If Americans want to suffer and die like Canadians while they wait for treatment then sure, they should go for universal public health care. I don’t know why though. Now American hospitals offer public apologies for 15 minute wait times while Canadian ERs routinely require people to wait 4-6 hours or longer. The wait time for medically necessary procedures is even worse and getting even worse.
The problem with the US isn’t too little government but too much – mostly in the form of ridiculously huge damage awards and the effect they have on costs and insurance premiums.
1) Respect the right of patients to contract out of potential negligence claims (sign a waiver of liability) in return for lower prices.
2) Allow anyone, including nurse practitioners to offer whatever services, treatments, etc. they want.
3) Support private watch dogs like Consumer Reports for health care or the various doctor rating websites to track the competency of health care providers.
All of this is simply respecting the rights of consenting adults to voluntarily do business with each other without some politician, judge, or bureaucrat interfering. This would guarantee that the market would provide exactly what we really need at a price that represented its true value.
Guilty: Harper’s Conservatives, Trudeau’s Liberals and all those who support and sustain them with votes and money.
Crime: Aiding and abetting Saudi Arabia in the murder of those who fail to obey the Saudi monarch and who said monarch’s agents can get their murderous hands on. This includes anyone in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Fact: During the Arab Spring the Saudi puppet dictator of Yemen was tossed out by the people. The Saudi army, using, inter alia, Canadian arms, has been killing Yemenis ever since.
Fact: The Saudis have been lopping the hands and heads off anyone who they get to confess, under torture, of having extreme ideas – ideas opposed to the inhuman application of Islamic law by the Saudi regime.
Penalty: All rational (i.e. moral) persons ought to deny all support to the Saudi state and to any state that aids and abets it’s murderous activities, including Canada.
Every decision the state makes is wrong. At least in the sense that it is wrong to presume to have the authority to make decisions that rightfully belong to others and then enforce those decisions. The state, all states, have lost that authority (some never had it to begin with) by exercising power beyond that which was delegated by the consent of those over whom that power is exercised. This is at least almost always to be expected.
“We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” — DC 121:39
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton
In at least one case, the founding and fundamental principles of a state were set out clearly and in writing and, had it not been for the truisms quoted above, if adhered to, would have justified the decisions of that state. I refer to the individuals rights to life liberty and property, the protection of which was the only authority granted the original United States in its founding document. But that authority has long since passed away due to its abuse by those charged with its faithful discharge.
That leaves all modern states as no better than rival criminal gangs engaged in a turf war with each other and all of us as complicit lackeys or innocent victims in that war.
But that doesn’t mean that no state decisions can have favourable consequences. When a court makes a ruling that diminishes the power of the state over the individual, or when political exigencies induce political leaders to enter international trade agreements with the effect of reducing or constraining their state’s power over individuals, then one can take some satisfaction in the anticipated increase in personal freedom, despite the illegitimacy of the agencies involved.
So called “free trade agreements” are among those state decisions with some favourable consequences. The reduction and elimination of tariffs and similar barriers to trade between individuals and non-statist corporations is good. It expands personal liberty. It creates wealth and therefore jobs – though not every job in every sector of every state’s economy. But that is not the goal of anyone but a bigot*. It also reduces costs for both businesses and consumers and opens larger markets and opportunities for new and expanding businesses.
By including restrictions on non-tariff trade barriers it also reduces state interference in the economy in ways that are not primarily related to trade such as so-called environmental protection and labour standards. It also curtails corporate handouts and bias in awarding contracts thus allowing a freer market to rationally allocate capital thus maximizing wealth creation and a consequent increase in general prosperity. More dying businesses are allowed to fail without government draining capital from new and thriving businesses just to keep the old ones alive until at least after the next election.
The critique that this all translates into unemployment, pollution, and poor working conditions is just a case of willful blindness as it is the state, not individuals, that has been responsible for unemployment, poor working conditions and pollution.
So to the extent that these agreements reduce the power of the state, we ought to root for them. NAFTA, CETA, and the TPP included. Some of the nefarious aspects of these agreements such as involving the sharing of information among states about their citizens, whether by inclusion in the main agreement or in side deals secret or otherwise, are of less significance as we will always be at war with the state over privacy and personal liberty. We just need to remain aware, act smart, and disengage having as little interaction with the state as possible.
