Bulletin - Spring 2004

“This year we are celebrating Capitalism on the first Sunday in June. Over the last few years over 120 cities in over 30 countries around the world have hosted Capitalism Day events as part of Celebrate Capitalism™ - from New York to Nairobi, from London to Lahore, from Gothenburg to Gdansk. Many thousands of individuals, families, and groups from every walk of life, from every corner of the globe have participated and shown they are willing to stand up proudly for worldwide freedom and prosperity.

“Our Values: We proudly stand up for free trade, money, liberty, profit, free speech, technology, universal individual rights, intellectual and material prosperity, private property, rule of law, innovation, creativity, human dignity and happiness.

“Our Heroes: We applaud, support, and give thanks to the productive people of the world - the entrepreneurs, artists, inventors, teachers, scientists - and all the men and women with the courage to blaze a creative trail. Justice means treating people as they deserve to be treated. That means a criminal is punished and/or isolated. But there is also "Positive Justice". That means recognizing and befriending creative, productive, courageous heroic individuals.

“Our Crusade: Through discussion, promotion, education, to clarify what Capitalism actually is. Its intellectual foundations. Its history. And most important: what it offers, all the magnificent things it makes possible for all humankind! Books, medicines, vacations, supermarkets, ballets, computers, and much more!”

If you share our enthusiasm and dedication to worldwide freedom and prosperity contact Peter Cuff at Toronto(at)CapitalismWorldwide.org or call 416-488-2754.

Organizing in Vaughan and Area - By Paolo Fabrizio

A friend and I recently conducted an informal survey and found that 6 out of 10 people were fed up with all politicians. When we asked these 6 people if they would consider supporting the Libertarian Party their response was “Who?” This statement sent me crazy. I’m not doing enough. If we can get out and get these 6 people to listen maybe we will get one to believe in us. That to me would be victory. I spend most of my nights thinking how I can bring everyone together, how I can get all of our supporters active. We all need to do more. Any extra effort would be appreciated.

We have new contacts in Barrie, Innisfil, Bradford (especially), Bolton, Caledon, Simcoe, Maple, Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Woodbridge, Wasaga Beach and King City. We are in the process of obtaining a central office, one that all of us can use. We have some very good prospects but nothing concrete. I thought Vaughan would be the best place for an office but my friends in Caledon think it’s too far for them to deem it useful so we’re back to a more north-west locale.

I hope to do more for my party. It’s a personal goal to not only get people to notice us but one day see my leader as premier of Ontario.

With the government squeezing the people and forcing them to do whatever they want, now more than ever the people of Ontario need the Libertarian party. So lets get out there and do more for Liberty.

There is a lot of work to be done so lets get out there and work hard. If anyone wants to contact me to see how they can help, call (416) 994-8555 or e-mail.

Paolo Fabrizio joined the Ontario Libertarian Party shortly before the provincial election. He was nominated as the Libertarian candidate in Vaughan-King-Aurora. Paolo attracted so much attention that the Conservative supporters convinced him it would be bad for his family’s business if he were to run and spoil their candidate’s chances of winning. He decided to withdraw, a decision he still regrets. He plans to be ready next time.

"Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free." - Thomas Jefferson:

Leader’s Report - By Sam Apelbaum

The Ontario Libertarian Party is the only Canadian political party which consistently advocates elimination of any government activities unrelated to protection of person and property from crime, provision of civil process for dispute resolution, or enforcement of contracts. We unequivocally reject any hint of government legitimacy beyond these concerns. We are frequently confused with conservatives, who, like us, advocate less government, and occasionally travel in that direction when elected. However, without fail the prevailing movement toward bigger, more intrusive government always resumes either before or after they are voted out. The reason is that conservatives, along with their opponents and most of the public believe, or at least concede that some ends justify use of government power against people who have harmed nobody. For example, Canadian conservatives accept taxes should be imposed to provide funds to heal the sick, aid the poor and educate children. From a libertarian perspective such objectives are noble, but coercive means and elimination of choice makes the entire enterprise immoral and guarantees failure and corruption.

The scandal of the moment involves disappearing tax money paid over the past few years by the federal government to advertising firms in Quebec, ostensibly to promote its activities there. It turns out a considerable amount of the money handed over to them simply went directly to line the pockets of the friends of our rulers without any apparent services provided. After years in power the Liberal government had become so thoroughly corrupt, it neglected to hide the blatant theft in the usual way behind some legal justification or other for the spending. Although the public has remained docile while Canadian governments continue to use every imaginable pretext to steal their money and make life more difficult for them, there is outrage when it is not done according to protocol.

Persistent complaining will not change the fact that those with political pull will forever be rewarded in socialist Canada at the expense of those without. Similarly, voting for new political masters will count for nought until prevailing Canadian socialist ideology is supplanted by a culture which values liberty and personal responsibility.

