"Right Wing" Reality Check

For those who insist on deluding themselves by saying that Ontario’s “Progressive Conservative” party (you know, the one that introduced rent controls, a ban on private health insurance, the provincial income tax, etc.) is “right wing”, “centre right”, “right of the liberals” – or that it is the right party to support if you are pro-free-market/pro-capitalism – here’s more evidence to the contrary straight from the lips of party leader John Tory, as reported in today’s Cornwall Standard Freeholder:

Our party has been steadfast and unanimous in saying that (supply management) is a system that is working for the farmers, it’s working for Canada, and we should just leave it alone.

and

We should be more concerned with the fact that we’re importing Chinese apples, and who knows what kinds of pesticides have been used to grow them there, when we have perfectly safe gown apples here in Ontario.

The most that can honestly be said about the differences between the Liberals and the PCs is that the PCs use socialism as a justification for handing out grants, loans, market protection, and special status to certain alleged nobles in society…all of whose wealth and privilege depend upon regulation of – not freedom of – the market. The Liberals, in contrast, regard a socialist system as the ideal. In short: PCs view socialism as a means to a dishonest and corrupt end, whereas Liberals view socialism as a means to a dishonest and corrupt end.

[VIDEO] Damned to Repeat It

My most recent installment (#11) in the “In Defence of Ayn Rand” series just finished uploading to my youtube channel. Titled “Damned to Repeat It”, it is a response to an anarcho-capitalist who has been creating a series of videos called “Ayn Rand Missteps” (Damned to Repeat It is a response to his fourth such video, which deals with Ayn Rand’s politics).

“Damned to Repeat It” has been broken into three parts, each relating to one of the three assertions made by the anarcho-capitalist (who goes by the name aaron0883): libertarianism, anarchism, and voting.

Here are the links to each:

IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 1 – Libertarianism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie9tFXtqJZo

IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 2 – Anarchism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew-t0kuZRfg

IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 3 – Voting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wGjjNzb_iM

NOTE: sometimes, it takes a few minutes or hours for the videos to propagate through youtube.com’s servers…you might get a “file not found” message (or something similar) for a while. If so, just come back to the links a bit later.

He Who Serves Himself is Served Best

The National Post’s John Turley-Ewart today explains how a state government in Germany is demanding from Nokia the repayment of $63 million in state grants that were paid on the assumption that the Nokia plant would not, a while later, close shop and move to Romania. He concludes his column thusly:

If that money had been spent on retraining workers for industries that could thrive and be competitive in the current economic climate Germany finds itself in, taxpayers would have been better served and so would the Nokia workers who now find themselves unemployed. Dalton McGuinty should take note.

…which drew from me this comment, in response:

The last thing of which we should encourage the Premier to take note is how to “better serve” the taxpayer. Taxpayers in Westphalia would have been served best by not seizing their earnings in the first place: the taxpayer – and the economy – is best served by self-service.

Feel Better About Yourself: Elect (more) Morons

According to a Chicago Sun Times report, City council in Chicago has passed a by-law to ban the possession of little plastic baggies.

Move over Bronfman family, with your cross-border whiskey operation. Make way for the McKeever family black-market little-plastic baggy dynasty.

Notice how uncritically the media report this stuff.

The only thing more stupid: watch now as baggy manufacturers and retailers argue for a “compromise” solution, like say… licensing for baggies; or limits on how many you can possess; or the embedding of a microchip in each bag (tax-funded, of course) to track baggy users; or warning labels (“Warning, exposure to bags like these is highly correlated with drug addiction. Just say no to baggies”); or a baggy tax, the proceeds of which will go to fighting the war on baggies.

I’m setting my stop-watch to see how long before Julian Fantino (Ontario’s police commissioner) says he too needs a baggy tax as “another tool in the belt”.

Tool. Yep.

Objectivist "Political Views" Finally Arrive on FaceBook

Heads up everyone (especially if you are on facebook.com).

A few weeks ago (or is it months now), I wrote to facebook.com and asked that it consider dispensing with the pull-down menu in the “Political Views” field of its member profiles. It allowed things like “Conservative”, “Liberal”, “Very Liberal”, and “Libertarian”, but did not allow Objectivist responses. I suggested, as one of a couple of options, allowing people just to type-in what their political views are.

Good news. I don’t know WHEN it happened, but it appears that it is now possible to TYPE-IN your political views on FaceBook (instead of picking them from a pull-down menu).

I would encourage Objectivists to use the word “Objectivist”, rather than “Capitalist” for one reason: so that people know WHY you support capitalism (i.e., so they do not confuse your metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics to be mystical, irrational, or altruistic, respectively). Let people know that you are impliedly a capitalist because you are committed to the facts of reality, to reason as man’s only tool for obtaining knowledge, to rational egoism as man’s proper ethics, to consent as the requirement for all human interactions, and to capitalism as the only socio-economic system compatible with those commitments.