It is unfortunate, though not surprising, that the very signatory states to these agreements, routinely circumvent them. The United States is notoriously non-compliant with its obligations under NAFTA and enforcement mechanisms are woefully inadequate. But what more can be expected from criminal gangs. Surely not that they would obey their own laws. Under statist theory and practice obedience to law is a concept to be used to maintain the state’s power over individuals, not to restrict it.
* A job does not “belong” to anyone. It is a contract between the employer and the employee by which the former pays money to the latter in return for the latter’s services. Both the amount of money and the nature of the services must be mutually agreed upon for the contract to exist. Those who support laws that compel employers to contract only with employees in a specified location are bigots because they are using violence (state laws enforced by the police and judicial system) to favour some people (usually relatively well-off people in developed countries) over others (usually poor people in less developed countries). These same people usually also support sending foreign aid to these other countries to ease their guilt. Some of my best friends are bigots. I wish they’d stop.
The notion of a herd of lemmings spilling over a cliff holds a certain fascination. Likewise an election. Especially when something the likes of Justin Trudeau is the favourite to win. Anyway, I can’t resist the number crunching and so, despite the risk of being embarrassed by polls which may prove no more accurate than they were in the BC, Alberta and UK elections, here goes nothing.
I’m basing these on the regional breakdown of the Nanos polling numbers for Sunday, Oct 18 and the tooclosetocall.com seat projection spreadsheet. I’ve used another poll, I thinf it was an Ekos poll, to help me figure out how to reconcile the fact that Nanos lumps all 3 Prairie provinces together where tooclosetocall treats Alberta separately. I’ve also had to extrapolate the regional Nanos figures from its 3 day averages using its national 1 day (Oct 18) figures. I’m using the 1 day numbers because it is a large sample and it has historically been more accurate than the last 3 day coverage.
The number is the number of seats the party should win in that province. The number in brackets is the number of those seats that are very close and could easily be lost.
Notice that despite leading in the most seats, the Liberals have the fewest close leads of the 3 largest parties. The NDP, with the fewest leads, have the highest percentage of close races. Thus, if the polls are off a little bit, or there is a slightly greater swing from NDP to Liberal between yesterday and today, the Liberals could get tantalizingly close to a majority.
Also note that there should be several exciting 3 way races to watch in Quebec and BC. The closest thing to a 4 way race in BC is Nanaimo where even the Greens, running fourth, are only 7 points back of the front running NDP. In Quebec’s Bueauport riding the Bloc is just 7 points ahead of the Liberals and Conservatives while the NDP is even closer just 3 back. Even closer is Chicoutimi where there is just 1 point between the parties in the following order: Bloc, Liberal, Conservative, NDP. Jonquière is also close with a 5 point spread between 1st (Con) and 4th (Lib/Bloc).
I won’t be shocked by a Liberal majority if we see Sackville and Funday go Liberal early, but I’ll stick with the prediction of a strong Liberal minority.
Does voting matter? Is your decision about who to vote for important? Then why are uninformed people allowed to vote? Why are they encouraged to vote?
Because the answer to the first question is “yes” and the second is “no” (except to the parties and candidates because they stand to gain or lose power to control our lives and property). But to the state and its political establishment as a whole it doesn’t matter who you vote for, just that you vote, because a vote, any vote, is a vote for preserving the system that enslaves you. Thankfully the days when this kind of support actually matters are coming to an end.
I want to re-emphasize this point. If how you voted really mattered there would be less noise about casting a vote and more about casting an informed vote. People who’s shallowness lets them vote based on a candidate’s personality, etc. thereby cancelling the vote of someone who has actually informed about the parties, candidates and issues, should not be encouraged to vote. They should be encouraged to become informed or else stay home and let the informed make this important decision.
But that’s not what happens because the agents of the state (including all the partisans) know that the overall support of the public for the voting charade is all important to maintaining their control over us. In other words, the Liberals would rather see the Conservatives win once in a while than see the public overcome their blind faith in the electoral system itself because if that happened, the Liberals would never be able to exercise the power over us that they lie awake at night craving.
