During the Q&A segment, an audience member asked Rand:

Q. “By any chance have you heard of Roger McBride of the Libertarian Party? Can you tell us what you think of him?”

A. “My proper answer should be: ‘I don’t’. But I’d like to elaborate. To begin with [in my speech] I mentioned the candidates which were mentioned as the particulars…article. They didn’t hear of McBride, which is just as well: there’s nothing to hear there. Now, why would I be opposed to him? Because I have been saying – look, if you know nothing about me except the lecture today – but I have been saying the same thing in everything I’ve spoken or written: that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. And here is a party which plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite – with religionists, with anarchists, with just about every intellectual misfit and scum that they can find – and they call themselves ‘libertarian’ and run for office.

“Just let me add: I dislike Mr. Reagan. I dislike Mr. Carter. And I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. I would say the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt anything so unphilosophical, so low, and so pragmatic, as this libertarian party because it’s the last insult to the idea of ideas, and to philosophical consistency.”

NOTE: You can listen to Ayn Rand giving this answer by signing up (it’s free) to be a Registered user of the aynrand.org website and visiting the Rand audio library there. Those who would like to read the various essays I’ve written about libertarianism can find most of them by using the search tool on this blog. You can also find my videos on libertarianism by visiting my YouTube channel.

UPDATE

The above blog entry was cross-posted to my facebook wall and to solopassion.com. Some interesting discussions ensued.

On facebook, S wrote:

…libertarianism is a broad term used to describe people who politically support (A) little to no government (B) free markets and property rights and (C) personal liberty. Under this definition, Rand would certainly qualify as a libertarian, her own distaste for the label notwithstanding.

I replied to S as follows:

As to “libertarianism” being a “broad term”: of course it’s broad – it’s deliberately, and intentionally, and strategically broad, and it is that strategy that lies at the heart of libertarianism. Specifically, by trying to bring together anyone who claims to like a floating conception of “liberty”, it attempts to attract even people holding opposing, mutually exclusive metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and even political philosophical commitments. “libertarian” necessarily implies a collective entity (i.e., the libertarian movement or Libertarian Party) that demands of its constituents that they agree to disagree about everything that makes liberty right for man. That willingness is a willingness of the movement – of libertarianism – to be, by design and intention, indifferent to philosophical beliefs that, in fact, undermine the case for liberty.

As one case in point: take Ron Paul – widely recognized and championed as a libertarian – who felt it very important to say, during a presidential debate in Nevada, that rights are god-given. Were a proponent of reality, reason, and rational selfishness to stand shoulder to shoulder with that clown saying both Ron Paul and he are “libertarians”, what theist cannot make the same claim? If rights are god-given, they are Allah given too, and one is left debating what rights man has by way of debating whose imaginary friend is the REAL omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent rights-giver. Sharia – Allah’s law, including the rights Allah says man has – is not pro-liberty (by most “libertarians’ ” conception of liberty), but if libertarians accept that (a) belief in the supernatural is a foundation for liberty; (b) that faith in the alleged words of alleged gods are a valid source of knowledge in defence of liberty, (c) that obedience to a god is a defence of liberty; etc. then forget about trying to win an argument with a Islamic theocrat about whether or not it is right for man to have liberty: you’ve conceded to him everything he needs – the supernatural, faith, obedience as a virtue, etc. Stand by Ron Paul; call yourself a fellow “libertarian”; and thereby serve the cause of defeating the prospect for liberty.

Also on facebook, A wrote:

Paul, while I share your distaste for anarcho-capitalism (which is basically the belief that you can have meaningful laws without enforcement), I don’t understand your distaste for the more sensible varieties of libertarian. If someone has the same politics as you, why not work together in the political sphere? Sure, you may disagree on philosophy, but debates about philosophy can happen after you’ve gotten what you both want out of the political process, they don’t need to happen before.

I replied to A as follows:

Nobody will achieve, from the political process, freedom unless ones policies and electoral platforms – and ones arguments – are founded on a commitment to reality, reason, and the virtue of every individual’s rationally selfish pursuit of his own happiness. Governance involves not just political considerations, but metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical considerations. To govern in a way that is pro-freedom is to govern solely according to the physically provable facts of reality, by way solely of reason, never failing to remember the purpose of the law (which is to ensure that no man is prevented by any other from rationally pursuing his own happiness). To come up with a party whose policies are indifferent to metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical concerns is to come up with a party that will not – if it wins – be committed to the the things that make rational, pro-freedom governance possible.

Philosophy is not academic. Everyone has, and operates upon, a conscious or subconscious philosophy. Governing for freedom requires an unswerving philosophical dedication to rational decision making, and that precludes decisions founded on such things as the possibility of an afterlife, the impossibility of certainty, the virtue of duty, etc..

To another of A’s comments – about suggesting Objectivists should collaborate with libertarians – I replied:

When it comes to the issue of philosophical advocacy (as opposed to advocating certain concrete changes to laws, taxes etc) one simply cannot align oneself with a person whose philosophy is contrary to ones own metaphysically, epistemologically, ethically, or politically, if one wants ones philosophy – and all of the benefits that result from its prevalence – to gain prevalence.

A responded:

If your political end is, for example, lower taxes, then Objectivism and a hippie’s distaste for The Man actually are interchangeable means to the same end. You may disagree on other issues, but on that one you’re allies, full-stop (unless, as you say, someone is so loathsome that accepting their help actually makes progress less likely). And if the set of “issues you agree on” encompasses everything related to government, then the disagreements are by definition apolitical. I’m not saying that you need to pretend apolitical differences don’t exist, but you seem far too intent on bringing them into the political sphere unnecessarily.

I replied:

It’s not an uncommon belief, but it’s an incorrect one, that only issues of political philosophy have anything to do with governance. That’s not so. Let me give you an example.

A few years back, a teacher in an Ontario school had a young student (I think her name was Victoria) who is autistic. Apparently, it is not uncommon with autism such as hers to be associated with children masturbating and doing so at inappropriate times and locations. Such, as I understand it, was the case with Victoria. Anyway, the teacher went to see a fortune teller one night. The fortune teller asked the teacher if she had a girl in her class having a first name starting with the letter V. The teacher responded yes. The fortune teller told her that V was being sexually abused by a man in V’s house. Presumably, the masturbation, combined with the fortune teller’s story and the teacher’s willingness to believe in the supernatural led the teacher to worry. The next day, she told the principle. The principle was, apparently, equally nutty. The principle called the Board. It was apparently equally nutty. The Board called the Children’s Aid Society. Being equally nutty, the CAS attended V’s house and inspected (no warrant needed, of course). V’s mother was shocked and outraged. The CAS discovered no man lives in the house. V’s mom was single.

So, here’s the question: ignoring the anarchist answer (“Smash the state to ensure that doesn’t happen”), what other libertarian answer is there to this situation? What is the answer that is based upon the alleged political “philosophy” of the libertarian movement? Forgive me for not holding my breath, because the issue is *not* political (and the libertarian movement does not have *a* political philosophy). The issue is not one of politics, but of metaphysics and epistemology. Everyone in this utterly wrongful chain of events was operating on the false metaphysical belief that the supernatural/mystical exists, and that reading crystal balls, tarot cards, or the wrinkles on ones hands, etc. are ways of obtaining knowledge. The correct answer, for the government observing that this BS went on, is to make laws that (a) exclude any consideration of the allegedly supernatural, and that (b) exclude any consideration of claims founded on mind-reading, fortune-telling, speaking with the dead, palm readings etc.. Yet there is NO libertarian objection to the supernatural (it is to be regarded, by the libertarian movement, as no less valid than claims that can be proven true with physical evidence), and there is NO libertarian objection to treating the alleged mystical insights of a “psychic” to be worthy of consideration by the government. Libertarians will disagree as to what should or should not have been done, as a result, because there answers will not be based upon libertarianism, but upon any of a wide and differing variety of metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, or political beliefs they hold. There *IS NO* libertarian answer to this situation, largely because even if there was a single libertarian political philosophy that all libertarians agreed with, a political philosophy would have nothing to say about the root problems in this case (which were matters of the GOVERNMENT’S metaphysics and epistemology).

