Never A Dull Moment - By Mary Lou Gutscher

Convention Notice

No Cigar For This Washington Intern By Peter Jaworski

Leader’s Report - Sam Apelbaum

Talking Trash By George Dance – Party Chairman

On Being a Libertarian Candidate - By Jim McIntosh

City of Toronto Should Butt Out - By Emily Monroy

Youth For Liberty Summer Camp - By Peter Jaworski

A License to Parent? - By Emily Monroy

Never A Dull Moment - By Mary Lou Gutscher

The Map That Predicted Terrorism

I had the pleasure of attending the first annual FEE Fest in Las Vegas in May, sponsored by the Foundation for Economic Education. FEE is now producing The Map That Predicted Terrorism, which shows the relationship between freedom and prosperity around the world - A very powerful tool for introducing the ideas of freedom to the uninitiated. Order your copies and other powerful, pocket-sized items at www.fee.org or by calling 914-591-7230.

Friday Film Nights

Friday Film Nights feature great pizza and fabulous films including those recommended by Miss Liberty’s Guide to Film & Video (available at www.missliberty.com). There’s also a growing library of videos including John Stossel’s ABC specials, and videos from the Idea Channel and the Liberty Fund (e.g. Adam Smith, John Hospers, etc.)

The next film night is August 16. Contact me, Mary Lou Gutscher at 416-250-1564 or MLGutscher@free-market.net to make sure you’re on the invitation list.

Celebrate Capitalism December 1

The inaugural Walk for Capitalism was a lot of fun and a big success with Walks in over 100 cities worldwide last December. This year, Capitalism Day is Sunday, December 1 and in addition to the rally and Walk, will include a variety of events sponsored by various pro-capitalism individuals and organizations. Carol Leborg is this year’s Capitalism Day coordinator for Toronto, and she is looking for all the help she can get. Contact Carol at 416-924-7791 or hleborg(at)pathcom.com

For more information on the world-wide campaign visit www.CelebrateCapitalism.org.

ISIL World Conference In Mexico

This year’s World Conference of the International Society for Individual Liberty will be in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico July 28 – 31, followed by a post-conference vacation tour from August 1 – 4 - a great opportunity to connect with libertarians from around the world. Last minute registrations are still available at www.isil.org or by calling Vince Miller or Jim Elwood at ISIL HQ in California at 707-746-8796.

Seminars and Internships

Education is a wonderful thing, especially when you’re surrounded by scholars and students who favour personal and economic freedom as the basis for building a society. Several organizations offer bursaries for their seminars and internship positions. For example, Peter Jaworski, OLP executive committee member and co-founder of the Youth for Liberty in Canada, is currently working on scholarship in Washington D.C. as an intern for the CATO Institute.

You might want to register for one of these up-coming seminars or inquire about their intern programs:

• Toronto – November 2002 – Student Seminar on Public Policy Issues sponsored by the Fraser Institute  (www.fraserinstitute.ca/studentcentre)

• Irvington, New York – August 11-16 – Advanced Economics: The State of a Civilized Society sponsored by the Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org)

• San Diego - CATO Summer Seminar – July 27 – August 2 (www.cato.org)

Libertarians Fleeing To Canada?

Canada is still one of the most free countries in the world, and Ontario one of the best provinces to live in. When a libertarian from another country wants to come here to live and work, I say “Yippee!”

Libertarian Alex Montero, who has helped the Movimiento Libertario Party elect 6 congressmen in Costa Rica, is planning just that. If you think you might be able to help Alex find employment using his background as a university professor or corporate trainer and/or if you might be willing to open your home to him until he gets settled here, please call me at 416-250-1564 or e-mail MLGutscher(at)free-market.net.

No Cigar For This Washington Intern By Peter Jaworski

"He sneers at you like that," says Kira. "He thinks the interns are kind of funny." Kira works here. I'm an intern. And the fellow who sneered was Ed Crane, founder of this place -- the CATO Institute.

I'm in the heart of Washington D.C., a sweaty Canadian, unused to the intemperate climes. But I'm overwhelmed with excitement, and about as eager as a kid in a candy store.

Except, my candy store is a think-tank, and my candy is a mountain of free books, and access to some of the most competent defenders of individual liberty in the world. Ted Galen Carpenter, David Boaz, Tom Miller, Robert Levy, Tom Palmer. Need I say more?

I've got a cubicle. But I can come and go as I wish. Look at an original copy of Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations.' Or how about stare at a bust of Ludwig Von Mises?

Lunch is always fascinating. Robert Levy, a scholar here at CATO, was explaining once the difference between the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Objectivist Center. How, since Peter Schwartz's (in) famous screed against libertar­ian­ism, CATO and ARI have precious little to say to one another. "It was silly," he said, "and remarkably immature."