The differences between the parties are illusions erected to justify elections. Who would come out to vote if the only choice on the ballot was “the state”. Yet that’s how every ballot should read if it was really accurate. The Liberals will add a few percentage points to the highest tax rate. The NDP will add a few more. The Conservatives will keep it as it is. A criminal gang whose members differ on how much loot they will steal and we’re supposed to think it matters which one gets to decide.
The Liberals want to decriminalize marijuana. But the CRTC controls what we can see on the TV, radio and Internet. The CBC spends a billion stolen dollars per year to make sure we have a channel showing content that obviously not enough want to watch or they wouldn’t need a subsidy. Health Canada forbids us from paying for medical services or medical insurance. In light of so many controls over our liberty who cares about whether someone sticks a burning weed in their face? And yet that’s the degree of difference between the parties that is getting people all hot and bothered. There’s bigger fish people!
How do the parties decide what they stand for? Take it from a disillusioned insider, the parties make a show of letting party members decide the party’s policies but then the party bosses veto anything they don’t want and insert what they do. There is no democracy in party politics. At the local level it is all about securing a place at the trough for your share of the slop – i.e. tax dollars by way of political appointments, jobs, handouts, favours, etc. Take as much power and money from everyone and dole it out to those who will hale you as their leader. This is politics in a modern “liberal” democracy.
I’m barely getting started but there’s work to do. Maybe I’ll vent some more before Monday’s big joke.
Neither the right of self-defence, nor the right to property, includes the right to pose an immediate threat to another’s life. In the absence of circumstances which would justify the need to carry loaded, high-powered weapons around other people, the implied threat to those other people in having the immediate ability to inflict serious harm or death upon them is a violation of their right to life and liberty.
Justin Bourque (the Moncton shooter) is not a defender of liberty, he is a violator of liberty. He is abusing his own liberty by threatening that of others. By doing so he forfeits the claim he has on others to respect his rights. It is irrational for anyone to conclude that the rest of us are safe merely because he is shooting at state agents. That is far too fine a distinction to make when your life may depend on it. What if he is looking for whatever target of opportunity present themselves? What if he mistakenly takes you for a state agent? What if he decides you pose a threat to his rights and decides to execute his judgment against you right on the spot? What if he is simply deranged? High? Intoxicated?
Even in my perfect political model, if I see Bourque walking around as he was, I call whatever agency is obliged to defend me. In fact, I would be justified, once I see him actually initiating deadly force against others, to use it against him.
Anarcho-capitalism is based on the right to do what you want with what’s yours – not the right to hold the lives of others on the thinnest of treads that you can snip on a whim.
Consider the perspective of the woman who phoned in the complaint. She did not see Bourque and think, “I believe he is breaking the firearms laws. I must report him.” She saw him and thought, “There are no wild animals about, there are no criminals, no invaders. I see no possible threat to this man that could justify him walking about with a deadly weapon. Perhaps he sees me as a threat or perhaps he is the one about to initiate violence.” Under the circumstances, for her to have taken the chance that he possed no threat of initiating violence, when she might never have a chance to reconsider, would be unreasonable to the point of insane.
Even if we assume we were endowed with some super power of perception that assured us that his only targets were state agents, and that he would not misidentify anyone as a state agent, we should not condone his actions. Just as electoral politics is a deceptive shell game rigged to ensure statist outcomes, surely armed revolution is even worse. If it comes down to a matter of who can exert the most force, the state clearly wins. What is so attractive about the agorist position is that, over time, given the rapid pace of technological change that empowers the individual vis a vis the state, the power and therefore authority of the state will inevitably whither and die. The only thing that could interfere with that is if the state’s pseudo-authority to use force were bolstered by people worried about idiots like Bourque roaming the streets.
Nothing can set the cause of liberty back so efficiently as a good scare. Remember 9-11?
I believe Justin Trudeau will probably become the next Prime Minister of Canada in a landslide sometime in 2015. That’s because he has all the right values for the office. In a recent speech at a charity event he showed the same class as his father by using the most vulgar language which polite hypocrites at least reserve for more private affairs.
