A member of the facebook.com community asked:
“Can someone explain to me in 5 sentences or less what objectivism is and how it differs from libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism without saying “it’s Ayn Rand’s philosophy,” telling me to read a book, or sending me a hyperlink. I just want a short explanation. That’s all. —> EDIT: Use a dozen sentences if necessary. Just don’t write a novel or use philosophical lingo I won’t understand.”
I replied as follows: Read more
Michael Chong’s proposed Reform Act, 2013 has been praised as a bill that would shift each party leaders’ power to their respective caucus members, thereby revitalizing an allegedly withered role of Parliament’s confidence in government, and facilitating a broader diversity of party policies and philosophies in Parliament. Whatever the merits of such arguments, they miss the essential nature and function of Mr. Chong’s would-be law, and the threat that it poses to democracy itself. The bill should be rejected by all MPs worthy of re-election. Read more
The headline aroused my suspicions right away: “Tim Hudak Seeks Andrea Horwath Support“. The story that followed it was comprised mostly of an open letter that the Progressive Conservative party leader, Tim Hudak, had written to New Democratic Party leader Andrea Horwath (and shared with everyone who would bother to read it). The letter started with a host of insults and attacks: Horwath and her party “don’t grasp” that the governing Liberal Party of Kathleen Wynne is not serving the public; are shockingly “not troubled” by Liberal corruption and moral bankruptcy; are “enabling” the Liberals; have priorities that are “in sync” with the Liberals; have chosen not to “put the needs of Ontario first”, etc.. It concluded with “So let’s sit down and talk about it, sooner rather than later.” In other words, it was a punch in the nose followed by a feigned invitation to kiss and work together. “Bush league”, I thought, “Hudak wants everyone to believe the falsehood that he wants to work with Horwath, and wants everyone to believe that Horwath refuses”. Read more
If you’re smart, they’ll say that you cheated on your exams, or that you’re ugly (and they’ll draw you accordingly).
If you’re beautiful, they’ll say you are stupid, and that you cheat by using your body – instead of your brain – to get ahead.
If you’re wealthy, they’ll say that you are stupid or ugly, and that you would be poor if you didn’t cheat others to get what you have.
The smart, the beautiful, and the wealthy are derided by the stupid, the ugly, and the poor for being stupid, ugly, or poor.
Their hatred of you is proof that they hate themselves, and resort to dishonesty – to cheating – to hide that fact from themselves.
My youngest child’s iphone was stolen at his school gym. So here – after a Sunday dinner discussion – are some of the new iPhone apps/hardware mods that the extended McKeever clan would like to see developed: Read more
Tim Hudak, leader of the Progressive Conservative official opposition in Ontario, is pinning his electoral hopes on a proposal to introduce “right to work” legislation: a law that makes it illegal to make employment conditional on the employee’s membership in a union. Union talking heads – especially Ontario Federation of Labour chief Sid Ryan – as well as many in the media refer to right to work laws as an instance of “union bashing” or “union busting”. What almost never gets mentioned is that right to work laws also bash employers. Far from being a capitalist tool, right to work laws are just another leftist assault on capitalism. Read more
The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party commenced a three-day policy convention in London, Ontario, today (September 20, 2013). For that reason, I tuned into “London Today” with host Andy Oudman, who can always be counted upon to deliver compelling political radio discussion. The show was a magnificent piece of civic reportage (click here to listen to it). The PC party’s key local membership – who called in to the show – illustrated that the PC party is a conflicted mess in political free-fall.
That free-fall is not confined to London. Read more
In 2010, I produced my third episode of “Freedom School” with an actual group of people in London (the entire Freedom School series is available as a playlist on youtube, here) who were members or supporters of the political party I lead in Ontario, Canada: Freedom Party of Ontario (FPO). At one point during the session, the issue arose of what an FPO candidate or representative should call him/herself if he faces the “Are you liberal, conservative, libertarian?” question. My position then – as now – is that the candidate/representative should not call himself an “Objectivist” (which is a term referring to someone whose personal philosophy is that identified by author/philosopher Ayn Rand), but I didn’t get into why I held that position (the conversation went off in a different direction). Recently (see e-mails below) two Objectivists who have watched episode 3 of Freedom School have asked for my reasons. I’ve decided here to present, briefly, my reasoning against using the term “Objectivist” to refer to ones political orientation in an electoral context, and also to explain what a FPO supporter (and all others who share FPO’s views on the proper way to govern) should call himself. Read more
The role of Ontario’s official Opposition is to oppose bills or governmental actions that the Opposition believe are wrong in one way or another. To do that job effectively, the Opposition cannot afford to engage in the very wrong of which it is criticizing the government. However, when the Opposition falsely equates the government’s violation of a good law with the Opposition’s compliance with a bad law, it does an injustice both to itself and to the government. The primary victim, in each case, is the governed. Read more
Knowledge is not necessarily power. However, Edward Snowden’s disclosure that the U.S. National Security Agency (“NSA”) monitors the electronic communications of private citizens without a warrant has led many to conclude that the U.S. government is approaching the point of omnipotence, and to express fear and anger that the U.S. government will use that power to control them. That outrage stands in stark contrast to the support or resignation one finds in respect of substantive laws that allow the government to violate lives, liberty, and property. The contrast unveils both a bleak truth about the governed’s desire for individual freedom, and a requirement for its achievement. Read more