Even the Communist Chinese Think Canada’s Socialist Healthcare Is Dumb

So some Chinese government officials wanted to learn a bit about Canadian healthcare. It seems they were baffled by the stupidity of our system.

Becky Akers writes:

Ah, Canadian medicine! Single-payer, socialist paradise, totally “free” (sic for “paid for by others”)! As American communists continue their attempts to nationalize the entire medical industry, not just the insurance companies that pay for it, they insist that Canada’s method is the world’s best.

Alas, “Chinese government officials” who know a thing or two about totalitarianism disagree. A group of them visited our northern neighbors because they were “interested in learning about Canada’s health care system.” “…[O]ne of British Columbia’s regional health authorities … had only begun outlining” how things work there, yet “already his guests seemed confused.”

He started explaining the basic principles again, in even simpler terms: The government decides what are medically necessary procedures and those procedures are covered by universal health insurance, free at the point of delivery.

…Residents cannot go outside the system and pay for their own medically-necessary treatments, unless they want to travel to another country.

“Stop there,” the translator said. “It’s that last part that is confusing the delegation. They think you’re saying that Canadians cannot spend their own money on medically-necessary health care.”

Yes, he assured them, that’s right.

The translator pressed him: “You mean to say that if you’re sick and want to pay for treatment, that you aren’t allowed to? Even though it’s your own money and there is a doctor willing to accept it?”

Yes, that’s right.

There was a pause as the translator relayed the answer to the delegation and the delegation conferred among themselves. Finally, the translator spoke up: “They say that even the Chinese communist system is not this restrictive!”

And this potentially fatal authoritarianism is many Americans’ ideal, the scheme they hope to inflict here.

— Thanks to LRC

Advertisements

How Socialism Corrupts the People

Socialism and the process of socializing the economy does not only impoverish society in basic economic terms. It also corrupts the very “soul” of a society by destroying the natural order that encourages serving our fellow man.

Writes Hoppe:

… a policy of the socialization … affects the character structure of society, the importance of which can hardly be exaggerated. As has been pointed out repeatedly, adopting … socialism instead of capitalism based on the natural theory of property implies giving a relative advantage to nonusers, nonproducers, and noncontractors as regards property titles of the means of production and the income that can be derived from using of these means.

If people have an interest in stabilizing and, if possible, increasing their income and they can shift relatively easily from the role of a user-producer or contractor into that of a nonuser, nonproducer, or noncontractor—assumptions, to be sure, whose validity can hardly be disputed—then, responding to the shift in the incentive structure affected by socialization, people will increasingly engage in nonproductive and noncontractual activities and, as time goes on, their personalities will be changed. A former ability to perceive and to anticipate situations of scarcity, to take up productive opportunities, to be aware of technological possibilities, to anticipate changes in demand, to develop marketing strategies and to detect chances for mutually advantageous exchanges, in short: the ability to initiate, to work and to respond to other people’s needs, will be diminished­, if not completely extinguished.

People will have become different persons, with different skills, who, should the policy suddenly be changed and capitalism reintroduced, could not go back to their former selves immediately and rekindle their old productive spirit, even if they wanted to. They will simply have forgotten how to do it and will have to relearn, slowly, with high psychic costs involved, just as it involved high costs for them to suppress their productive skills in the first place.

But this is only half the picture of the social consequences of socialization. It can be completed by recalling the above findings regarding capitalism’s and socialism’s apparent differences. This will bring out the other side of the personality change caused by socializing, complementing the just mentioned loss in productive capacity. The fact must be recalled that socialism, too, must solve the problem of who is to control and coordinate various means of production.

Contrary to capitalism’s solution to this problem, though, in socialism the assignment of different positions in the production structure to different people is a political matter, i.e., a matter accomplished irrespective of considerations of previous user-ownership and the existence of contractual, mutually agreeable exchange, but rather by superimposing one person’s will upon that of another (disagreeing) one.

Evidently, a person’s position in the production structure has an immediate effect on his income, be it in terms of exchangeable goods, psychic income, status, and the like. Accordingly, as people want to improve their income and want to move into more highly evaluated positions in the hierarchy of caretakers, they increasingly have to use their political talents. It becomes irrelevant, or is at least of reduced importance, to be a more efficient producer or contractor in order to rise in the hierarchy of income recipients.

Instead, it is increasingly important to have the peculiar skills of a politician, i.e., a person who through persuasion, demagoguery and intrigue, through promises, bribes, and threats, manages to assemble public support for his own position.