About twice a week, CATO sponsors a luncheon on a particular topic. This week's topic was "Antitrust flies high," dealing with the Orbitz 'scandal.' Speakers included James DeLong, while in attendance was Jeff Smith, founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, amongst a host of others. The debate was about whether or not Orbitz is in breach of anti­trust rules -- they sell airline tickets. They're run by the top five major airlines. Neither Expedia nor Travelocity, compet­ing airline ticket sellers on the web, get access to the same kind of deals as Orbitz. Question was: are they anti-competitive?

That's CATO, and it's great.

Leader’s Report – Sam Apelbaum

A recurring theme of my report for this publication is a request for active involvement with and financial support for our party. For instance, right now we need someone to arrange a speaking engagement for me once each month with any group that would like to hear me. We also need a volunteer to take charge of promoting our informal monthly dinner meetings as well as turning some of them into formal dinner meetings complete with speakers.

Other minority view organizations seem to be able to mobilize supporters for their causes more easily than we can. They organize and almost overnight we see and hear their leaders in the media telling us about the sins of the government and what it ought to do if the ruling politicians were not so reprehensible. They may not get everything they want, but do frequently succeed in influencing the govern­ment and having laws enacted which reflect their views.

Though many non-libertarian advocacy organizations appear at first glance to be radical, they are almost invariably completely conventional. In union with all major and almost all minor political parties, they accept the fundamental socialist premise, which is that human lives and the fruit of human energy are at their disposal for their plans and schemes. They simply want to drive things farther than any of the major political parties dare, or, in the alternative, they wish to use up the lives of others for some new fantasy of theirs.

Since they are simply advocating variants of dominant socialist ideology, it should be no surprise they have much less difficulty than us attracting supporters and money.

Over the years, when speaking about the possibility of the triumph of libertarian ideas, I have frequently heard the expression "not in my lifetime". For some of those people the comment has turned out to be accurate. In my own lifetime I hope I will not have to experience Western governments, which are authoritarian and brutal in ways not imagined today. However, the trend of events is ominous. There is no elusive middle way between liberty and slavery and I fear some unforeseen event or events will change for the worst the world, as we know it.

Although our party, along with other libertarian organizations, has struggled to be heard for years, libertarian numbers remain minuscule. We must not be discouraged and should press on in the knowledge that good ideas, which do not deny or condemn the nature of human beings, will ultimately prevail. Becoming actively engaged in the defence of individual liberty is how we can make a difference for our own lives and the lives of countless others everywhere. We need your support to knock down the barriers and help create a world filled with endless possibilities.

Talking Trash By George Dance – Party Chairman

As I write, Toronto is in the middle of a strike by its outside workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 416.  Uncollected garbage is piling up; pools are closed in the middle of a heat wave; pickets are everywhere; and CUPE is running radio commercials to get Toronto voters on side.

In one, CUPE tells us we can “count on” city workers to do their jobs.   But this reliability is threatened by the city’s plans to contract out some services to private firms. If we care about reliable services, we should oppose contracting out; and we should call our city councillors right now, to demand they have it stopped.

CUPE is saying that reliable service is in our interests; that’s something we can all agree with.  But there appear to be two other, more hidden premises:  that there is something – call it X – that makes a company reliable; and that government provided services have X, while private ones do not. 

Those are less obvious.  What could this X be?   I can see just three possibilities:

(1) A service could be ‘reliable’ if those performing it were forced to do so.   Here government has a unique power:  to use force against its employees if they strike, by ruling them an essential service.   But that cannot be X..  The workers of 416 are not an essential service (except for the paramedics), do not want to be one, and in fact are exercising their freedom to strike as we speak.  We must seek X elsewhere.

(2) A service could be ‘reliable’ if there were strikes, but they did not hurt delivery.  That requires alternate providers, as where there is free competition:  If a strike hits a local store, I go to one nearby; a restaurant, I order take-out; a courier, I call another.   But when a strike hits a legally monopolized service - when it closes my local pool or library, or stops my mail - I must go without.  Similarly, where the city is already contracting out garbage pickup, it is less affected than where the only garbage workers are its employees.

(3) A service could be ‘reliable’ if those performing it have a compelling incentive.   A private firm has such an incentive: it performs, or it isn’t paid.  I can count on getting what I buy in a store, because if I don’t, the store gets nothing from me.  But if a service is funded by my taxes, I have no such say.   If the government is buying the service, the provider has such an incentive.  But if government is itself the provider, there’s not even that:  the government gets ‘paid’ whatever and whenever the government wants.