Cheers,

PM

Atlas Shrugged Movie: Partial Cast

It looks more and more likely that Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” will finally make it to the big screen. A recent interview estimates that it will do so in the Fall of 2009.

So far, I’ve only heard that Angelina Jolie had been cast to play the part of the novel’s heroine, Dagny Taggart. However, my understanding is that Jolie is pregnant, and that some are speculating a change of cast will be required.

Jolie’s obviously a good looking woman, but I tend to wonder whether she is tom-boyish enough to play Dagny. Long commutes to work have given me the time to put together a partial cast for the movie. I’ve mocked up a movie poster with that partial cast depicted, for your consideration, dear reader (see below).

Your comments welcome, as usual. And, if you happen to have anything to do with casting for Atlas Shrugged, please: do give these actors/actresses consideration.

Hugh Akston – Ed Harris
Francisco d’Anconia – Gerard Butler
Dr. Floyd Ferris – Michael Emerson
John Galt – Matthew McConaughey
Cuffy Meigs – Jordi Mollá
Wesley Mouch – Alec Baldwin
Hank Reardon – Daniel Craig
Lillian Reardon – Jennifer Connelly
Dr. Robert Stadler – Harrison Ford
Dagny Taggart – Evangeline Lilly
Jim Taggart – William Fichtner
Eddie Willers – Paul Campbell
Ellis Wyatt – Josh Holloway
The Young Brakeman – Hayden Christensen

Straw Men are Huemerous

My most recent video came online about an hour ago on my youtube channel.

Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRIFysTpvSA

Titled “Straw Men are Huemerous”, it is a response to Philosophy professor Michael Huemer’s critique of Ayn Rand’s “The Objectivist Ethics”. Huemer claims to have identified 8 “fatal flaws” in Rand’s ethics. I go through each alleged flaw, and demonstrate each to be a straw man argument.

Enjoy…or don’t.

Comments and video responses welcome (i.e., post them at youtube, in response to the video).

PM

freedominion.ca begat freedominion.com begat freedominion.com.pa

Those who have been following the issue of human rights laws as they pertain to censorship will be familiar with the complaint being made against freedominion.ca, arguably the most highly-trafficked Conservative discussion board in Canada. As I understand it, after the complaint was launched, ownership of freedominion.ca (and its back-up URL freedominion.com) was transferred to a company that specializes in protecting freedom of speech by hosting web sites in countries that (from what I gather) do not suffer from Internet censorship.

The site is now hosted in Panama (which has been gaining an improved reputation among those who value individual freedom). My understanding is that there was an issue with hosting the .ca domain there and that, as a result, freedominion.com became the only URL that would still bring you to the freedominion website.

Apparently – for reasons unknown to me – there also is now a problem with the .com extension.

The upshot is this: the website remains unchanged, but the website’s new URL is http://www.freedominion.com.pa .

Those who lurk or post on the site should reset their browser’s bookmarks accordingly.

30 Wrongs Don't Make a Right (Prayer in the Legislature)

My response, published here, to John Oakley’s article in yesterday’s National Post (possibly, Oakley’s article was only on the online version of the paper):

The issue here is not about whether people say prayers before engaging in the legislative process. The issue is that some people want prayers said aloud, and as part of the official ceremony of legislating.

Given that such people are not prevented from praying, the only plausible motivation for having everyone say a prayer aloud and in unison is: for the state to declare that it officially reveres an alleged supernatural being, and that it is guided by – or obedient to – the ethical commandments allegedly made by said being.

Adding more prayers, from different faiths, would have the effect of having the state declare that it reveres several/all supernatural beings, and is guided by/obedient to the ethical commandments allegedly being made by all of those beings. It would be impossible actually to set one moral compass simultaneously in accordance with the conflicting dogma offered by differing religions, and even many who would want multiple prayers know this. The only possible and achievable goal of praying to multiple alleged gods is: to declare that, in making law-making decisions, the legislature will consider supernatural commandments to be a source of knowledge about what policies should and should not be adopted.

Perhaps owing to most Christians’ allowance that one should render only unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, rational investigation of the facts of reality has been possible in the west, and knowledge and wealth have grown relatively well. However, the possibility of rational thought and free action arose despite, not because of, religious beliefs and public chanting of the Lord’s Prayer. In the east, where religions have been less tolerant of rational, independent thought, the growth of knowledge and wealth has been relatively slowed or completely stunted. As proponents of eastern religions move to Ontario, it is more important than ever that Ontario’s government declare that it is not under, accountable to, or obedient to, anyone’s alleged supernatural being. If, instead of simply removing all official chantings of religion from the proceedings of our legislature, we add more prayers from more religions, we will be officially sanctioning the notion that our government must comply with the whims even of alleged supernatural beings who forbid rationality, who condemn knowledge as a forbidden fruit, or who condemn wealth creation while praising self-sacrifice.