Finally, it’s not a matter of bringing metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical issues into the “political sphere”. It is a willingness to *acknowledge* that metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical philosophy determines GOVERNMENTAL decisions and actions every day, and more fundamentally than political philosophy. To say metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics (and, for that matter, the need for a particular political philosophy) doesn’t matter, so long as we all agree to a few floating political abstractions is utterly false and naive, and that utterly false and naive belief is why libertarianism cannot possibly achieve anything at all. They are trying to drive a car merely by operating the brake pedal, hands off of the wheel, feet off of the gas pedal, and eyes on their navels.

Meanwhile, over at solopassion.com, debate roared over whether Objectivism was just another form of libertarianism. I there decided to do what I rarely like to do (provide an analogy):

By way of concretes: the libertarian movement set up a factory to make knock-offs of Barbie-doll heads, which, on a doll-by-doll basis, it attached to a randomly-grabbed assortment of defective GI Joe, Robbie the Robot, or Swamp Thing arms; rejected Hulk, Rubber Man, or dildo torsos; discarded licorice whip, wooden stick, or dried up worm legs; dressed the resulting Frankensteins in potato sacks, garbage bags, or dominatrix clothing; packaged the resulting Frankensteins into boxes labeled “Beauty Doll”; and then claimed that the integrated beautiful womanesque invention called Barbie was “just another Beauty Doll, because they all have the same head”.

Not many daughters would buy that argument. No Objectivist should accept the argument that Objectivism is just another exemplar of libertarianism.

In the ideal collectivist society, all of the wealth created by individuals is the property of all individuals considered collectively. Only the collective is said to be deserving of wealth. However, there is no such thing as a collective entity of which human individuals are but a part: in practice, “collective” is merely another way of saying “government”. Collectivists are simply individuals who want government to take wealth – by force or threat of force – from those who have created it, and to give it to those who did not. The collectivist wants something for nothing – he wants the unearned – and he is willing to embrace any rationalization that will result in him receiving the unearned from his government.

Moral codes explain the consequences of ones decisions and actions; they explain what one has earned (be it a gain or a loss) as a result of ones decisions and conduct; what one deserves. But a collectivist does not want his decisions, indecision, actions or omissions to have any consequences: he does not want the wealth he obtains to be based upon what he has earned or upon what he, personally, deserves. Accordingly, collectivists are opponents of all moral codes; they are opponents of morality itself.

In practice, collectivists seek to destroy morality by arguing that no moral code has any better claim to being true than does any other moral code; that, therefore, each person’s choice of morality is entirely subjective. To justify their moral subjectivism, collectivists argue that human beings are incapable of certainty about anything: nobody can know what is in accord with the facts of reality, so no moral code can be proven to be the one proper to humans living on this earth. “Anything is possible”, they argue “so nobody can say that one moral code is right or better than another moral code”.

By asserting that morality is wholly subjective, collectivists oppose the notion that it is possible to know who is deserving of material wealth. If most people in society believe that nobody can be known to be more deserving than anyone else, the way is paved for the collectivist to assert that, therefore, everyone – whether or not he has created wealth – is equally deserving of wealth.

Unfortunately for the collectivist, it is difficult for most people to watch a man build a bird house for his child and then claim that he is no more deserving of it than anyone else. Therefore, to justify taking wealth from those who create it, the collectivist needs the general public to believe that, if a person has more than an equal share of the wealth, he has obtained it by wrongful, unjust means…even when, in fact, there has been no injustice.

One of the main ways in which the collectivist creates the false impression of wrongful gain is to exploit the nature of the non-chosen qualities of individuals: the things over which one has no power of choice, such as ones own genetic make-up and place of birth. Ethics deals only with the chosen: the things over which one has the power to make choices. Ethics tells a person what decisions one should make and which decisions one should not make. Ethics does not deal with the non-chosen. For example, it does not not tell you that you ought to have a genetic code other than the one you have because even were it to do so, you would be incapable of changing the fact that you have the code you have. And, because non-chosen factors cannot be judged good or evil, better or worse, ones non-chosen qualities have no bearing upon the question of what one deserves.

Hence the collectivist’s obsession with the non-chosen qualities of human beings. In particular, many collectivists – notably, the “multiculturalists” – deem humanity to be split into collectives defined by such non-chosen factors as race, sex, and place of birth. Having deemed individuals to be members of those collectives, the collectivist argues that, because no such collective can be judged better or worse, no such collective is deserving of any more material wealth than any other such collective. And, if one of those collectives has more wealth, it has more than it deserves.

How did it get more than it deserves? The collectivist’s response is that if there is a disparity of wealth among groups of people distinguished by non-chosen factors, that disparity is the result of injustice of one sort or another. Typically, the injustices are said to have taken the form of racism, sexism, xenophobia, or other isms based upon the non-chosen qualities of people. The collectivist sums up all such alleged discrimination in one word: intolerance. And, by attacking such intolerance, the collectivist attempts to obtain for collectivism an unearned reputation of tolerance (unearned, because the collectivist has no tolerance for morality, but instead actively seeks to destroy it).

Of course, it is absolute nonsense that everyone who has more material wealth got it by engaging in discrimination against people according to non-chosen factors. So, lacking evidence that every wealthier individual is a racist, sexist, or what have you, the collectivist argues that the discrimination is systemic: that society in general is, to one extent or another, racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.; that society as a whole is intolerant.

Having so condemned society, the collectivist champions laws to make society less intolerant. Enter laws against “hate speech”. Laws against “hate speech” are laws pursuant to which one is punished for saying or writing something that is an explicit or implicit statement that people having some non-chosen quality – like their genetic make up or place of birth – are somehow not as good as others (which, as a matter of ethics, necessarily implies: not as deserving as others).

On their face, they are laws against what most people would agree is immoral and unjust: judging a person undeserving or inferior because of his non-chosen qualities. But punishing such injustice is not the real goal of hate speech laws. Combatting racism, sexism, and xenophobia is the cover story. The real goal of hate speech laws is to punish the expression that someone or some group of people is better than someone else or some other group of people. Hate speech laws aim to discourage the belief that it is possible for one person to be more deserving than another. They aim to discourage the belief that there is such a thing as an objective, true code of moral conduct.

That conclusion might at first blush appear arbitrary and unwarranted, but consider two additional facts. First, consider that, in many if not all such codes, truth is not a defence. No matter how much evidence Hedegaard might tender to support an allegation about sexual abuse in Muslim families, all of it would be irrelevant. Truth is not a defence to a hate speech charge because the truth, according to the collectivists, cannot be known; no person can be certain of anything, no matter how much evidence is tendered.

Second, hate speech codes also tend to include a very special instance of the chosen qualities of a person: ones faith. One can choose to have faith, or not to have it, and one can choose what to believe on faith (i.e., one can choose one religion over another). Why, then, do the collectivists include faith along with non-chosen qualities like genetic makeup and place of birth?

The answer is that beliefs founded on faith are, by definition, beliefs that one cannot prove, with physical evidence, to be true. Faith-based beliefs, therefore, are the best evidence the collectivists have for claiming that one cannot be certain of anything. From the collectivists’ perspective, to condemn beliefs founded on faith is to condemn the notion that one cannot be certain of anything, and to have contempt for those who hold beliefs founded only on faith is to have contempt for collectivism and its rejection of the ability to know and judge.

