.
Integration Series 2013
Sandra Pupatello, ex Minister of economic development and trade with the McGuinty government was clubbing in Brampton with Susan Fennell and other sunshine club members at a recent, “Business Breakfast.” Sunshine club members are public officials who pocket over $100,000 a year of tax-payers money. Sandra Pupatello wanted her audience to be, “like a lion on what we can do for business.”
In other words, she wanted club growth, more businessmen to curry special political favor. What these sunshine clubbers do in Brampton are strategic failures! Far from “helping” Brampton’s business, economic chaos results.
Brampton City Center mall for example can now remain open on Family Day, to the monopoly of other small business which cannot. Administrative cost now props up this chaos that ensues from an unholy business exemption/favoritism.
Now connect this type of activity to Brampton’s city hall expansion and you will understand that radical political intrusion is planned for our future! Favoritism will greatly increase. This is precisely what Brampton’s strategic vision represents; an uncontrolled beast in motion that will rip and devour the best of Brampton’s future.
Already, today’s massive regulatory regime with tax administered weight represents more than mere removal of dollar for dollar from our pay checks towards, “Strategic planning” but represents further destruction of our personal savings, wholesale destruction of our property rights, destruction of our careers and knowing destruction of our personal strategies.
This uncaring income drain and disintegration is largely unseen, but it is felt because it is personal initiative and development that won’t happen due to taxation and diversion of our productive efforts. Personal and individual dreams are suffocated as independence is destroyed.
Unless we as individuals exercise our sovereignty, as I’ve said, worse is coming.
The only way your life will count in Brampton politics is if you have more choice and more options, not less to make your life work well. We as individuals need more control of our money and savings not less. We need sovereignty not massive legislation.
You have been making good choices all your life by earning and saving what you’ve earned but a time must come to say no those who take it away. Almost 50% of your working life is taken by politicians who convince you, election after election to give and sacrifice, “just a little more.”
At 51% tax where is your sovereignty? With a regulatory regime that erodes your livelihood, what is there left to do without some kind of license, monitor and permission?
We deserve much better than this and so do our children.
We can say no to Brampton council’s impositions, we can organize to vote these spenders out of office. We can seek better representatives who will free up our economy and the recessionary mess politicians have created and won’t let go.
We can work towards repealing BIA,s and here, we can dismantle Brampton’s Downtown Development Corporation.
It is possible and crucial we work towards freedom in our lives.
Member of the Freedom Party of Ontario since September 2010
I am The Young
Brampton in another election mode
What’s your share? $17,000 per
of this cumbersome debt load
baby boomers will just defer.
And make you pay, young man,
For sins and wanton over-load
tax-less the young woman ban,
All will pay with no out road.
Ay! Such heartless, vile servitude
Should mark no man, but goad
And ride a mean, equal rectitude,
And vote out the old, blind toads.
Freedom Party of Ontario
I remember when I was young and began looking around at history documents. I mean just looking. I was struck by the term, “Cult of the Personality.”
I wasn’t fully aware what it meant but after a few years got more curious about this designation and saw it focused on Socialist leaders of times past. It was these leaders who were most identified with having a cult of personality.
I came to understand this term meant masses of people of a country were enthralled with a leader through his personality and charisma, and followed that person into mindless destruction and death.
The pictures I saw depicting this were masses of people marching down some street in Russia, Germany or Red China holding banners along with giant pictures of their leader. The people marched mindlessly chanting their leaders slogans.
I understand now that my understanding of cult of the personality was very accurate for several reasons. First it is the personality of the leader which had captured the following of the people and the historic news article or cartoon explaining this phenomenon was exact.
However, despite good depictions of the cultist behaviour, the underlying reasons for the emergence of cult of personality in leadership was not explained. Nor was there any reasonable explanation for the cult following so blindly. It took my understanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy before I could understand the full picture.
My deeper philosophic understanding of the cult of the personality took the form of seeing Russian leaders adhering to Hegelian dialectics, a wholly idealistic philosophy which based a human struggle in returning to God as final master of this earth. The practical fulfillment was man’s destiny to socialist utopia.
China followed suit with their own variation through Mao Tse Tung. Nazi Germany also was idealist with a strong cult of the personality through Hitler The philosophy that led their charge to sacrifice was provided by Immanual Kant (Europe’s Favourite philosopher) smiling at the starry heavens from his grave.
Why a citizenry should come to a cult of personality was not explained by a leader that personified strength, and leadership towards obvious destruction? The reason for such a contorted direction was because the people themselves held and identified with utopian ideals in every area of their lives. They had lost their ability to think for themselves, independently and realistically.
A, “cult” is inherently mindless and opposite of an individual thinker. A country of independent thinkers cannot be ruled by force, but when the mind is abandoned or undermined, ruling by force increases and as the independence diminishes, irrational ruling replaces mere aberration. Government eventually becomes total.
North America with our simple, straight forward, hard working view of life during the world wars came to save Europe not once but twice from these variations of idealism and sacrificial views of life. We, in this North American continent were not so fully ingrained in Platonic, Hegelian, or Kantian idealism so had more confidence and independence.
North America largely was a result of an Aristotelian philosophy of reason, ego, and reality.
In news reporting of Ontario’s 2014 elections I have noticed the cult of personality emerging. Destruction today however is slower with, “Great recessions” and balkanizing, not (yet) total as between the war torn years of Europe.
Personality was particularly strong in Ontario politics where Kathleen Wynn won largely due to personality and Tim Hudak’s personality “stunk” – as had been repeated endlessly in political commentaries. Little to no principles were explained.
