Annual General Meeting

Saturday November 3, 2001

Triumph-Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel

2737 Keele Street, (North of 401) in Toronto

 

Election Planning Dominates June Dinner Meeting Agenda

Red Deer Oil Worker To Form Alberta Libertarian Party

Youth for Liberty Summer Camp July 28-29

Libertarian Party Events

What Are Politicians Worth?

Party Of Choice

Free Trade And Its Enemies

OCAP = Extortion - An Open Letter

"Whose Head Is It Anyway?"

Health Care on Critical List

 

---

 

Election Planning Dominates June Dinner Meeting Agenda - By John Shaw

Early preparations for the next provincial election began on a wider basis with a discussion among those attending the dinner meeting on Thursday June14th.  Jim McIntosh presented the 2nd draft of the election plan, which earlier was sent to the announcements list.

There was general agreement that using the Operation Politically Homeless package at local fairs would be one of the more effective ways to draw new people into the party and to allow candidates to get started on forming their riding associations.  Sam Apelbaum, Lisa Bradley, Jacob Bos, Graham Hearn, Peter Jaworski, John Shaw, James Speirs, Nunzio Venuto and Kaye Sargent signed up to be candidates at the meeting or had previously agreed to run.

Mary Lou Gutscher noted that Proportional Represen­ta­tion helped elect the party elect a member to Costa Rica’s government and that more Libertarians are expected to be elected in the coming election thanks to Proportional Representation.

An e-mail discussion list was set-up to further a debate on Proportional Representation and to distribute the election planning information as it becomes available.  If you want to be on the list, write to and say why you would like to be on the discussion list - please include your postal area code or riding name.

The Youth For Liberty group's summer camp was discussed. Activity is progressing rapidly on this initiative, hope to see you there.  It was encouraging to see some new faces, and those young faces full of enthusiasm.  The dinner meetings will continue through the summer, announcements on time and place (venue will likely change) to come later but for now circle the 2nd Thursday in each month for a chance to meet other libertarians.

Cain Ramstead said enough was enough when he had to "hold his nose and vote" for Progressive Conservative, New Democrat, Liberals or Social Credit in last fall’s Alberta election.

Ramstead works for the drilling fluid division of an American oil company. Cain and his wife Lori are also raising chickens and breeding registered Southdown sheep on their 20-acre farm west of Red Deer. He says, "Government interference and big brotherism at the county and provincial levels have pushed me into getting the ball rolling for an Alberta Libertarian Party. "

He reasons that if separatists can form a political party to break up Canada, "why not form one that will actually do some good?"

Ramstead was inspired by listening to Art Bell on the radio two years ago and reading books by Claire Woles, Neil S. Smith and, of course, Ayn Rand.  He then took the "World’s Smallest Political Quiz," and found there were other people that shared his belief in "live and let live" and "keep the government the heck out of my life."

The Alberta Libertarian Party's platform will be simple.  Keep the government out of the lives of everyone.  Cut spending, slash regulatory functions and let hard working Albertans keep their money.  He explains, "An up hill struggle, you bet, but a worthwhile fight."

Ramstead acknowledges that he is starting at the bottom of the hill but "if you can help out in any way, please feel free to contact me"

Mark your calendar--the weekend of July 28 and 29 is the date for the first annual Youth For Liberty summer camp. Youth For Liberty (Y4L for short) is a new group of future, and current, liberty-minded activists.

Whether you're young in age, or young at heart, as long as you love liberty and want something to be done to defend and promote it, you're encouraged to attend.

The extraordinary line up of speakers includes Dr. Jan Narveson, professor of philosophy at the University of Waterloo, George H. Smith, a prolific author and remarkable debater, and our own leader, Sam Apelbaum.

Register now with Jim McIntosh at (416) 284-9540. For more information, click on over to y4l.org.

The goal is liberty; we hope you'll join us.

---

               Libertarian Party Events

July 12    Dinner Meeting, Watt’s Restaurant

          July 27-28    Y4L Summer Camp, Orono

            August 9    Dinner Meeting, Watt’s Restaurant

     September 9    Executive Meeting, HQ

   September 13    Dinner Meeting, TBA

   September 24    Fall Bulletin in the mail

        October 11    Dinner Meeting, TBA

       November 3    Annual General Meeting (see above)

      December 3    Winter Bulletin in the mail

---

What Are Politicians Worth?

Leader’s Report – Sam Apelbaum

Our federal politicians have just awarded themselves a substantial increase in their pay and pensions.  Our provincial politicians are about to do likewise.  Even the useless federal senators will be getting more of our money.  Notwithstanding criticism, they are going ahead, knowing that by next election it will no longer be an important issue.  Anyway, which politicians will then be proposing that their pay and other benefits should be cut?