If we want Ontario to remain a place in which everyone is free to think as they wish, and to engage in consensual activities of their choice; to dress and eat and express themselves as they wish; to think for themselves, and to question aloud both alleged authority and dogma; to engage in rational efforts to discover knowledge and develop technologies; to pursue their own happiness; if that is the sort of Ontario we wish to retain, then we must make it clear to people of all faiths that our legislature’s “moral compass” is not set or determined by anyone’s religious beliefs. We cannot simultaneously make such a declaration and maintain the practice of praying aloud to one or more allegedly supernatural beings.

At the same time, it seems reasonable for those who are about to regulate our lives to take a moment to reflect on the gravity of what they are doing. A minute or two of silence would facilitate that purpose quite well, and should replace the saying of any prayer or any public recognition of the allegedly supernatural.

Paul McKeever, B.Sc.(Hons), M.A., LL.B.

Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario

www.freedomparty.on.ca

Irreverence In Support of Rationality (Hence, of Life)

Arutz Sheva yesterday published a news story saying that Danish police had arrested three Muslim men suspected of plotting to murder Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the 12 Muhammed cartoons to which enemies of reality, reason, self and consent responded with acts of violence in 2005. It said that 15 Danish newspapers, and one Swedish newspaper, had responded to the arrests by republishing the cartoon drawn by Westergaard (the famous bomb-in-a-turban cartoon). The Ayn Rand Institute’s Elan Journo is calling upon US newspapers to republish all 12 of the cartoons, as a statement that the USA opposes censorship.

In assessing that call to action, it is important to consider the nature and root cause of the violence in which some people engaged after the publication of the cartoons. That many Muslims found the Muhammed cartoons insulting, rather than funny, is perfectly understandable: the cartoons were a condemnation of the things that they consider to be values and virtues; things they revere. Similarly, the violent response of some Muslims to the mocking of Muhammed was founded, essentially, on their reverence for their beliefs.

In response to that reverence, many have claimed that, in a free society, “nothing is sacred”. However, that is an incorrect assessment. Moreover, the absence of censorship laws in a free society is not properly founded upon the notion that nothing is sacred, or that nothing should be revered.

A rational person might rightly show irreverence for the irrational, but it would be wrong for the rational person to mock or make light of his own values and virtues. A rational person, by implication, reveres reality, reason, self, and consent.

Consider for example that, during a question and answer period following a lecture in 1976 by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, author/philosopher Ayn Rand – an Atheist – stated that:

Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at. The classic example: you see a very snooty, very well dressed dowager walking down the street, and then she slips on a banana peel. … What’s funny about it? It’s the contrast of the woman’s pretensions to reality. She acted very grand, but reality undercut it with a plain banana peel. That’s the denial of the metaphysical validity or importance of the pretensions of that woman.

Therefore, humor is a destructive element – which is quite all right, but its value and its morality depend on what it is that you are laughing at. If what you are laughing at is the evil in the world (provided that you take it seriously, but occasionally you permit yourself to laugh at it), that’s fine. [To] laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself [is] monstrous. … The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in your own face.”

It follows that, when it comes to calls for censorship or the punishment of “sacrilege”, it is wrongheaded for the opponent of such laws to respond by condemning reverence itself. A society full of individuals that revere nothing – hence, that value nothing – cannot become or continue to be free. Freedom requires the reverence of that which makes human life possible: rational thought and action.

When considering how to respond to the call for censorship and anti-sacrilege laws, one should start at the beginning, philosophically: at the level of metaphysics and epistemology. One must remain cognizant of the fact that no person can take direct control of any other person’s thought process, no matter how much force he has at his disposal; that nobody can be forced to revere anything, whether rational or irrational. The sovereignty of every individual’s thought process is the key fact not recognized by the irrational individuals who demand censorship; who demand laws against “sacrilege”. Their aim, ultimately, is to make others revere what they revere by means of coercive physical force; to somehow make others adopt irrational beliefs by making it difficult to physically express rational ones. They are demanding the impossible, and they need to realize it, for all of our sakes.

Therefore, it is important that the government of a free country, in response to such demands, stand on the side of rationality by recognizing the fact that it is irrational to try to make people revere anything by means of coercive physical force. Government takes that stand both when it refrains from censorship and when it defends every person from those who would use force to prevent the expression of any opinion, whether rational or irrational, reverent or irreverent.

However, it is not enough for government quietly to be on the side of rationality. That loyalty must be demonstrated from time to time if the governed are to recognize that their government stands on the side of the rationality upon which human life depends. When it comes to the issue of free speech, one of the most convincing demonstrations of a loyalty to rationality is a government’s response to irreverence. This implies the necessity, from time to time, of the governed putting government to the test in full public view by being irreverent.

Thus, to express my support of reality, of reason, and of human life and personal happiness; to condemn the alleged plot to murder Kurt Westergaard for his irreverence; to carry out my part in demonstrating that the Canadian government takes the side of rationality; I am answering Elan Journo’s call by republishing, in my blog, the twelve cartoons. To the same ends, I would encourage others to do the same or, in the alternative, to publish something that demonstrates an irreverence for that which someone else (anyone else, not just Muslims) reveres.

« Previous Page — Next Page »