On a brighter note, we continue to progress in line with our new emphasis on developing organizational strength for the Ontario Libertarian Party in the next election. A constitution for our new youth wing is close to completion. We also have three volunteers who have agreed to be regional coordinators for organizing local constituency associations. They are Paolo Fabrizio in the north Toronto area, Roger Frazer in Timmins and Mike Yurick in Peterborough. Contact me if you or anyone you know has the skills and desire to help them. I also look forward to seeing many of you at our annual spring barbeque on Sunday, May 2^nd or at one of our pub nights on the second Wednesday of each month.

Chairman’s Report - By George Dance

A rational person values his (or her) liberty: He values what he wants to achieve, doing what’s needed to achieve it; and not having what he does interfered with. If he is a Libertarian - if he sees our Party as a way to increase or preserve liberty - he values the Party’s success, and therefore values doing what’s needed to achieve our success. At the same time - because he values our success as a means to achieve his own values - it would not be rational for him to help the Party at the cost of achieving his values. He must decide what he can reasonably do - to find his Party niche - and, if he’s rational and a Libertarian, step up to fill that niche. .

In my experience, not finding one’s niche is the biggest problem facing potential volunteers. Too often they either over-commit, burn out, and end up doing nothing - or they hang back, from fear of burnout, and also do nothing. In both cases, little is accomplished.

Responsibility for that sad state cuts both ways. Members are responsible for our success, which entails finding their niches; but they can do that only if they know what the niches are. Telling them that is the Party’s responsibility, and therefore mine.

The easiest niche to fill, even if one has no free time, is to be a donor. Without money, we can’t do anything; so we value all our donors. And we want no one to over-commit even here; no one should ‘give till it hurts.’ But we also have to ask each donor: Are you doing all you can? Are you giving as much as you can without it hurting? If not, I urge you to give more.

A slightly larger niche would be promoting the Party to your friends and associates. That can be as easy as mentioning us and sharing a pamphlet or business card. (We can supply cards and pamphlets for those who commit to using them.).

The next niche is helping those who are organizing locally - like Kaye Sargent in Oxford, Mike Yurick in Peterborough, and Paolo Fabrizio in York region - or, if there’s none in your area, becoming an organizer yourself. If you’re interested, contact us; we can put you in touch with local Libertarians, and give you the tools you need to do a great job.

The highest niche of all - the one where the Libertarian action is - is an Executive Committee seat. The Executive decides how Party money is spent; and thanks to our donors, we now have a healthy bank balance to spend. To achieve political success, we must begin investing that money wisely. If you want maximum input into those spending decisions, the Executive is the place for you.

We are looking to fill two Executive vacancies. As both are working positions (and because so many shy away from that commitment level), each is really a safe seat, yours for as long as you want it. We urgently need a Recording Secretary, to advise members of meetings and keep minutes - which may sound intimidating, but is not much work (and I speak from experience). If you’ve never taken minutes, there are three former Recording Secretaries on the Executive - Sam Apelbaum, Nunzio Venuto, and me - willing to mentor you. If you have taken minutes before, it’s a piece of cake.

The second vacancy, Campaign Director, is less urgent given the Liberal majority. .But if this is your niche - if you have strong beliefs about what we should do in the next election, and want to work to make that happen - the earlier you step up, the better..

If either position interests you, contact the Party - or me, at (416) 755-5098 or mrgeorgedance(at)yahoo.ca - without delay. We not only want you to find your niche - we also want, and are committed to helping, you to succeed in it.

"The meaning of economic freedom is this: that the individual is in a position to choose the way in which he wants to integrate himself into the totality of society." - Ludwig Von Mises

The Corporation as Psychopath - By Jim McIntosh

Some of you may have noticed The Corporation featured on the cover of the Toronto Star’s TV magazine. The story inside advised that TVO would be airing this 2-½ hour documentary – by Mark Achbar, Joel Bakan, and Jennifer Abbott – in three weekly parts starting Wednesday February 25. In addition, two of my sons sent me emails letting me know when it would be on. It started off by commenting on the growth of corporations over the last century, and explained that corporations were originally chartered by the state to accomplish specific objectives, such as build a bridge. Corporations have the legal ability to buy and sell property and services. After the 14th amendment was proclaimed, giving equal rights to all persons (especially recently-freed slaves), creative lawyers used it to expand the rights of corporations, arguing that they were “persons” under the law! Given this premise, they then asked what sort of character this “person” might have.

They then proceeded to provide examples of corporations polluting the environment, being fined for breaking the law, exploiting citizens of underdeveloped countries, plundering the earth’s resources and the like. They developed a list of half a dozen characteristics that fit the profile of a psychopath. Talk about stereotyping! Using the same technique, we could find almost any class of “persons” to be psychopaths.