Depending on the intensity of the desire for higher incomes, people will have to spend less time developing their productive skills and more time cultivating political talents. And since different people have differing degrees of productive and political talents, different people will rise to the top now, so that one finds increasing numbers of politicians everywhere in the hierarchical order of caretakers.

All the way to the very top there will be people incompetent to do the job they are supposed to do. It is no hindrance in a caretaker’s career for him to be dumb, indolent, inefficient, and uncaring, as long as he commands superior political skills, and accordingly people like this will be taking care of the means of production everywhere.

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, page 45-47.

Sentence-by-Sentence Refutation of Boilerplate Climate Change Propaganda

World leaders are currently enjoying their fancy party in Paris and pontificating about how global warming is going to kill us all and we must let bureaucrats and politicians lead us into a glorious new era of the centrally planned renewable energy economy.

At this time it’s useful to review an article that shamelessly repeats the typical mantra of climate change lies and fallacies. The subject of the following piece relies on all the usual propaganda you hear spouted by would-be central planners and cronies, and is rebutted sentence-by-sentence. Overall, this presents a useful summary of common climate change lies and their refutation.

AP’s Seth Borenstein gets something right (but only the date)

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I often get emails asking me to comment in detail on an article on global warming that pretends the “problem” is worse than it is. Here is my reply to one such request.

Earth is a wilder [no], warmer [no] place since last climate deal made in 1997

By SETH BORENSTEIN, November 29, 2015 [At least he got the date right]

PARIS (AP) — This time, it’s a hotter [Satellites show no global warming for the 223 months (i.e., 18 years 7 months) since April 1997], waterier [Water vapour is difficult to measure, but some records show no change in water vapour except in the vital mid-troposphere, where it has actually declined], wilder Earth [The IPCC, both in its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Weather and in its 2013 Fourth Assessment Report,says there has been no particular overall trend in storminess, floods or droughts] that world leaders are trying to save [They are not trying to save the world: Bjorn Lomborg has reliably calculated that the effect of honouring all nations’ Paris pledges will be to reduce global temperature by 0.05-0.17 C° by 2100 compared with having no pledges, and the cost of getting that reduction will be $1 trillion].

The writer is actually giving the propagandist, Mr. Borenstein, too much credit about getting the date right. That was probably automatically generated with the website software — even a monkey trying to publish an attempt at Hamlet on his blog would have gotten the date right.

But hey, he… um… spelled his own name correctly?

— Read the rest of the article. —

Election 2015: How Bad Are The Liberals?

In this series CMR will examine the policy proposals set forth by the top three parties in Canada’s 2015 federal election.

PART I: The NDP
PART II: The Liberals (current article)
PART III: The Conservatives

Obviously these parties are all terrible. So the question is simply this: which party will beat you with the biggest stick?

We will refer to the helpful National Post article “Everything you need to know about the parties’ platforms, from taxes to terrorism to the environment.”

In Part I, we looked at the NDP. Their platform is awful, but in all fairness they had a couple of good policies related, including the repeal of Bill C-51 and ending the military campaign against ISIS. On economic issues, they were entirely dreadful other than their teeny tiny tax cut for small business. They earned a score of D-. Let’s see if the Liberals can fare better.

As Canada’s center-left party, one would expect them to be a little less stupid more moderate than the NDP, which is the party of the far left. Practically speaking, they might be closer to the Conservatives (center-right) when it comes to governance.

Economy

– Cut middle-class income-tax bracket to 20.5 per cent from current 22 per cent; create a new tax bracket of 33 per cent for annual incomes of more than $200,000.

Right on, tax cut! For some people, anyway. But it is an incredibly small tax cut. A lousy 1.5%? Come on, Canadians deserve better. Most people won’t even notice this. But they want to increase taxes on the ‘rich’ (though I hesitate to classify someone as rich for earning over $200K per year). This which is politically appealing but does absolutely nothing positive for the economy (it merely shifts money from productive people to the government).

This would probably increase taxation on net, therefore this policy is bad. They should drop the tax increase and keep the tax cut, then at least this policy would be stingy and lame but not bad.

If the Liberals said they were eliminating income tax on anyone in the middle class, then that would be something to get excited about, even if they were increasing taxes on the wealthier brackets. Better yet would be to cut everyone’s taxes.

Heck, even the NDP said they would keep the income tax rates the same! Well, they are probably lying but it’s funny that the NDP is arguably better than the Liberals on federal income taxes.

– Cancel income-splitting for families; party calls it “a $2-billion tax break to the top 15 per cent of Canadians.”