Consider, as one relevant example, Allah’s statement in the Qu’ran that a man’s testimony is worth that of two women. Consider the implications of that law of evidence for a situation like, say, rape. It is not unreasonable to assume that, in a great many situations in which a man rapes a woman, he and she are the only witnesses to the crime. Result: case dismissed, because it’s his word against hers, and his word is worth two of hers. We see the government of Denmark recoil in horror that Lars Hedegaard would express concern, or disgust about the rate of sexual abuse within families, but who among us thinks it right not to condemn a faith-based law of evidence that, in effect, excuses the raping of a woman? Who in their right mind does not hold that sexist and clearly dangerous bit of faith-based law in utter contempt? Who, by expressing such contempt, does not unavoidably express contempt for every person who holds and reveres such a sexist and dangerous bit of faith-based evidence law?

A Muslim is, by definition, a person who submits wholly and without exception to the will of Allah. To be a Muslim is to believe what the Qu’ran says, and to obey it. To be a Muslim, one must accept and agree that a man’s testimony is worth the testimony of two women. Disagree, and one becomes a hypocrite, an unbeliever, impure, a fire dweller, or any of range of other contemptuous things stated in the Qu’ran. Thus, to express contempt for such a disgusting faith-based law is to express contempt for those who think the law right, just, and holy: it is to express contempt for true, pure, believing, obedient, holier-than-thou Muslims. However, it is also to express contempt for anyone who thinks it proper to punish someone for expressing contempt for such a law, or for those who revere such a law. In other words, to express contempt about a sexist faith-based law is to express contempt for the collectivists and their hate speech law. It is to express contempt for everyone who condemns as “intolerance” or “xenophobia” the expression of concern or disgust for a dangerous, unjust, sexist, faith-based law of evidence, or for those who revere such law.

Lars Hedegaard is not being tried for hurting the feelings of Muslim families. He is being tried for publicly rejecting moral relativism and radical skepticism. He is being tried for holding the collectivists, and their attack on reason and morality, in contempt. By punishing Hedegaard for daring to claim that he is capable of knowing something; by punishing him for expressing moral condemnation; the collectivists hope to discourage all others from thinking themselves capable and worthy of knowing and judging for themselves. Hedegaard, and all others so immorally punished by collectivist hate speech laws around the globe, are a threat not chiefly to Muslim families, but to the collectivist’s continued claim to the unearned.

The irony, however, is that the collectivists never anticipated Islam when developing their strategy for the looting of the productive. Fighting the belief that an individual is capable of knowing and judging, collectivists have attempted to have individuals trust in the allegations made by government, and to surrender to the will of the government: they have propped up the government as though it were a supernatural, all-knowing, all-powerful god to be obeyed without question. Now that the collectivists have managed to render so many of the governed brainless and obedient, the brainless and obedient are fully ready to accept the Qu’ran as the source of their beliefs (according to the collectivists, they can be certain of nothing, so how could anyone be certain that anything in the Qu’ran is wrong?), and Allah as the all powerful governor to be obeyed (one dictator is as good as the next, so long as he’s the all-provider, right?). But, rest assured, with an Islamic government in place, there will be no tolerance for expressed uncertainty about the will of Allah, or for moral subjectivism; there will be no respect for the equality of the sexes, for polytheists, atheists, gays, lesbians, or bi-sexuals; Jews will have the status given to them many times in the Qu’ran: they will be treated as monkeys and swine; there will not only be inequality of income, but there will be slavery, with Allah’s blessing. And the collectivist who expects his own conduct to have no bearing on what share of the wealth he receives from an Islamic government will suddenly find that he has created the very antithesis of the consequence-free sort of lifestyle he lied and cheated to create: a society in which, finally, by the moral code of Allah, the collectivist gets only what he deserves.

When the collectivist does get what he deserves, let the rational, moral victims of collectivism be the first to exclaim “Allah be praised”! In the meantime, let all who value reason, morality and the freedom of the individual stand by Lars Hedegaard in defence of free speech.

Paul McKeever is leader of the Freedom Party in Canada.

Begin with the nature of Man: an animal that must choose to think, and must think logically about the demonstrable facts of reality (i.e., the ones for which ultimately there is physical evidence), to live and to pursue his own happiness. The nature of man – his absolute need to reason and to act rationally, if he is to continue to exist – dictates the political system that is appropriate to Man. It is easy to speak of “coercive physical force” as being something that should not be used. However, that is just convenient short hand, and it misses the essential. The essential requirement of Man, in society, is that no person take his life, his liberty, or his property *without his consent*.

Politically, *consent* is the essential requirement of all transactions between human beings. No person’s life, liberty, or property is violated if he consents to it. The role of government, then, is to ensure that no person’s life is terminated by another person without the first person’s consent; that no person’s liberty is restricted by another person without the first person’s consent; and that no person obtains another person’s property without the latter person’s consent. In short: the issue is consent.

Force is merely a way to *obviate* the need for consent when obtaining another person’s life, liberty, or property. But it is not the only way to obviate consent. Another is *dishonesty*: by misrepresenting the facts of reality, it is possible to obtain a person’s agreement to give you his life, liberty, or property…agreement, without consent. Hence the propriety of laws against fraud and defamation: acts that obviate the practical need for consent, in the short term. Obviating the need to obtain a person’s consent takes the person’s rational mind out of the equation; obviating consent is the act of treating another human being not as a Man, but as an unthinking animal; obviating consent has no place in a society of Men, and those who obviate consent are not Men, even if, biologically, they are humans.

While you are free, you can act as Man must if he is to survive and pursue his own happiness (i.e., if he is to be, and remain, a Man): you can choose to think rationally, and can act pursuant to those thoughts. Therefore, freedom is: not having your life, liberty, or property taken from you without your consent. In this definition, the inclusion of the concept “consent” implies that we are speaking only of not having ones life, liberty, or property taken by a human being. Man-eating tigers, natural disasters and the like can be constant threats to life, liberty, and property even while you are free.

I will just add that I dislike that definition for two main reasons: it speaks of the absense of something, and it is impersonal. In my view, philosophy should be discussed both in terms of what does exist, and in terms of the personal. Accordingly, the definition should be worded: “Freedom, in a political context, means the state of being the only person having control over the use or disposition of ones own life, liberty, and property“.

Now, on a completely different subject, I received an e-mail today from a friend. It was a report by CBS. Though news to me, it was actually published in 2004. CBS reported, in 2004, that the council of the city of Hamtramck, Michigan was expected to make a noise ordinance amendment so that a mosque in that town could play the Islamic call to prayer five times per day over loudspeakers. The secretary of the mosque in question stated “We are not [proselytizing]…We are calling our Muslim people, reminding them they are obligated to come to pray.” Some defending the request for the ordinance amendment argued that the call to prayer is no different in nature and purpose than the ringing of church bells.

This issue is still relevant, so let’s get into it. But, before getting into the issue of the content of the message, let us deal with the ordinance at hand: it is about noise. There is nothing wrong with a law that limits the volume at which things can be played/sounded. It is a matter concerning the use and enjoyment of property. If I play my music so loudly that the windows of your house are rattling, I am violating your property rights. And, frankly, if I cannot help but hear your music inside my house when my windows and doors are shut, you’re playing it too loudly. The same goes for the idiot with the 16″ woofers who likes driving down my street with the volume up so loud that it almost ruptures my spleen (no doubt he’ll be claiming a moral and legal right to make me pay for his hearing aids – through our socialized health care system – at the ripe old age of 22).

The call to prayer is no different, in terms of volume. If it is playing such that you can hear it in your house, or such that it interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of your property, it is too loud.

More to the point: it is entirely unnecessary to blast such a thing into the air if one lives in a civilized country. The reason: here, we have a little thing called a telephone. If the purpose of the call to prayer is “reminding [Muslims] they are obligated to come to pray”, pick up the phone and call them. Call them five times per day. It’s not difficult. Just ask all of the morons who spam my phone with offers to sell me windows and doors, better telephone plans, and the like. Or speak with any hotel operator about how they manage to automate wake-up calls for their patrons.