Attacks on the compensation received by politicians have their source in the common perception that politicians are incompetent, self-serving, and sometimes dishonest.  Since "none of the above" does not appear on the ballot, our modern politicians usually win elections by positioning themselves as the lesser of two or more evils, not because they create the possibility of an exciting future.  The occasional time a politician with apparent promise appears on the scene, we are soon disappointed.  Fewer of us are bothering to vote.

The enormous scope of government taxation, control, and interference with economic and social life provides much room for corruption by politicians.  Remaining neutral and above the fray is not an option.  Favours must be dispensed if politicians are to be reelected.

"Bring government back to its fundamental purpose of protecting physical security and property"

In my opinion, it is pointless to penalize politicians for our disappointment with them by reducing their monetary compensation, which, incidentally, would increase the temptation for them to advance their financial interests through political favours.  These would cost us many times their salaries.  Instead, the solution is to bring government back to its fundamental purpose of protecting physical security and property.  

Small government will result in greatly diminished incentive and scope for political corruption.  Any, which does occur, will also be more visible.  Under such conditions, electoral success will require integrity or, at the very least, the appearance of integrity.

Government will continue to serve an important role in a libertarian world.  The elected representatives who are responsible for its functioning should be properly rewarded for devoting their time to government service.  There is no reason we should despair of the poor quality of our elected politicians.  All that need happen to change this is the elimination of the socialist context, which dominates the agenda for all governments in Canada. 

There is also no reason holding political office should remain a full time pursuit once the task of dismantling the welfare state is achieved. Our goal is to turn it, for the most part, into a part time job.  The day may even come when it becomes an unpaid position desired for its honour and prestige.

Your support of the Ontario Libertarian Party and its ongoing advocacy for individual liberty and considerably less government will help elevate the quality of politics in Ontario and Canada.  I invite you to take action and get involved.  There is no shortage of people fervently, and often unwittingly, promoting irrational, harmful ideas.  There are too few working to advance rational ones. 

---

Party Of Choice: Part II

Chairman’s Report – George Dance

Party Chairman George Dance concludes his two-part feature on the Libertarian Party of Ontario’s new motto: "The Party of Choice." 

Letting everyone act on their own choices seems to lead to disagreement and conflict; some principle that can override individual choice is required to solve this type of conflict.

That is a legitimate concern. 

Libertarians agree that there should be rules and principles governing choice; what they deny is that these principles must conflict.  Rather, they come from the nature of choice itself.  As choosing to do X means choosing to use one's mind and body to do X, respecting another's choice means respecting his (or her) right to freely use his own mind and body.   What John wants to do to himself, is a matter of his own choice; but what John wants to do to Mary, is not simply a matter of John's choice, but more importantly of Mary's.

The idea of choice requires the complementary idea of individual, human rights - of what philosopher Robert Nozick calls the "moral space" within which each person is governed solely by his own choices.  In turn, the idea of human rights helps define, and protect as well as limit, the scope of everyone's freedom of choice.

Acting on one's choices requires not just moral but also physical space, and (often) access to physical things.   Human choices on how to use these spaces and things are a fertile source of conflict.  So choice requires property rights, as an essential part of human rights.

 "So choice requires property rights, as an essential part of human rights."

A second objection is that some people make bad choices - some choose to rob, some to murder, some to defraud.  Why should those choices be respected?

But this second objection is just a special case of the first - that choices conflict - with the same solution.  Recognizing the principle of human rights, means recognizing that choices, which violate the human and property rights of others, should not be respected, or even permitted - not because one's choices are unimportant, but because those others' choices are equally important.

That leads to the Libertarian theory of law: that actions, which violate the rights of others, should be legally forbidden, while those that do not should be left alone.  What is important, in judging a law to be good or bad, is the nature of the acts it forbids.  Does an action affect only the person acting, or only those who consent (or choose) to be affected?  Then it should not be interfered with.  Does it hurt those who have not consented?  Then it should not be allowed.  Whom an action affects; where it takes place (in one's home? on a public street-corner?); and whose property it uses; are what the law should consider when judging any action.

In this way, the Libertarian theory of human and property rights makes possible a free society, one based on and maximizing individual choice.    That society of choice, in turn, makes possible the realization of those other values of liberty, respect, harmony, progress, and abundance.

---

Free Trade And Its Enemies

By Jan Narveson

The proposed "Free Trade Area of the Americas" which occasioned so much fuss back in April, is not literally a proposal for free trade. It is, rather, a proposal for freer trade than we currently have. But the principle of free trade is eminently discussable and the case for it extremely strong.