I can’t disagree that there are some corporations that might be characterized as psychopathic, or at least anti-social, but it is bad journalism to paint them all with the same brush. At least one of the individuals interviewed described the great things that corporations accomplish and credited them with our high standard of living. They even had Milton Friedman praising corporations. Throughout the first hour they blamed greed and the profit motive for the bad behaviour of corporations. However, if profits were the driving force, many corporations would not be in low-margin businesses. In actual fact, profit is a limiting factor; if a corporation doesn’t make a profit sometime, it will go out of business. Besides, most managers in large corporations receive little, if any, of the profit they earn for their company. As long as they make enough to keep the shareholders happy, they can focus on other goals. Goals such as figuring out what their clients want, and how to provide it at the lowest cost. If a “person” is focused on pleasing others, it is hard to consider him or her a psychopath. As long as the corporation does not have a state-enforced monopoly, it has to work hard to satisfy their customers and stay in business.

Of course, they had to attack corporations for “exploiting” poor people in underdeveloped countries. They interviewed a young girl working in one of these factories and asked her if she made enough money! (Who does?) They didn’t bother to ask her what she would be doing if she didn’t have the job. Nor did they bother to talk to any of the locals outside the factory who would be delighted to have her job. Again as part of their “balanced” reporting, they had a talking head (maybe it was Milton again, I don’t remember) explaining how wages would rise as these people gained experience and more corporations opened factories and bid up wages, at which point the corporations would move on to the next underdeveloped country to exploit them.

All in all, they did a pretty good job of painting corporations in a bad light. Now that they have convinced themselves that corporations are psychopaths, I wonder if they will recommend treatment, incarceration, or execution. Or maybe a few more laws and regulations to hobble corporations and limit the “damage” they do. I guess I’ll just have to wait and see.

P.S. If you watched The Corporation and need an antidote, try to find Milton and Rose Friedman’s book or TV series Free To Choose.

The desire of businessmen for profits is what drives prices down unless forcibly prevented from engaging in price competition, usually by governmental activity. - Thomas Sowell

Charity IS a Caring Society - Letter to the Editor by Jim McIntosh

Re: Stuart Laidlaw’s column in the Toronto Star of December 26, Charity can’t replace caring society; it seems to me that Laidlaw has it backwards. Charity is the ultimate virtue of a caring society. Surely a caring society, by definition, cares about its less fortunate members. Laidlaw thinks social programs represent a caring society, because they are paid for by taxes from all of us. I sure don’t feel very caring and charitable at income tax time when I figure out how much money has been taken out of my paycheck before I even saw it. If I don’t pay my taxes, I can be put in jail! And I’m not so sure the overworked social workers care about the real needs of their “clients.” It’s their job to address only the needs identified by some bureaucrats and make sure no money is given to anyone who doesn’t meet all of the criteria. This is a caring society? Sounds like George Orwell’s 1984.

Laidlaw considers welfare, oops, I mean our social programs, to be a safety net. A safety net is used to catch someone when they fall from a height. One doesn’t spend very long in the net, but quickly hops out and gets back to work. Unfortunately, many people seem to get tangled in Laidlaw’s safety net and can’t get out. Even their children get tangled in the net and think this is what life is all about. Does society (tax payers) care if they get out? Even if there were fewer people in need, we would still pay the same or higher taxes.

Maybe the existence of social programs makes people less caring. After all, if the government is taking care of the problem, why should I worry about it. Of course, I know the government and its one-size-fits-all approach is doing a lousy job, but what can I do? The reality is we have social programs because politicians promise them in order to get elected, and voters vote for them because they believe society is not caring enough to do it voluntarily through charity. And of course, we all believe that the money will come from the rich and from corporations and not out of our pockets. Well guess again. Even people below the poverty line have to pay taxes to support social programs. And corporations don’t pay taxes; they collect them from consumers by adding them to the price of their goods.

I’m glad to read that Laidlaw cares enough to give a few dollars to the Salvation Army at Christmas. Is this a sample of our caring society? I think the Army does care about people in need, and I believe they want to help them get out of the “safety net.” Wouldn’t society be much better off if all the money spent on social programs went instead to charitable organizations like the Salvation Army and United Appeal? However if they simply became extensions of the government, they probably wouldn’t do as great a job, since they wouldn’t have to in order to get the money. But if we paid less in taxes, we might give more to charity, especially if we are a caring society and know the government isn’t doing it for us.

A Loss of Rights - By Scott Bere

On May 31, 2003 a "SMOKING By-law" was enacted in Sudbury. This is proving disastrous for many in the hospitality industry. I am in the printing business and would not have expected much impact beyond the irritation factor caused by this very intrusive piece of legislation, but I was wrong.