Of course, let us be consistent: the same might in some cases go for church bells. They ring bells near my house, though not loudly enough to bother me. But were I living next door to the church – and several do live next door to the church in question – I’d probably want to throttle the guy ringing that bell every Sunday morning when I’m trying to get some sleep. So, in such circumstances, have some respect for your neighbour, and buy an autodialer.

With the noise issue out of the way, let us consider the content of the message. Translated into English, the Islamic call to prayer, “Adhan”, says the following:

God is greater than any description
God is greater than any description
God is greater than any description
God is greater than any description
I testify that there is no deity except for God
I testify that there is no deity except for God
I testify that Muhammad is a Messenger of God
I testify that Muhammad is a Messenger of God
The time for prayer has come
The time for prayer has come
The time for worship has come
The time for worship has come
Prayer is better than sleep
Prayer is better than sleep
God is greater than any description
God is greater than any description
There is no deity except for God
There is no deity except for God

This is no mere call to attend a mosque. Many of the statements in the Adhan having nothing to do with the time of day, or with the act of praying. They are professions of what everyone is supposed to believe, according to Islam. If a person made these statements to you face to face, five times per day, one would rightly conclude that the person is – at the very least – itching for an argument, but more likely: itching for a fist fight.

The simple fact of the matter is that this is not just about noise, and it is not just about calling Muslims to the mosque to pray. Public broadcasting of these statements, five times per day, is intended to create an mysticism-soaked environment akin to that found in the middle east. It is an attempt to force people, five times per day, to deal with someone barking at them that God exists, that Muhammad was his messenger, etc. It is no different, in fact, that someone ringing your phone five times per day and saying nothing at all. It is harassment. It is, as such, intimidation. And it has no place in the airspace of nation that values reality, reason, and the rational (hence peaceful) pursuit of ones own happiness on this earth, in this life.

If you disagree, try the following, and see what happens. In any town where the call to prayer is being blasted 5 times per day, blast the following over loudspeakers at the exact same volume, in the same vicinity:

You cannot describe what does not exist.
God does not exist.
You cannot describe what does not exist.
Allah does not exist.
I testify that there is no deity to describe.
I testify that there is no deity.
I testify that nobody is or ever was a messenger of someone who does not exist.
I testify that nobody ever was a messenger of a god.
The time for rational thought has come.
The time for rational action has come.
The time for honest and independent thought has come.
The time for independent, productive, peaceful action has come.
Praying to figments of your imagination will accomplish nothing good.
Prayer is absolutely worthless.
No deity exists.
This life is the only one you will ever have.
When you’re dead, you will cease to exist.
There is no free lunch, so stop praying and earn your happiness instead.

To add some fun, have a bet with your friends about whether you’ll be mobbed by angry Islamists – or angry Christians, for that matter – before the police arrest you.

Incidentally: the amendment passed as expected. Hamtramck, Michigan is now considered “a model Muslim city”.

Wake up North America, or else prayer will be better than sleep, five times every frigging day, in your town too.

There are certainly times at which the administration of justice or government requires that a person’s face be visually identified. For example, a recent Court of Appeal decision in Ontario notwithstanding, my view is that it is never any more right for a female witness to wear a religious face covering on the stand than it is for a biker to wear his headscarf on his face while giving testimony on the stand. Government-issued photo identification ought to make no exceptions: no face coverings, period, because the purpose of such identification is to ensure that the right person is identified properly with respect to compliance with our laws. We must ensure that we all can visually identify the faces of the government employees who serve us.

Private property extends the same rule-making powers to the property holder. Consequently, one should be free to set the terms pursuant to which any person enters onto or uses ones own private property: if I require you to where lederhosen before stepping into the brewhouse I own, your choices are (a) wear lederhosen, or (b) stay out of my brew house.

However, there is at least one argument in favour of the ‘burqa ban’ that I find wholly indefensible: the argument that we must ban the burqa so that women can be freed of the oppression it represents or causes. Consider the bikini. Thousands of women take to the beaches every summer. Many enjoy wearing shorts and a tee shirt or a bathing suit that provides generous body coverage, and many decide against wearing a bikini. One might rightly argue that religion – or fashion magazines featuring unusually modelesque women in bikinis – impose upon women psychological or social pressure to cover up when on the beach; pressure not to wear a bikini. However, in a free society, it does not follow that we must therefore ban the wearing – by women, on beaches – of shorts, tee-shirts, or bathing suits that provide generous bodily coverage. If a woman wants to wear a parka and snow pants on the beaches of Florida in the summer, no law should prohibit her from doing so.

It does not matter whether the woman’s religion requires her to wear a parka on the beach. She is free to abandon her religion (and she should have the guns of the state to defend her life, liberty, and property from anyone who would try to harm her for leaving her religion).

It does not matter whether photos in Prettier Women Than You Magazine make her want to cover up: magazines are not violations of her life, liberty, or property. Besides, her self-esteem is not something that will be improved by persuading her not to use the beach, or by persuading her into wearing a bikini on the beach even if it makes her feel nothing but shame and embarrassment.

It does not matter that, by wearing a parka on the beach, young girls might be encouraged – or psychologically pressured – similarly to bundle up and join the superstitious, self-loathing, oppressive, collectivist parka cult. None of us are morally obliged to be someone else’s allegedly-good role model, in a free society.

The female oppression argument in favour of banning the burqa or niqab is every bit as irrelevant and silly as the oppression argument in favour of banning the wearing of parkas at the beach. As I say above, there are legitimate reasons for the state – or the private property owner – to require the removal of facial coverings. Defending a woman from the responsibility of having to decide whether or not voluntarily to submit to the dictates of a religion is not a reason that has any merit in a free society.

Islam, which means “obedience”, involves a belief in an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent entity named Allah. It involves a belief that the Quran is the unadulterated word of Allah. It involves a belief that the only law that man must obey is Allah’s. It has zero tolerance for the notion that man has authority to determine laws for himself, or to act in accordance with beliefs that are contrary to those laid down for him in the Quran. Like other religions – including Christian ones – Islam regards obedience to the word of Allah to be the highest of virtues, and self-sacrifice to be the highest good. It regards man’s highest purpose to be: do what Allah tells you to do, the way Allah tells you to do it. In short, like virtually all religions, Islam is founded upon superstition, founds beliefs upon faith rather than upon reason, condemns rational egoism while praising altruism, and – as a consequence of all of that – stands in strenuous opposition to individual freedom, capitalism, and democracy. The only society truly compatible with Islam is a theocratic, collectivist one.

Islam has spread through Africa and Europe, and is slowly increasing its influence in North America. This is less a function of religious conversion, and more a function of migration. The migration of theocrats, and their power to vote in the very democracies they despise, is gradually allowing proponents of theocracy to take governmental control in formerly freer, non-theocratic states. If North Americans do nothing to stop Islam’s advance, the West will eventually fall into darkness, and the “infidel’s” blood will be spilled until there are no more infidels to behead.

So, what is a proponent of reason and individual freedom – i.e., what is a Westerner – to do?

Plans to build a mosque near “Ground Zero” (the location of the World Trade Towers that were leveled by the most obedient of Islamists on 9/11) have outraged many. It has been said to be an insult by some, a provocation by others, or even a military-like stronghold for the enemy. Consequently, there are those who want to prohibit the building of a shiny new mosque near “Ground Zero”, or to bomb it to the ground if it is built. However, a mosque is just a building. If one, some, or all of them were places where violations of life, liberty or property were planned, eliminating every single one of them would not stop the promotion or conduct of such conspiracies. A dark corner at a McDonalds, or a bowling alley, may well suffice for such purposes. Even an Islamic Bingo Hall might do the trick (“Under the Q…”). You cannot stop the communication of ideas or plans by bombing bricks and mortar.