We can say the same thing we said about the NDP wanting to cancel income-splitting: “This would increase the tax burden on any family to which it applies, and is therefore bad. That it applies mostly to the “wealthiest” is true depending on how you define “wealthy,” but it also applies only to those who have someone with whom they can split their income. So it is rather selective and narrow in its tax relief. This is an interesting matter on its own, and of course tax relief for everyone would be better. But regardless of the fairness issue, added tax relief for some is better than added tax relief for none.”

– Introduce a new income-tested, tax-free monthly Canada Child Benefit that would boost payments to all families with children and annual income below $150,000.

As we said in our discussion of the NDP, the Child Tax Benefit is effectively a tax cut to net taxpayers with children, and welfare for net tax-consumers with children. Essentially, this Liberal policy says families with annual income >$150K should pay more. It’s not clear whether lower income folks would get more or less out of the deal versus the status quo.

Overall, this policy is essentially just dumb because it fiddles with something that shouldn’t exist. A better solution would be to just give families income tax cuts. Fiddling around with these tax credits is annoying and a roundabout way to give tax cuts to some and welfare to others. Meanwhile, net taxpayers with no children don’t get squat. The whole Child Benefit system is unfair and stupid.

– Cancel TFSA increase to $10,000, saying it helps well-off Canadians who need it the least.

As we said in our NDP platform review: “The TFSA is one of the only good things the Harper Conservatives have ever done. Reducing the contribution limits means more taxable income and therefore this is an evil NDP policy.” So we can say the same thing here: Evil Liberal policy. Don’t you love the government deciding who is needy and who is not? Plus, not that it should matter, but it’s questionable whether these claims about the TFSA mostly benefiting rich people are true in the first place. Evidence suggests that people at a broad range of income levels benefit from the TFSA.

– Retain tax breaks for small businesses but want to ensure this doesn’t primarily benefit the wealthy.

This doesn’t really mean anything. Small business gets “tax breaks” i.e. lower tax rates if business income is under a certain threshold. Most small business owners are not rich, and even if they were, so what? In small privately held businesses, income flows through to the owner, who gets taxed at his marginal rate. If he is rich, that tax rate is higher.

Side note: You learn a lot about people’s underlying philosophy when they say “less tax” is a “tax break.” In other words, anything less than having 100% of income taxed is a tax break. These disgusting people are basically saying all your income belongs to the state, and anything you are allowed to keep is a “tax break.” Yuck.

– Balance the budget in 2016.

I really hate when politicians say they are going to “balance the budget” and leave out the important part of HOW THEY ARE GOING TO DO THAT. Raising taxes, or cutting spending? Raising taxes is bad and cutting spending is good.

I would argue that if the government is not going to cut spending, running deficits is better than raising taxes, although both are bad. But there is a difference: you really don’t have a choice as to whether you pay taxes or not. You do have a choice about whether you lend the government money. Governments racking up debts is still bad, because it absorbs private capital and pumps it into wasteful government spending, but at least the taxpayer is less directly affected.

– Cancel Conservative plan to increase OAS eligibility age to 67.

Same thing we said about the NDP proposal applies here: “Evaluating this is a little more complicated than most proposals. On the one hand, OAS is welfare for old folks. This involves subsidizing old folks (who tend to have more accumulated wealth) by taxing younger people (who tend to have less accumulated wealth). Taking money from poorer people and giving it to wealthier people is a weird policy. On the other hand, old folks who are/were net taxpayers deserve to get all their money back, so the OAS could be considered on the same terms as taking a tax credit. Overall, the OAS is bad and should just be eliminated, and with that in mind increasing the age limit is probably better because the best result would be increasing the age limit to 1000 so no one could get it.”

– Increase Canada Pension Plan contributions and benefits for Canadians.

No. The CPP is a disgrace to humanity. If people want to put more money into the CPP, I guess that’s their choice, and they should be allowed to do that. In general, however, people should be allowed to opt out of the CPP and take responsibility for their own retirement. The younger generation will be lucky to get anything out of the CPP. Forcing people — at gunpoint, if necessary — to put money into the CPP is a moral and economic atrocity.

Security and Terrorism

 – End the bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria but keep military trainers in Iraq and boost humanitarian aid to help refugees; allow more refugees into the country from Iraq and Syria.

You see, the Liberals start here with something good and then dilute it with something bad. Ending the bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria is a good idea. Entangling ourselves in brutal foreign conflicts is senseless. But the Liberals want to keep military trainers in Iraq — in other words, they want to support one evil faction against another evil faction. The correct choice is actually to not choose an evil faction at all, and stay out.