On August 1, 2003 a by-law officer visited my business to tell me he had received a complaint that "someone" had been reported to be smoking in the facility. When I asked him to give me some details of this "supposed" offence he told me he was there to do an “investigation” of the matter and wished to go into the non-public portion of my shop for this purpose. I told him that unless he gave me suitable information, i.e. who was supposedly smoking, where was this taking place, when specifically did it happen, and also who made the complaint I would not be able to comply with his request.

He again refused saying he did not have to supply this information and that he had a "right" to enter and investigate, (search for information, and presumably seize evidence if there in fact was any). I asked how he seemed to have more authority than a police officer who would obtain a search warrant if I were to refuse him entry to investigate something. His reply was "It's in the by-law." I replied that I did not accept this and he told me he would return.

On August 5, 2003 he did return with a "notice of violation" showing several areas of the by-law that permitted his entry without a warrant to search or investigate the complaint. One of the clauses in the by-law gives not only him but also a police officer the right to enter and investigate without a warrant whenever they wished, without my agreement. I again told him I did not accept this even if it was in the by-law. He produced his "ticket book" and wrote me up for "Obstructing an enforcement officer;" $250 plus costs of $50 for a total of $300 and told me he could return on a daily basis and repeat this routine until I complied.

The next day, August 6, 2003 he called and told me he now wanted to come in and "inspect for compliance." I invited him to come over right away. He did this and after a 10 or 15-minute trip through the shop declared that everything was just fine, and I would not be seeing him again. I disagreed and told him I would see him in court because I would not be paying the $300 ticket.

Text Box: A Future of Freedom & Democracy?
SUNDAY MARCH 28th 2004 – 7:00 pm
An Evening Promoting
Individual Responsibility, Rights and Freedom
Madoc Kiwanis Hall, 139 St. Lawrence St. East, Madoc, ON
Please Join Us and our 3 Guest Speakers,
Jim Turnbull, Pierre Lemieux and Marni Soupcoff,
for an evening of inspiration, enlightenment and comradeship!
Admission Free: Donations to cover expenses gratefully accepted
For details visit http://www.marmora.org/event/
To Assist or Enquire: Phone: 613-472-5285
or Email: kathy(at)kathyspursuits.org

At 9:30 AM on September 30, 2003 this trial began, lasting until 12:30 noon. I argued that there was a huge difference between inspecting for compliance and investigating a specific but ill-defined complaint (search). It is well accepted that a representative of government has the right to inspect but not the right to investigate or search without either my permission or a properly obtained warrant. I also argued that I did not "obstruct." He asked if he could come in to investigate. Two answers are possible, yes or no. I gave him the one he did not like.

During the trial both he and the prosecutor continually mixed "inspect for compliance" and "investigate a complaint" as though they meant the same thing. The Justice of the Peace hearing the case said that if there was "obstruction" it was certainly at the low end of the meaning of obstruction. He nevertheless convicted me on this charge, while reducing the fine to $150 plus $45 costs. I paid the fine immediately following the trial and submitted a notice of appeal.

On January 27, 2004 the appeal was heard in a higher court. The Judge who heard my appeal seemed to understand the issue at hand and the difference between "inspection" and "investigation." He also understood that the officer "asked for permission to enter to investigate” and he had difficulty calling it "obstruction" when I simply responded in a way he did not like. On February 5, 2004 he ruled that the J.P. had made no “error in law” and therefore he could not overturn the decision.

I sincerely believe that a number of my rights under the charter have been abused here: protection against unreasonable search or seizure without a properly obtained warrant; my expectation of privacy; my belief that the City of Sudbury has exceeded it's legislative authority in attacking my rights by giving not only it's by-law officers but also the Police the right of entry without warrant. The police as a matter of interest do not seem to enjoy their new-found power and so far have declined to get involved in enforcement of this by-law.

My right that all citizens be treated equally under the law has also been abused. A person accused of criminal matters of a serious nature has the protection of the warrant process prior to investigation or search and seizure. If someone is thought to have lit a cigarette on my premises, this will permit investigation, search and seizure without a warrant. And smoking has not even been declared illegal; it is simply controlled. But this is enough to strip me of long-held rights. All of this insanity is to satisfy the anti-smoking zealots who live not just in my community but all over the province. Their rights seem to be "more equal" than mine.

The truly disturbing thing about this whole mess is that the public in general is not willing to stand up for their rights. They are acting like a bunch of sheep. Those that are aware of my fight with the "powers that be" are supportive of what I am doing. It has also been well reported in the local news media. I have spent significant money on this matter to date and will continue.

Annual Party BBQ - May 2