President George W. Bush, and most of the Western world, have spent billions, and gallons of blood, and thousands of lives, to “bring democracy” to Islamic countries. Their mistake was to confuse elections with democracy. Democracy (“demos” = “people”; “kratos” = “power”) contrasts with theocracy not by way of elections, or some misguided notion of majority rule, but by a belief about the source of governmental power: democracy is the belief that the government’s power comes from the governed, whereas theocracy (“god-power”) is the belief that the government’s power is delegated to it by a god (i.e., that government is merely the hand of a god). You can bring voting systems to anyone you want: it won’t change a hardened belief that Allah is the source of all governmental power and all law. Wherever theocrats are or become a sufficient percentage of the voting population, elections merely re-arrange deck-chairs on a societal Titanic.

Finally, there are those who burn books to prevent the communication of the words or ideas expressed in them. Even the West is full of such people, who – literally or figuratively – would prefer the burning (or other elimination) of everything from Hustler Magazine, to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, to…the Quran. Short of some ignoramus managing to destroy every copy of the Quran, and to murder everyone who has even heard about it, book burning will not prevent the communication of the Quran’s toxic brew of anti-reality, anti-reason, self-destructive, collectivist theocratic words and beliefs. Besides, even were such a murderer to be successful in wiping every trace of Islam from the face of the globe, he would fail miserably. There is no shortage of similar substitutes, including such enduring tomes as Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, and Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”. Indeed, even were all such books – and their supporters – destroyed, it would be a matter of seconds before someone would invent another god or fuehrer or collective; another faith-based attack on reason; another set of mystical or dictatorial or majority-rule commandments that we all sacrifice ourselves for someone else’s alleged good; another collective defined by divine selection, by genetic purity, or by the whims of the incompetent; another explanation that government gets its power not from the governed, but from a god, or from a fuehrer, or from the whim of an elusive body corporate. You cannot, by physical means, prevent the communication or adoption of irrational ideas.

If you agree with me this far, you might well now consider why some Muslims would get so upset that some utter nobody in Florida is planning to burn some copies of the Quran. He isn’t proposing the destruction of a mosque. He isn’t threatening to bring elections to a theocratic country. And his burning of the Quran won’t stop a single person from reading it. Why the anger? What is the threat?

The answer is: irreverence. At its root, it is an expressed and offensive denial of something that someone else holds as a value.

Irreverence is expressed in many ways. One of the most potent is ridicule. In his book Rules for Radicals, leftist activist Saul Alinsky wrote insightfully:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

A famous example in the history of reason and freedom is that of Galileo. In his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems he put the Pope’s pro-geocentric view (the view that the sun moves around the Earth) into the mouth of the fictional character Simplicio (the simpleton), thereby (intentionally or unintentionally) mocking both the geocentric view provided by the bible and those who hold and promote it, including the then Pope himself. Galileo’s book was banned shortly after its publication, and he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. But here I am telling you the story because physical force had no ability to stop the communication of ideas and beliefs. I can now tell you that the bible contains falsehoods concerning physics and call Pope Urban a simpleton (if I am so inclined) with virtually no fear that Pope Benedict will sentence me to house arrest for my heresy.

The famous Danish Mohammed cartoons are much more recent case in point. The cartoons (and the cartoonists) ridiculed Mohammed, and thereby ridiculed Islam, Allah, and anyone who believes in such mumbo jumbo. The reaction by scores of Islamics in Europe was violence and vandalism. The advantage gained by the cartoonists (and the West): the violent reaction resulted in more publications of the Mohammed cartoons; in more ridicule; in more irreverence for Islam. Most importantly, it inspired more interest in, research of, and commentary about what was in the Quran that would cause its adherents to engage in such a violent reaction. Just as destroying mosques does not stop the growth of Islamic communication and belief but instead fortifies it, breaking glass and burning cars was ineffective as a response to ridicule by the West. Indeed, such brutality only served to increase ridicule directed at Islam, the things it values, and the people who choose to practice it.

Book burning is not ridicule, but it is certainly irreverence. Burning copies of the Quran will not stop people from being able to read or hear about the Quran, but it will cause people to wonder if maybe it is worthy of being burned. Few are willing to accept on faith the alleged harmlessness of a book that others are so committed to destroy. Burning the Quran will cause people to be wary of Islam; to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the book that drove a handful of men to murder thousands on September 11, 2001, might be worthy of condemnation. It will cause many rational people to read it, to read about it, and to otherwise discover that its message is anti-reality, anti-reason, anti-happiness, anti-freedom, and – hence – anti-life.

The outrage we now see around the globe about Reverend Jones’ plan to burn the Quran is founded upon the knowledge that irreverence is a potent weapon in its defence against the advance of Islam and Islamic tyranny. Those threatening or implying destruction, violence, or murder will be the response to the Reverend’s conduct know, full well, that his simple act of putting flame to paper harms their cause more than any attack helicopter or stealth bomber. He is not only lighting up a book, but causing minds to switch on and attend to the task of shaking off North America’s timid moral subjectivism at least enough to condemn the belief system that, at present, poses the greatest threat to individual freedom, to the individual’s ability to pursue his own happiness, and to the ability of man to identify and harness the facts of reality.

In this light, let us consider the responses of the various purportedly Western voices that are condemning Jones and his proposed book burning. All such voices, being victims or perpetrators of moral relativism, have confused – or deliberately conflated – political tolerance with moral tolerance. With respect to matters of politics, tolerance refers to refraining from coercive or fraudulent reactions against a person whose physical appearance, beliefs, words or deeds do not deprive you, non-consensually, of your life, liberty or property. With respect to matters of morality, tolerance refers to withholding both praise and condemnation in respect of a person’s beliefs, words, or conduct. In the political realm, tolerance is a corollary of individual freedom. In the ethical realm, tolerance is just a tarted up synonym for moral subjectivism. And, normally, moral subjectivists are quick to blur the distinction, implying that a person who verbally condemns, say, a person’s religion, is somehow being politically intolerant and anti-freedom.

But moral subjectivists are not the only ones conflating the moral with the political. Today, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters:

“I don’t speak very often about my own religion but let me be very clear: My God and my Christ is a tolerant God, and that’s what we want to see in this world…I unequivocally condemn [Jones' plan]…We all enjoy freedom of religion and that freedom of religion comes from a tolerant spirit.”

Let the irrational deny it, but let the rational observe it. There are many who, fearing that their own irrational beliefs will be the subject of irreverence, will come screaming to the defence of the Islamists who are killing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan; who aided or abetted the murder of thousands on September 11, 2001. Out of fear that their own irrationalities will become the subject of irreverence, our religious politicians are condemning those who condemn Islam precisely because those who condemn Islam condemn irrational, faith-based, religious beliefs, as such. Self-servingly, such politicians are passing off ethical condemnation as though it were political intolerance.

Earlier today, Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay similarly condemned Jones’ plan, stating that “This initiative is insulting to Muslims and Canadians of all faiths who understand that freedom of thought and freedom of religion are fundamental to our way of living”. Paraphrase: you are intolerant, hence anti-freedom, if you freely think and thereby morally condemn a silly or evil religious belief (or system of beliefs). MacKay’s tail-chasing follows yesterday’s statements by General David Petraeus, who similarly condemned Jones’ plan, saying that “images of the burning of the Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence.” Both men – and scores of others having the same intellectual depth, such as Angelina Jolie – somehow worry Jones’ planned act will interfere with Western soldiers’ efforts to win the hearts of Islamists. The central message of all of these folks is: nobody should ever treat Islam with such irreverence because such irreverence will cause Islamists to resort to violence, destruction, and murder and to hate the West. Unbelievably, such folks believe that those who are so easily goaded into violence, destruction and murder are somehow just on the verge of being converts to Western civility, democracy, freedom, and the like. To the contrary, if such uncivilized conduct is the result of Jones’ Quran burning, the West should – once and for all – accept that its efforts have been a misguided failure; a self-deceptive draping of lamb’s clothes over wolves.