Both competition and voluntary payment appear to make service delivery more reliable.  But neither plays any significant role in the present system, which CUPE is urging us to support.  Both would be better served by the city’s plans for limited privatization.  Both would be even better served by a program of full privatization, with free entry for all suppliers, and with consumers free to deal with either the city or the supplier of their choice.

Toronto voters concerned about reliable services would do better phoning their councillors to demand more privatization, not less.

On Being a Libertarian Candidate By Jim McIntosh

I could list many reasons why you should be a candidate for the Libertarian Party in the next election, but I think the best reason is so YOU WILL HAVE SOMEONE TO VOTE FOR!!  You can't vote for "None of the above" so your alternative is to stay home and complain on Election Day, and we all know how much good that does. 

For those of you who haven't been a candidate before, you should know about a few requirements the ruling parties have put in place to discourage you. 

1.          Collect 25 signatures from registered electors in your riding.  I usually go door to door in my neighbourhood and explain I need their permission (but not their vote) so I can be a candidate. 

2.       Take these signatures and a cheque for $200 to the DRO to register as a candidate and get your name on the ballot.  

3.       You must register with the Finance Department of Elections Ontario.  To register, you must name a Chief Financial Office to look after all of the money you are going to collect and spend on your campaign and to issue tax receipts, and an auditor to confirm after the campaign is over that your CFO did a good and proper job.

I can simplify the administrative effort if you are willing to do more than vote for yourself.  I will be your CFO and take care of item 3 above for you, including the audit.  You will need to collect the signatures and pay the $200 deposit.  If you send the Party a $200 contribution, the Party will pay your deposit.  This way, you will get back $150 on your next tax return. 

There are a few more things I ask of you as a candidate.  First, I want you to contact everyone in your riding on our mailing list and ask for their help.  (I will provide the list.)  Do this as soon as possible; don't wait until the election is called.  Second, introduce yourself to a thousand voters, give them an election pamphlet, and ask for their vote. Do this by knocking on doors, greeting people at bus stops, and speaking at All Candidates Meetings.  You can design your own election pamphlet or use one provided by the Party.

Finally, ask your friends, relatives and other libertarians in your area to support your campaign with a tax-creditable donation.  Ask them to help pay the $200 deposit or help pay for your pamphlets.

It's up to you.  You can sit at home and complain or you can do something about it.  Yes, it will take some of your time, but consider it an investment in your and your children's future.  We can help you with what to say when you greet voters or give a speech or ask for money.  But we need your help or nothing will happen. 

Who will you vote for Election Day?  Give us a call.

City of Toronto Should Butt Out By Emily Monroy

At the last Libertarian Party meeting at Scruffy Murphy’s Bar, my eyes started hurting after the first hour.  I thought I was coming down with something until I discovered the real culprit:, cigarettes.  Though second-hand smoke has always bothered me, now that cigarettes are prohibited in most public places they hit me full force the few times I do encounter them.

But all this should change in June 2004.  That’s when a new City of Toronto by-law will require all bars to become smoke-free.  (They will be able to allow smoking in specially designated rooms, which however most establishments do not have.)

I don’t smoke, and I find the habit repulsive.  None­the­less, the upcoming anti-smoking law leaves me cold.  It should be a matter between bar owners and clients, not between owners and the government with customers caught somewhere in the middle.  While reduc­ing exposure to second-hand smoke is a noble goal, prohibit­ing cigarettes in bars is hardly the way to achieve it.

First, most bar patrons are there by choice as opposed to necessity.

Banning cigarettes in a workplace lunchroom, for instance, makes sense because employees of that company may have nowhere else to eat.  On the other hand, any customer unhappy with a particular bar’s decision to permit smoking is free to go to another establishment that does not.

I’m even sceptical of the by-law’s success in protecting people’s health. For example, Mr. Joe Blow who can’t go for a smoke at the local pub with his buddies may simply take up his habit at home.  By doing this he exposes his wife and kids - who unlike his fellow bar patrons don’t have the option of simply getting up and walking away - to the dangers of second-hand smoke.

The anti-smoking by-law in bars seems like another instance of the state interfering in a matter of which it should, literally and figuratively, butt out.

Youth For Liberty Summer Camp - By Peter Jaworski

The second annual Youth for Liberty Summer Camp went off with a bang this year. Once again we assembled on forty acres of hills, water, and terrain, to talk liberty with other like-minded folk. With an impressive roster of speakers, guests, and food, this year’s summer camp was not to be missed.

Continuing on the theme of “Liberty in Action,” this year’s summer camp re-emphasized the purpose of the Youth for Liberty—that of getting out there and doing liberty-type ‘stuff.’ The purpose of the camp is, as it should be, to motivate the young and young at heart to pursue liberty a little more publicly and to encourage people to be active in their support of both economic and civil liberties.