But that wasn’t even the worst part of his speech. Lost in the media furor over his vulgarity was the meaning of what he said, which was far worse.
“I will tell you, there is no experience like stepping into this ring and measuring yourself,” Trudeau said, recalling his match with now-suspended Sen. Patrick Brazeau in a similar charity event only a few years ago. “Not your name, your fortune, your intelligence, your beauty; none of that f—-ing matters.”
Of all people we ought to hold politicians strictly accountable for the meaning of their words. After all, they are posturing to be worthy of our votes – those magical pencil marks that convey to them authority to do violence to our neighbours, authority we do not have and therefore cannot actually convey, but that doesn’t matter because so many still accept the politically convenient fiction. Others can be afforded the benefit of the doubt and forgiven for a slip of the tongue or other occasional indiscretion, but those who would exercise the levers of the state should never be given a free pass.
But Trudeau doesn’t assess himself, or presumably others, by such criteria. His measure of a man is how hard he can throw his fist into another person’s face.
Words and deeds spring from a person’s judgment which in turn is derived from his intelligence. Beauty is not merely superficial but an appreciation for the degree to which the beautiful subject is fully integrated, symmetrical, efficient – in short, how well it serves its purpose. A beautiful song evokes emotion. A beautiful face evokes a smile. A beautiful equation imparts a sense of how nature is an integrated whole. A person’s name represents a legacy one inherits from previous generations. A standard one ought to try to live up to or improve upon so as to leave a better legacy to those who succeed to that name. Your fortune, unless it is inherited or stolen, represents the value your fellow humans place on the product of your mind. None of this matters to Trudeau.
To Trudeau what really matters is a “sport”, if its even that, which mandates gratuitous violence. A throwback to barbaric times. A stand in for warfare. What should women, children, the elderly, the infirm take from the message that our next Prime Minister thinks one’s ability to physically fight is what determines a person’s worth? Should they feel safe casting their lots for this barbarian? If so, they are fools.
And that’s why I am quite sure he will win. Because they are fools. Generally speaking of course. There are exceptions but they are too rare to matter when one is speaking of the electorate. He will win, not in spite of the fact that he is a crass barbarian but because of it. I have no doubt that his vulgarity was not a careless slip but was carefully scripted by his handlers. They want him to appear “real”, “human”, to his core constituency – the young and the foolish.
Well those who vote, for him, or at all, will get what they deserve. And the innocent will suffer – but thankfully not for long.
Marketplace is a show produced by a state-owned TV network that owes its existence to massive subsidies of money stolen (taxed) from people who would otherwise not watch it and to regulations designed to crush and eliminate its competition in the “marketplace”. Therefore it comes as no surprise that this show would stoop to crass manipulation of statistics in order to egg on fellow-travelers over at Health Canada to squash a highly effective product that dares to treat Canadians as intelligent adults capable of making up their own minds as to what remedies to use to prevent and treat cold and flu symptoms.
Specifically, at about the 10 minute mark of this hatchet job, a U of A expert is cited for the proposition that a person would need to take Cold FX for 17 years (cold seasons) before it would prevent a cold. This is NOT what the expert said. She said the study showed Cold FX reduced the risk of a cold by 15%. That means it could help reduce the risk of 15% of those who take it, EVERY cold season. There are other interpretations as well. That marketplace decided to spin this statistic in the most unfavourable possible way shows that they do not have the interests of their consumers at heart but those of their masters – those who would be out of work if we no longer lived in the overtaxed, over regulated economy in which we do. Those, essentially – like themselves.
I will be continuing to take Cold FX, continuing to remain cold-free, and continue to hold Marketplace, and the CBC as a whole, in utter contempt.
I just wrote this as a comment on Maxime Bernier’s blog.
This new website is designed to serve as a rallying point for those of us who are fed up with the lying hypocrites of every political persuasion and have resolved to deny them what they absolutely must have to survive – our votes.
DONT VOTE! It’s your duty as an honest, hard-working Canadian to stop supporting these scoundrels any longer.
DONT VOTE! Not because you don’t care, but because you care too much to waste your vote on thieves, bullies, and liars.