In reality, irreverence is the West’s intellectual H-bomb. The General, and the Defence Minister, and all of the others begging or threatening Jones not to proceed with the burning are the West’s intellectual peaceniks. Though they are quite willing to blow billions on physical weapons and electoral systems that cannot – even theoretically – fight effectively the spread of irrationality and evil, they are simultaneously calling for a self-imposed shelving of one of the West’s most effective weapons. While the Islamists teach their brethren to club Western “infidels” with “dirty kuffar” irreverence – even in mosques located in the West – the intellectual peaceniks are calling for the West to dismantle its entire stockpile of intellectual nukes; to simultaneously tolerate Islam’s irreverence for reason and freedom; to sit in non-judgmental silence for the blade to be put to our throats.

Screw that. If our soldiers have been put in the way of people who may turn on them at something so remote and tiny as a Florida minister playing with matches, get them out of there now.

In the meantime, lock ‘n load. Then, burn baby. Burn.

In the comments section of the blog post about the Rahn Curve, I essentially ‘promised’ a video response. The argument below may be a bit more precise, but I did in fact prepare a video in which I opine extemporaneously upon the same subject discussed in this post. For those who would rather watch and listen than read, I include that video response below:

There should be little argument that the Center’s video is being presented by an organization that wants the world to view it as advocating individual freedom. Were that not the case, I sincerely doubt that the “Center for Freedom and Prosperity” would bother mentioning freedom, and would instead call itself something like “The Centre for National Prosperity” (a name that would be more fitting). In the video, the Center’s spokesperson is Dan Mitchell, a libertarian economist who is both a founder of the Center, and is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute takes its name from Cato’s Letters, which the Institute describes as “…a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.” The Cato Institute states that its mission is: “…to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.” In short, the video is presented by entities that wish to be regarded as advocates of individual freedom.

The purpose of the video is informed by the fact that those providing the video wish to be regarded, in doing so, as advocates of individual freedom. Accordingly, the arguments set out in the video purport to be arguments in defence of individual freedom (hence, of capitalism). So let us turn to the content of the video for the purposes of determining whether the video’s message strengthens or undermines the case for individual freedom.

The video gets off to a bad start. The “Rahn Curve” graph does not disclose what, exactly, is being plotted. The X axis is labeled ambiguously as “Economic Performance”, and the Y axis is labeled just as ambiguously: “Size of Government”. That ambiguous labeling, together with such narrative as “But you the viewer only need to understand one thing”, suggests that the producers of the video are not very concerned with having viewers actually understand the curve, so long as viewers accept the curve as economic proof that government is currently too big. With not too much googling, one can find for oneself the units that the Center thought should be replaced with ambiguous terms. Values on the X axis (which the Center labels “Economic Performance”) are actually: Percentages of Annual Growth in GDP. Values on the Y axis are (which the Center calls “Size of Government”) are: Percentages of Annual GDP that is Spent by Government”.

Mitchell tells the viewer that “economic performance” is maximized when government spending (a.k.a., the “size of government”) is somewhere in the range of 15% to 25% of GDP. He goes on to deliver the video’s take-home message: because U.S. government spending is in the 35% to 40% range, the Rahn curve demonstrates “…that government is too big, and this is reducing prosperity”.

As an aside, I should add that, given that that which is spent by government must first also be taxed by government, it should not be surprising that the Rahn Curve has the same shape as the Laffer Curve. Yet the Rahn Curve is presented to the viewer as though it is a second piece of evidence that there is a right size for government.

There are numerous problems with the Center’s use of the Rahn Curve as a basis for advocating individual freedom. First, consider the implications of an alleged freedom advocate advocating the maximization of annual growth in GDP. GDP growth is not a measure of the increase of any particular individual’s productivity, but of the increase of the productivity of a collective entity: the country, or nation. Because the Center is advocating the maximization of GDP growth as a desired goal, it is implicitly advocating for the interests of a collective (the country, the nation), whether or not such a goal is in the interest of a particular individual. In other words, the Center is necessarily advocating in favour of what utilitarians and other collectivists are prone to calling “the greater good” (“greater”, as in: “of greater importance than the good of any one individual”).

One cannot seriously expect to found the advocacy of individual freedom upon maximization of something that designed to serve “the greater good”; the good of the collective. When one uses the economic benefit of the greater good as the basis for arguing that individual freedom is desirable, one instantly undermines the cause of individual freedom. Every instance of individual freedom that leads to an economic result in which the collective does less well than it otherwise would have done but for the individual freedom serves as an argument against individual freedom. Does the use of marijuana, or alcohol, or opiates decrease growth in the collective productivity of the country? If so, then the result of alleged individual freedom advocates holding up collective productivity growth as a desired goal implies that some of the revenue spent by government should be used to force individuals not to use such substances. The violation of liberty is thereby held up as somehow being consistent with, or even necessary for, the defence of individual freedom.

Second, the assertion that there is an ideal size of government, together with the assumption that the size of government is properly measured by spending as a percentage of GDP, implies that it is ideal for the government to grow – more precisely, that it is ideal for government spending to grow — as GDP grows. The Center for Freedom and Prosperity having as one of its aims greater productivity, the Center is, ironically, advocating the continuous growth of government (assuming the economy continues to grow). So, if one starts with the libertarian notion that “the best government is the government that governs least” (i.e., that smaller government is necessarily more compatible with individual freedom than is bigger government), one is left with the self-defeating spectacle of libertarians implicitly arguing for ever-growing government; a growth allegedly serving “the greater good”.

Worse, the Center provides us with not even an attempt to explain why productivity growth leads to a situation in which government needs more money. If one individual’s efforts increase the productivity of the country, it does not follow that that productivity increase causes a state of affairs in which defending life, liberty, and property becomes more expensive. The notion that government spending should increase as a percentage of GDP is a welfare statist conception, founded upon the notion that so long as the percentage of wealth stolen from the public does not change, there is no harm done: the amount of wealth transferred from the increasingly productive to the under-productive or non-productive can increase as the economy grows. Such wealth redistribution, being accomplished by a gun pointed by government at the head of every producer, is neither an incentive for production nor consistent with the role of government in a free society: defending every individual’s life, liberty, and property.

Third, government spending is, itself, an ambiguous concept. There is simply no way that “government spending” per se, is necessarily good or necessarily bad for productivity growth. Law enforcement is not, per se, good or bad for productivity. For example, the supposedly ideal 20% recommended in the video could be spent on defending every individual’s life, liberty and property. Trade requires that a person’s property not be obtained without his consent so, clearly, if government pays officers to ensure that nobody obtains another person’s property by such means as theft or fraud, productivity will be higher than were government to allow thefts and frauds to occur. But productivity will be undermined if government uses exactly the same amount of money to pay officers to force stores or factories to close on Sundays or religious holidays, or to seize the property of milk farmers who sell milk directly to consumers instead of complying with a law requiring them to buy quotas and sell their milk only to a milk marketing board.

As another example, the government can spend $1.8M Canadian tax dollars to pay a year’s salary to approximately 6 Canadian judges who will try and convict murderers, rapists, and thieves. Alternatively, the government can spend that $1.8M Canadian tax dollars to buy a painting comprised of three vertical stripes (“Voice of Fire“). The arrest and conviction of criminals will facilitate productivity and trade, but the purchase — by a non-productive entity such as government – of three lines on a canvas, will not increase productivity. To the contrary, the government’s purchase of the painting may well reduce productivity by taking money out of the hands of producers (i.e., taxpayers) who would have used the money as capital with which to facilitate more valuable production.

Fourth, in a political context, individual freedom means: not having ones life, liberty, or property taken without ones consent. Individual freedom is not a reference to government using force (i.e., laws, backed by guns) in an attempt to maximize the increase of the collective productivity of the country’s inhabitants. Individual freedom is not a reference to government using force to increase tax revenues and government spending when the country’s productivity increases. Individual freedom does not refer to government using force to redistribute wealth from those who produce it to those who do not. All such uses of force in the economy are instances of the very coercion from which the government is supposed to be protecting individuals. They are instances of the very crimes for which the government rightly arrests and imprisons people. They are evidence that the government now regards itself as being above the law.