To that effect, speakers were chosen for their active liberty lifestyle. Dr. Jan Narveson, professor of philosophy at the University of Waterloo, explained the tenets of libertarianism, Sarah Lawrence, a frequent speaker in libertarian circles, explained some ‘inevitable consequences of trading with the enemy,’ Pierre Lemieux challenged both gun control laws as well as the state while George H. Smith returned to the woods of Ontario to enthral us with his talks once more.

For the politically active liberty-minded folk, Robert Metz, president of the Freedom Party of Ontario, and Paul McKeever, leader of the federal Freedom Party, explained the way their parties function.

Representing the Ontario Libertarian Party was Sam Apelbaum. This was Sam’s second appearance at the Youth for Liberty Summer Camp as a representative of the OLP. Sam explained the purposes of the OLP, and how it functions to support liberty in a climate that is not entirely conducive to it.

The Youth for Liberty will build on its foundations this year, expanding its campus orientation, and, in a short time, introducing some public policy.

A License to Parent? By Emily Monroy

The other day I contacted the Toronto Harbourfront Commission to inquire about a boating license for some friends.  It struck me as odd that operating a boat, something humans have done since time immemorial, required permission from a higher authority.  But today it seems everything from driving a car to going fishing to teaching children does. 

Now some people are suggesting that an activity arguably more important and with wider-ranging consequences than the above-mentioned ones also should be subject to licensing: bringing up another human being - in other words - a license to parent.

The most vocal Canadian proponent of such a license is Katherine Covell, a psychology professor at the University College of Cape Breton.  According to Covell, any individual who wishes to have a child should first possess at least a high school diploma and complete a course in infant development. Then he or she could apply for permission to actually become a parent.

Covell’s proposal sparked a torrential reaction.  Martha Friendly of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care described it as a “hare-brained idea.”  Others went even further, calling Covell a fascist.

Dr. Covell was my first-year psych professor at U of T, and I know for a fact she’s not a fascist.  Her proposal is motivated not by a desire to stop the “wrong” people from reproducing (after all, she’s not advocating that only individuals with Einsteinesque IQs and Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston looks be allowed to procreate) but by concern for children.  And many of her statements make sense.  For example, it’s generally preferable both for the prospective parents’ and their offspring’s sake that childbearing be embarked upon after the mother and/or father have at least completed high school.  If my sixteen-year-old cousin told me he wanted to drop out of school to father a child, I’d strongly discourage him from doing so.  The idea of a parenting license looks even more tempting in light of the deaths of children like Randall Dooley and Jordan Heikamp at the hands of their caregivers.

Yet for all its merits, I have to say no to state-mandated permission for parenthood.  First of all, how would it be enforced?  If a woman (and let’s be clear: as with the sexual double standard, the penalties for violating rules on reproduction would fall disproportion­ately on women) became pregnant despite failing to obtain a license to do so, would she be forced to have an abortion?  Such a scenario would be repugnant to pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.

It also might be hard to decide who is and is not fit for parenthood.  One person’s Mother of the Year may be another’s Medea.  I was once told, for instance, I had no business bringing a child into the world because I didn’t have enough money to raise one, even though I have a steady job and lead a fairly conservative lifestyle.  On the other hand, a Mexican man I dated said I would make a wonderful mother to his children because I was so different from the girls he knew who drank, smoked and took drugs.

Try as we might, we can’t ensure every child is born into a perfect environment.  Numerous studies have shown, for example, that witnessing parents argue constantly is bad for children.  Yet few would suggest legally forbidding two quarrelsome people from getting married and reproducing in order to spare their future offspring psychological damage.  That would truly be a case of the government putting its nose in the bedrooms of the nation.  And in a democratic society, the state can (and should) only have a limited role in dictating citizens’ private lives.

I’m furthermore sceptical of some individuals’ endorsement of the parenting license.  While I have no doubt Katherine Covell genuinely cares about the welfare of children, I’m not so sure of some others.  One advocate of parenting licenses is Jerry Steinberg, self-described “founding non-father” of No Kidding!, a social club for people without children, and a major spokesperson of the childfree lifestyle.  Steinberg is also a proponent of China’s one-child policy, a program that is not only profoundly undemocratic but has led to the death and/or abandonment of countless baby girls.  The idea of someone like Steinberg being able to decide who does and does not get to reproduce frightens me.

My Mexican ex-boyfriend told me that a former girlfriend of his wanted him to impregnate her.  He refused, saying first she should give up her drinking habit (which she was unwilling to do).  I understand his reasoning; getting roaring drunk every Friday night generally isn’t conducive to taking care of a baby.  I believe he made the right decision.  But it was a decision that only he, rather than some higher authority, should have been allowed to make.