If anything is to be remembered in Ontario about the two World Wars, it is the fact that principles matter. Principles are not to be abandoned in politics.
The specific principles are written in the Freedom Party of Ontario’s founding constitution:
3. The FPO is founded on the principle that: “Every individual, in the peaceful pursuit of personal
fulfilment, has an absolute right to his or her own life, liberty, and property” (hereinafter referred
to as the FPO’s “Founding Principle”).
When these specific principles, which are rooted in reality, become forgotten, purposefully ignored, or otherwise lost, men have no other purpose than to chase utopian idealism since principles are no longer a choice.
When is the last time you heard a leader discuss individual rights and property rights? Except for the Freedom Party of Ontario, you will have to strain your memory. Today, you may hear a lot about “democracy” but without definition. You do hear about personality or even, “integrity” without what one is supposed to have integrity about. The very real principles of individual rights and property rights deserve immoveable integrity, but are buried in government takeovers called, “Strategic planning.”
There is much more I’d like to say about these destructive expressions of idealism, but I’ll stop here. My point is cult of the personality has now replaced principle in Ontario politics.
Only the Freedom Party of Ontario retains the fundamental principles necessary for just governing.
I have observed some wanting a platform grid for comparing Brampton’s electoral candidates. This may be helpful in judging candidates positions but there is an easier way.
Let us take a look at some specific and generalized truths.
Value is central to our lives. This general principle is so assumed in our daily living that it is pretty much taken for granted.
People pursue values. People go shopping, purchase vehicles, seek better jobs, good pay or good salary. We even pursue the best ideas we can find. Value pursuit is everywhere we look! Attaining values are rewarding and life enhancing. Value pursuit is also necessary, and moral in the pursuit of the greatest value of all: our own life.
What then would be the greatest societal value, i.e., political value in this relation? The greatest value would be that which leaves us free to pursue our lives how we wish.
Freedom allows the greatest choice and ability in pursuit of personal, life–giving values. The condition is of course we live in a rational culture wherein we respect others right to do the same. To bring this home, Canada’s constitution states, s. 7. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof…”
“Right to life”, “Right to liberty”, and “Security of the person” have been honed for centuries by men who loved truth and encoded these general principles in law for us to personally benefit.
A candidates ideas can therefore be compared to political freedom it has or has not integrated in its platform. We can ask, does the platform and idea promote freedom? How? How not? Will the platform burden us and future generations with involuntary servitude and greater taxes? Will a candidates idea impose greater restrictions? Or enable greater choice? Will our personal dreams be free to flourish? Will our personal savings be drained or be under attack? Will this candidate endanger our personal security? Or will our personal lives and future be respected? Will our right to life be expanded? In what way?
As a concrete example, Brampton’s public LRT proposal is against this abstract, important idea of freedom. The proposal supposedly addresses traffic congestion but quickly loses plausibility when examined against the rights and reality of freedom.
Has the question been asked why we have congestion in the first place? You cannot blame the market. A market does not allow for congestion between supply and demand. A free market price system ensures flow, especially when free people are generally problem solvers.
Political controls. Political restrictions. Political leaders pretending to be market drivers are today’s recessionary bottle neck—and cause of congestion. The solution therefore should be geared towards political freedom, not public transportation and enslaving taxes. Brampton’s economy must be freed to develop value, not driven to bankruptcy.
Freedom is the political standard and guide for deciding which candidate to support. It isn’t easy to adhere to freedom, especially when serious problems exist, but our lives and future depends on it.
Ted Harlson at Brampton’s tax pit. The beginning of the City Hall expansion.
Member Freedom Party of Ontario
Prior to the 1800s, all real business in Chinguacousy Township took place at Martin Salisbury’s tavern. One mile distant at the corner of Main and Queen streets, now the recognized centre of Brampton, William Buffy’s tavern was the only significant building. At the time, the area was referred to as “Buffy’s Corners”. By 1834, John Elliott laid out the area in lots for sale, calling it “Brampton,” which was soon adopted by others.
In 1853, a small agricultural fair was set up by the newly initiated County Agricultural Society of the County of Peel, and was held at the corner of Main and Queen streets. Grains, produce, roots, and dairy products were up for sale. Horses and cattle, along with other lesser livestock, were also sold at market. This agricultural fair eventually became the modern Brampton Fall Fair. In that same year Brampton was incorporated as a village.
By 1869, Brampton, with a population of 1800, was in the County Town of Peel in the Township of Chinguacousy. It was a Station of the Grand Trunk Railway. The County buildings were erected c. 1869 of freestone and white brick.
A federal grant allowed the village to found its first public library in 1887, which included 360 volumes from the Mechanic’s Institute (est 1858). In 1907, the library received a grant from the Carnegie Foundation, set up by United States steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, to build a new, expanded library; it serves several purposes, featuring the Brampton Library. The Carnegie libraries were built on the basis of communities coming up with matching funds and guaranteeing maintenance.
A group of regional farmers in Brampton had trouble getting insurance from city-based companies. After several meetings in Clairville Hall, they decided to found the County of Peel Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Company. In 1955, when the company moved to its third and current location, 103 Queen Street West, it took the new name of Peel Mutual Insurance Company. It reigns as the longest-running company in modern Brampton. Harmsworth Decorating Centre was established in 1890, as Harmsworth and Son, operated out of the family’s house on Queen Street West. The current location was purchased on September 1, 1904, after a fire destroyed their original store. Purchased for $1,400, the 24 Main Street South location is the longest-operating retail business in what is now Brampton.