The whole notion of “smaller government”, similarly, has nothing per se to do with individual freedom. Individual freedom depends upon the quality of government, not the quantity of it. Individual freedom is not a function of how big or small a government is, per se, but of how effective government is in defending every individual’s life, liberty or property; how effective it is in ensuring that no person is deprived of his life, liberty or property without his consent. A small government that does not defend life, liberty and property is less desirable than a big government that limits itself to doing so. Therefore it makes no sense to assert that there is a given percentage of GDP that the government should take and spend (i.e., it makes no sense to advocate that there is a right size for government based upon economic figures). A government’s expenditures will properly depend upon such things as how much crime there is; how many thieves, rapists, and murderers there are, et cetera. A largely moral and peaceful society with a given GDP will be much less expensive to govern than a largely immoral and violent one with the same GDP.

Now, if neither the alleged size of government nor the quantitative arguments of economics has anything to do with individual freedom, why do many libertarians spend so much time calling for “less government”? Why do libertarians base so many of their arguments upon the attainment of economic goals? The answer to both questions is rooted in the fact that economics deals not with the qualities of things, but with the quantities of things; it deals explicitly not with right and wrong, but with more and less. And, because economics deals with quantities instead of with qualities, an economic argument gives libertarians a rallying cry to attract individuals whose qualitative opinions about government differ greatly, or are even in opposition.

For example, quantitative economic arguments in support of “small government” allow libertarians to attract religious anti-abortionists who want to take away government’s ability to fund abortions, while also attracting anti-religious pro-choicers who want government to stop funding (or to stop providing tax breaks for) religions that oppose a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. The result is a libertarian group that claims to advocate individual freedom though its members cannot agree about whether doctors who provide abortion services should be protected from those who bomb abortion clinics, or whether such doctors ought to be given the death penalty.

The libertarian’s conscious or unconscious attraction to economics is founded upon the hope that if you give people common quantitative conclusions with which they can agree, they will voluntarily stick their heads in the sand, or keep their mouths shut, with respect to the qualitative commitments that make their fellow libertarians their political enemies. And so we have libertarians who rally behind the anti-abortion Ron Paul, a proponent of Austrian economics, joining with libertarians who rallied behind – and continue to praise – pro-choice libertarians like Murray Rothbard who, similarly, was a proponent of Austrian economics.

In discussing libertarians, I do not imply that I restrict my criticism – concerning the use of economics to justify individual freedom, or to bring people together despite their substantive opposition – to libertarians or members of Libertarian parties. The same misguided attraction to economics imperils other political parties. For example, in a recent interview of blogger Andrew Lawton by Libertas Post, Lawton took the libertarian position that health care should be entirely privatized. Lawton is anti-abortion and he considers himself a “social conservative”. Yet he told Libertas Post that “at the end of the day, I think the most important issues that we have to work on as conservatives are the issues that we agree on, which are economic issues”. Like the big L libertarians, the big C conservatives attempt to use economics as a no-conflict zone between warring factions who somehow think it desirable, for electoral ends, to work together though their desired governmental ends are mutually exclusive.

However, unlike libertarians and Libertarians, conservatives and Conservatives do not seek to be seen as advocates for individual freedom, and generally do not hold themselves out to be such. Accordingly, trying to unite people with economics does little to undermine the case for individual freedom when it is conservatives who engage in such folly. If anything, it undermines conservatism.

In contrast, when libertarians – holding themselves out to be proponents of individual freedom — use economic arguments to bring together individuals who oppose one another on qualitative matters (e.g., anti-abortion vs. pro-choice), each instance of disagreement on such fundamental qualitative matters — among alleged advocates of individual freedom — serves to convince the public that “individual freedom” itself is itself an ambiguous concept; individual freedom itself is undermined.

The prospects for individual freedom would be undermined even more were libertarians — having been drawn together by economic arguments — somehow to win the reigns of governmental power. Returning to the abortion example, when conservatives disagree about abortion, and decide upon a “compromise” law in which women are free to have abortions in the first five months of pregnancy, but in which abortions conducted thereafter are punishable by imprisonment, the wisdom or insanity of the law is attributed to conservativism or to a Conservative party.

In contrast, were a governing libertarian party — a governing party that claims to be comprised of proponents of individual freedom — to adopt the same 5-month law for abortions in order to accomplish the same comprise between its anti-abortionist and pro-choice membership, what would that tell the onlooking public? It would tell the public a range of falsehoods: that “individual freedom is not absolute”; that compromise is, per se, a virtue, and is necessary; that “individual freedom is good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice”; that, ultimately, any argument in favour of individual freedom is flawed; that advocates of individual freedom are “naive” and should be ignored. In short, even were it possible to use economic arguments to unite de facto political opponents to win an election, the winning of the electoral battle would only serve to undermine the cause of individual freedom.

Nothing I have said about economics should be interpreted as a condemnation of economics itself. To the contrary, economics explains a great deal that should be known and that can help producers and consumers make wise choices. However, in a free society, economic choices are made by producers, who trade their respective values consensually. If the economic aim of a government is a free market, the government can ignore economic arguments altogether, and simply ensure that all trades a mutually consensual. Any other economic aim pursued by government (e.g., increasing government revenues and expenditures as the economy grows so as to maximize the productivity growth of the country), with or without economic knowledge, necessarily will involve using force to coerce individuals to part with their values non-consensually.

Accordingly, in a free society, economic arguments are of no use to government except for the identifying instances where an individual’s life, liberty or property is being taken without his consent (e.g., arguments about the nature and effect of fractional reserve banking, monetary inflation, the use of gold as money, et cetera). Any economic argument in favour of government having an economic aim other than a free market serves not to defend individual freedom, but to undermine it.

The men are not in an Arabic country. They are not in a European city. They are in Dearborn, Michigan, USA, and the police arresting them are bound by the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Readers of this blog will know that I do not believe in anything for which there is no physical evidence. There is no evidence supporting the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being. A belief in such a being is a matter not of rationality, but of faith.

So, in what I consider to be an ideal free society – in a society the laws of which are wholly consistent with reality, reason, and rational self-interest – is the conduct of the Dearborn police a proper response to the conduct of the four men? My answer is an unequivocal “No”. This case provides a brilliant example of why governance must be strictly rational; why a government must entirely ignore claims based upon faith if those who have faith are to be free; why “freedom of religion” requires secular governance.

In the absence of people willing to provide for his needs, a man’s survival requires that he choose to think, and that he thinks logically about the evidence provided to his senses about the nature of reality. If he lands on a desert island, he must locate water and make it drinkable; he must locate food and obtain it; etc. If he is to survive, he must not be deprived of the values (e.g., the food and water) that he has created or obtained by means of his rational thought and action. He must hold his own life – not his death – as his highest value; his own happiness – not his misery, suffering, and poverty – as his highest purpose; and rationality – not wishing and praying – as his only effective means of achieving his purpose. And, if a man is to survive amongst others, he must not be deprived of his control over his values: nobody must be permitted to take his life, to restrict his liberty, or to take his property, without his consent. Accordingly, to ensure that he is not so deprived of his life, liberty, and property, he chooses others to defend his life, liberty and property from others who would take such things without his consent.

The result is not that he necessarily thinks rationally, survives or achieves happiness. The result is that he is free to think and act rationally so that he can maximize his chances of surviving and achieving his own happiness.

It is not the government’s role to force him to think rationally, to ensure that he survives, or to ensure that he achieves his own happiness. It is not the government’s role to force him to abandon reason and simply believe in and obey – as a matter of faith – the alleged word of an alleged god; or to require him to sacrifice himself for others. In a free society, governed rationally, every man is free to live a life according to the beliefs he holds as a matter of faith so long as he does not deprive another person of the person’s life, liberty, or property without the person’s consent. And, so long as the man of faith does not end another person’s life, restrict another person’s liberty, or take another person’s property without the person’s consent, he is free to profess his faith, and to persuade others to discover and share it.

