Category Archives: Ontario

In and around Ontario politics, and culture.

U.S. Canada trade war

July 1, 2018

Dear Reader,

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,

Ted Harlson

cc. Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau

Leader of Opposition Andrew Scheer,

Progressive Conservatives. 

The Globe tied in Unity


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.

Teachers Strike – May 2015

This note from Paul McKeever,

leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario is very perceptive:

You write “While it’s easy to wrangle over who’s to blame in this strike — teachers or government…”
I invite you to consider that that’s a distinction without a difference.
If Bell stops providing phone services, I don’t care whether a computer blew up, or a transformer melted, or their employees went on strike.  Those things are not *my* problem as a Bell customer.  My only problem is that Bell is not delivering the service I’ve paid for.
The same is true of government owned and operated schools.  The teachers are government employees: they are part of the “government” in the broad sense of the word, just as are the school buildings, the desks, the blackboards etc…they’re all parts of a big machine that deliver a service called “education”.  The provider of the education service is: the government.  The government is to blame, but when we say that we understand that “the government” is not merely the employer, but also the employees.  We blame Leviathan: we don’t ask whether Leviathan’s hand is more to blame than his foot.
This public show, in which the government and the unions try to make the public blame one or the other distracts from the real issue: we’ve paid X for a service, and X isn’t delivering.  Exactly *why* it is not delivering is irrelevant: to a Durham parent (like myself) it is irrelevant whether the government school is failing to deliver because it is lacking electricity, or because its school buildings are condemned, or because it had a fire, or because it lacks water, or because it ran out of money, or because its teachers went on strike.  Those things are reasons why the government is failing to deliver, but they are the *government’s* problems, not the problems of its customers.  The only problem that we customers have is: we’ve paid for something, and it’s not getting delivered.
In the real world, we’d sue the service provider to get our money back, we’d never do business with them again, and we’d find another service provider.
If anything proves the need for a system in which parents pay tuition directly to the publicly-owned or privately-owned school that their child attends – rather than paying various education taxes – it’s this 5 week failure to provide education services.
— Paul McKeever
I couldn’t agree more.

The City of Brampton and Expropriation

March 11, 2015

Expanding expropriation powers for Brampton municipality would be an ominous mistake.

Throwing Brampton into dark statism with expanded expropriation powers may not be felt immediately, but over time, all development and progress would be killed. Such powers is against everything natural and functional regarding man.

Man needs choice and alternatives. To remove his choice through expropriating his home, his business in favor of another business would be a new version of fascism, whereby private property is not merely hindered, deformed out of all market shape, but would be a complete pretense of living. To violate the property rights of one person is to violate the property rights of all citizens. But how would expropriation powers be extended to municipalities and what would it look like?

Municipalities would extend their expropriation powers the same way the Federal government or Province already violates property rights, but extension of these powers to municipalities would reveal the naked, ominous motive of this power. The danger would be much more obvious to see.The wish of some business owners to kick out (expropriate) some other business or resident by condemning their place would be too obviously fascist many would resist – and properly so.

Let me step back a little.

I have made the mistake before of expecting others to understand certain terms so before I proceed, here is what Ayn Rand identifies as the character of fascism. She brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.”

When Brampton businessmen (who should know better), are promoting the ideaof expropriating private property, fascism is what they are advocating.

You should all be concerned enough to speak out against this ominous expansion of government.


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.

Ted Harlson
Freedom Party of Ontario

Jun 16, 2015 Your share is now over $20,000

Brampton energy is expensive

I wrote this letter just a few moments ago to WindConcernsOntario. The province is costing you billions subsidizing inefficient energy. The cost of contracts to builders of damaging wind turbines, the huge public service club organizers who profit as well as an expensive bureaucracy that needs high electricity billing to keep their work programs.


Dear Wind Concerns Ontario, Jane Wilson,

I just saw, “Downwind” on Sun TV. I agree with the show very much and wish to expand the influence of better, more rational environmental ideas to counter the disrespect the province has for its citizens.

Our current direction is insane, costly, and an immoral direction towards carbon tax, subsidized turbines and worse is coming.

The province is in a condition worse than broke, we are in debt, yet the environmental agenda, via the Wynn government is planned for a major initiative this spring and summer. This means the Liberal party is planning it as you read this.

I am sure the blue belt (Conservatives) understand the asinine direction environmentalism is pointed, but the Metro areas, including where I live is solid Liberal and do not question what the government does. I believe their minds can be changed once the truth is known.

I am taking the initiative to write you and anyone who might be interested in continuing this fight against the lies that will do worse damage if those who know better keep silent.

As a member of the Freedom Party of Ontario, we have long platformed against the, “Green Energy Act” including many other catastrophic energy plans that have undermined this province, corrupted politics, and destroyed human lives.

Do you have anyone in or near Brampton I can talk with or discuss how to further promote better ideas concerning expanding better, more rational ideas concerning environmentalism? Thank you.


Ted Harlson.

The Cult of the Personality

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:

Founding Principle

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.