You have free trade when two things are present: (a) property rights are recognized and respected by the various proposed traders; and (b) there is no "authorized" interfer­ence, that is, no government interferes with the exchanges the parties make with each other.

Tariffs, quotas, and other government restraints on trade depart from condition (b); pirates, the Mafia, and false advertising are ways of interfering with (a).

Nobody loses - All parties gain

What is the advantage of free trade? Simple: it brings two parties into a fully cooperative relationship. Nobody loses. All parties gain. Nobody has to sell and nobody has to buy. Whether you participate is up to you, as a consumer, a worker or a ‘capitalist’. Each person is free to do what he takes to be the best with whatever resources he can muster without resorting to force against his fellows, and nobody is allowed to prevent him from trying to do so.

Free trade between nations has a logic that can be best illustrated by noting that within each country, there is a free trade area as big as the country itself. So consider raising toll barriers between, say, Kitchener and Toronto. If you don't like free trade, why wouldn't you be in favour of such things? If you answer that the result would be terribly inefficient and leave us all a good deal poorer, you are right on the mark. But the same is true at the international level. Barriers on trade between country X and country Y - what can they possibly do for those countries? There is a simple answer: (a) give jobs to bureaucrats and (b) keep the people in X and Y poorer than they otherwise would be.

Better for them is better for us.

But some opponents of free trade think that it's a huge advantage that Big Companies, which they hate, won't make as much money. Curious, this objection, which seems to be based on resentment and spite - certainly not on sound economics. For when a company makes a lot of money in a free market, it can only be because a lot of people like its products better than anybody else's - to the point that they actually buy them when they don’t have to. So long as a company obeys the rules and makes its money by selling things that consumers don't have to buy, the fact that the firm makes money is a good thing, and the more the better. Better for them is better for us.

You may think that the company makes money by overpricing its products. But if there is free trade, claims about "overpricing" are basically meaningless. Apparently the price wasn't too high for the customer, since he paid it. And if somebody else thinks he can do better, great! He's welcome to set up shop and try! He is, that is, if there is genuine free trade – which is very rare.

The last point won’t be true if government restricts trade because a restriction shuts out some competition, and the result has to be that prices are higher than they otherwise would be. For example, if you restrict stuff made in Mexico by people getting paid $3 a day, companies back home can charge more because there's nobody offering similar products for less.

Meanwhile, there is also a Mexican family living on nothing instead of $3 a day. I suppose some people think that's a big advantage, but I don't. I have nothing against Mexicans, and I have a lot in favour of low prices. Indeed, the low prices make the Mexicans my friends.

They say governments "defend" the local economy with trade restrictions but any protection of a Canadian producer assaults a Canadian consumer. Government is supposed to be impartial, and play no favourites. But ALL restrictions on trade play favourites, and amount to making war on somebody, almost always some group of consumers - which, by the way, is all of us.

Quick note: trade restrictions virtually always favour the big against the small. Large companies have political "clout:" They can afford to inveigle a deal favourable to them; little guys can't.

So what can possibly be said for restrictions on trade? Some people like to live in closed communities. Such people prefer poverty among themselves to wealth via dealing with the rest of the world. No problem. That is certainly their right, except, why should they be able to force ME to live the same way?

They believe …
Everybody, Do it My Way!

To each his own, say many of us. But enemies of free trade don't really believe that. What they believe is: Everybody, Do it My Way!

Can these two be reconciled? Not as long as the anti-free-traders insist on making the rest of us suffer along with them. And they do. They want the government on THEIR side. But as for us libertarians, we say, "Hey, you're welcome to suffer all you like and be as poor as you please, and also to do the Mexicans and the Chileans and the Nigerians no good in the process. Just let us do our thing, OK?"

But we know they won't. That's why us liberty-loving types have our work cut out for us.

Jan Narveson (Professor), Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo

By Sean Morley

The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty has started its summer campaign of protests. They are front-page news, and will continue to be all summer. OCAP wants the government to "take care of the homeless and the unemployed."

Their arguments are based on feeling and emotion. The logic is "We OCAP, want the government to extort more money out of hard working Canadians to give us more money!"  OCAP are nothing short of thugs who love the use of violence and extortion. They have nobody counteracting them.

This creates a perfect opportunity to get the Ontario Libertarian Party name into the media and into homes and expose what OCAP really stands for. Lets create a group called OCAE (Ontario Coalition Against Extortion). This group would go wherever OCAP goes to protest.  Our signs could read "OCAP=EXTORTION" and "Wages Are Earned Not Extorted." The signs, of course, would say "Vote LIBERTARIAN!!!"

This plan would lead to news coverage and we need to get noticed with elections less than two years away. Please email me at lcmagg(at)yahoo.ca if you are interested in helping out. If we get enough of a response, we should get started right away.

---