Should the police have attended where the four men were distributing the Gospel of John? Possibly, in defence of the four men: if anyone was preventing those four men from offering their booklets peacefully to oncoming individuals – and I do not know of any evidence that the men were being so prevented – then most certainly. And, in such a case, the proper response of the police would be to use force to prevent everyone from attempting forcibly to prevent the men from doing so…whether or not the wrongdoers were yelling “Allahu Akbar”. Otherwise, the appropriate decision of the police would have been to do nothing at all.

Rahim Jaffer, abortion, the Toronto Gay Pride parade – these three issues have recently involved the Conservative government in heated debate. There is a common thread to these seemingly unrelated issues. They all illustrate what happens to a conservative government when it increases, rather than decreases, the size of the state.

I agree with Flanagan’s if-thens (i.e., ‘if they hadn’t been funding such things, this scandal would never have arisen’), but Flanagan errs in identifying the “size” of government as the problem. That argument is essentially the libertarian one, derived from anarchist Henry David Thoreau:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — “That government is best which governs not at all” (from “Civil Disobedience”)

There are all sorts of people, with conflicting philosophies, who call themselves “libertarian” and who band together with others who call themselves “libertarian”. What they all have in common, to one extent or another, in certain ways or in others, is a desire for “less government”. Yet, though many libertarians gleefully chant that “That government is best which governs least”, many intentionally stop short, and blank out with the rest of what Thoreau said: “it finally amounts to this” – no government at all. Thoreau was correct: if less government is better, that necessarily implies that anarchy is best.

Tom Flanagan is no anarchist. Like other libertarians, he has mis-identified the essential issue. Ask yourself whether you would say one gram is “too much” or “too little” when it comes to “the stuff in your bowl”. If it is a gram of stew, most hungry people (who like stew) will say one gram is “too little”. If it is rat poison, all but the suicidal will say one gram is “too much”. The essential issue is not how much is in the bowl, but what is in the bowl.

If government is properly defined (e.g., loosely: a group of citizens authorized by the governed to use force and the threat of force to prevent persons from taking any other person’s life, liberty or property without the latter’s consent) then one can start talking about how much government is too much government. However, if “government” means nothing more than: “a group of citizens authorized by the governed to use force and the threat of force to ensure compliance with laws made in a duly elected legislature”, then talk of “too much” or “too little” government is meaningless.

The Conservatives’ problem is not a matter of quantity, but of quality. Like all Canadian ‘governments’ before them, the Conservatives fancy it to be the role of government to use force to prevent individuals from making ‘bad’ decisions – or to force them to make ‘good’ decisions – even when those decisions do not involve the violation of anyone’s life, liberty, or property (e.g., merely self-destructive acts, like using drugs to avoid facing and dealing with ones own responsibilities or problems). In other words: the Conservatives have assumed a parenting role, instead of assuming the peace and order role that they ought to be assuming: defending every adult individual’s freedom to make, for themselves, both good and bad choices that do not involve non-consensual conduct.

In the cases of Jaffer, Abortion, and Pride, the Harper Conservatives took property from those who earned it – without the consent of those who earned it – and gave or loaned the money to those who did not earn it. That is the very sort of conduct for which a government imprisons people. The gang we have now – like all of the gangs we have gotten since 1867 – masquerading as a government, in reality fancies government itself to be above the law.

In the end, the issue isn’t “less government” or “more government”. As always, the political issue is consent. Specifically, the Conservatives are taking money from people who earn it, and without the consent of those who earn it, and handing the money to those who did not earn it: they are stepping outside the role of government, and into the role of organized criminals. Accordingly, the Conservatives’ more fundamental error is one of identification: a failure to identify the nature of a “government”, and to distinguish it from the nature of “elected criminal organization”

McKeever opposes Emery’s extradition, and says extraditing Emery would be a violation of Canada’s Extradition Act. “Anyone who watches Part 2 of The Principle of Pot will clearly understand that the USA is seeking Emery’s extradition because of the political nature of his cannabis seed campaign”, says McKeever. “In my view, even if someone were somehow to doubt that the USA seeks to imprison Emery because of his political influence, Emery’s political beliefs and conduct would at the very least result in him being prejudiced in any American court. In either case, the Extradition Act prohibits the Justice Minister from extraditing Emery, and I explain that more fully in The Principle of Pot (Part 2).”

Emery’s opponents, and the U.S. authorities who demanded his arrest in Halifax, have attempted to portray Emery as a profit-motivated drug dealer. “The Principle of Pot” demonstrates that Marc Emery was at all times carrying out political campaigns. Part 1 of McKeever’s documentary demonstrated that Emery was an individual freedom activist long before getting involved in the marijuana legalization issue. Part 2 goes deep into Emery’s marijuana-related activism, explains the surprising origins of his involvement in the marijuana legalization issue, uncovers Emery’s widely misunderstood goal, and a gives a rare and revealing look at his behind-the-scenes master strategy and tactics.

McKeever commenced production of the two-part documentary in November of 2008. Being the result of countless hours of research, interviews, writing and editing, the video includes audio, video and textual information that has never been seen in any profile of Emery. Much of the audio and video having been drawn from the archives of Freedom Party of Ontario (with which Emery was active until 1990), it has never before been seen by the general public or media.

Part 2 has a run time of approximately 157 minutes. It has been broken into 6 parts for easier online watching. To watch all six consecutively, viewers should use the following URL:

The six parts can be viewed consecutively by going to the following Autoplay URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVmU_BGs9U&feature=PlayList&p=28E1BAEA38B29924&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

Links to all six parts can be found at the following Playlist URL: http://www.youtube.com/user/PaulMcKeever#grid/user/28E1BAEA38B29924

Paul McKeever’s Youtube Channel URL is: http://www.youtube.com/paulmckeever

Part 2-1: “The Emperor Wears No Clothes”; marijuana book censorship; The 2 Live Crew (cont’d); why marijuana was made illegal; a failed strategy; Sunday shopping success; good bye London, hello India; from civil disobedience to civil rights movement; millions of law-breakers: the oppression of the marijuana people; morality and heroism: Roark versus Jesus; the Howard Roark of Cannabis?; facts versus warmth and sensitivity; “seething hatred for the state”; Jesus of Nazareth.

Part 2-2: 1994-2001 – Emery’s Plan; Hemp BC; Cannabis Canada; U.S. interference; Cannabis Culture; raids on Hemp BC; Marc Emery Direct seeds; Pot TV; Cannabis Culture; Marijuana Party of Canada; BC Marijuana Party; Vansterdam.

Part 2-3: Iboga Therapy House; 2002 Vancouver Mayoral election; 2002 Canadian Senate Report on Marijuana; Emery visits the U.S Drug Czar; 2003: the summer of legalization and the winter of our discontent; the hand-off.

Part 2-4: from abstract principles to concrete allegations of fact; a liar with guns; the NDP, socialism, and libertarianism; 90 days imprisonment for passing a joint; the bible, the Christians, and the marijuana people; prophesy and destiny.

Part 2-5: 2005 raid on Marc Emery’s Cannabis Culture HQ; arrest of Marc Emery, Michelle Rainey, and Greg Williams; U.S. DEA Extradition request; plea deals; North Fraser Pre-Trial; 2010 Olympics; Scott Reid, Libby Davies, and Ujjal Dosanjh petitions in the House of Commons / Parliament; Stephen Harper on YouTube; marijuana legalization; death of Jack Herer.

Part 2-6: the issues facing Canada’s Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, as he makes his decision about whether or not to extradite Marc Emery to the United States of America; analysis of Emery’s 20 year strategy, including its philosophical and practical implications.