There should be no humanitarian aid from Ottawa — Canadians should send their own humanitarian aid if they want, and the government should have nothing to do with it. Likewise, dealing with refugees should not be a government issue at all — if people and private organizations want to help refugees by giving them a place to stay and money and such, they should be allowed to do so.

– Make amendments to anti-terrorism Bill C-51 by: limiting the sharing of personal data to 17 government departments and agencies with national security responsibilities; eliminating CSIS’s new power to obtain court warrants to break the law in some cases to disrupt suspected terrorists; adding a three-year sunset provisions on some parts of the law and mandatory parliamentary reviews of the extraordinary security measures.

The Liberals supported C-51, and these amendments are simply a joke. Oh, so personal data will be shared with only 17 departments and agencies with national security responsibilities. (How do we have that many bureaucracies with national security responsibilities? How do we have that many government agencies at all?)

How nice to eliminate CSIS’s power to break the law — after you gave it to them. Give me a break. They routinely break the law anyway so nothing will change without defunding CSIS and prosecuting lawbreakers.

Sunset provisions at least create the possibility that a bad law will go away, so that’s not a terrible idea because laws are virtually never repealed. But notice how politicians only propose sunset provisions on bad laws. Wouldn’t it just be better to not pass the law, and if it’s already passed, just repeal and try again? Don’t say, “Hey, this law is bad but we will keep it for a few years and then decide whether we still want it, By the way, we probably will.”

The NDP, which says they would repeal C-51, has the Liberals and Conservatives beat when it comes to this awful law.

– Create an all-party national security oversight committee to oversee the 17 government departments and agencies with national security responsibilities.

Committees. The solution is always committees. News flash: Committees are dumb and if you think we need more committees you are quite likely also dumb. They are routinely stacked with members favorable to whoever is setting up the committees in the first place, and inevitably create giant reports no one reads then everything just continues as it was, if not worse.

Government oversight doesn’t fix anything. It just changes the way the government wastes money. Furthermore, it usually doesn’t work as intended, because rather than restricting government activity, it tends to add legitimacy to functions that are bad in the first place. It does this by creating the illusion of “checks and balances” while it white washes bad things.

The only way to reign in abusive government agencies is to cut their budgets or get rid of them.

And again: how do we have 17 government departments and agencies with national security responsibilities? That is way too many. The bureaucratic nightmare in dealing with “national security” must be suffocating.

If the Liberals weren’t clueless and/or dishonest, they would be getting rid of agencies rather than setting up committees.

Environment

– Continue to oppose proposed Northern Gateway pipeline; support Energy East and Keystone XL pipelines.

Frankly, the federal government should have no influence whatsoever in the Northern Gateway pipeline, which is an Alberta/BC issue.

It’s nice that they support Energy East and Keystone XL, in the sense that “supporting” means “not opposing.” The government shouldn’t be advocating for special industry projects one way or another. They should let these issues resolve themselves among legitimate stakeholders.

– Put a price on carbon pollution that allows provinces to design their own carbon pricing policies.

This seems contradictory. If you put a price on carbon pollution, you preclude the provinces from deciding how carbon pollution should be priced — or whether it should be priced at all.

Carbon pricing creates a weird managed market that benefits the most richest, most powerful carbon pollution generators and financial institutions while hurting everyone else. This policy is terrible.

– Partner with provinces and territories to establish national emissions-reduction targets.

Sorry, no. There should be no national emissions-reduction targets.

– Invest millions in clean technologies and enhance tax measures to create more green jobs.

No. We should not have the government pouring taxpayer money into politically connected businesses, destroying jobs in some sectors and to subsidize wasteful jobs in other sectors. However, we should not be opposed to cutting taxes, even if only for certain sectors of the economy. Although a tax cut for all industries is better, selective tax cuts are relative improvements. If they want to have “green” companies pay less tax, sure, I can get on board.

– Introduce an environmental review process with more “teeth.”

Virtually all the worst pollution takes place on government land. The problem isn’t an environmental review process that lacks enough “teeth,” but instead the fact that the government allows pollution on its land at all. Government land should be desocialized and laws of tort and trespass should be enforced. Adding more teeth just means a few more boxes need to be checked before the government will let someone dump toxic waste in publicly owned rivers. Ultimately, they are still letting someone pollute.

– Hold First Ministers’ meeting with premiers within 90 days of the Paris UN climate change conference this December to establish a framework for reducing Canada’s carbon footprint.

Canada doesn’t need to reduce its carbon footprint. Like, at all. So establishing a framework for doing so is dumb.

This proposal is completely moronic. Who cares what the climate change conference in Paris says? It is a conference of goons and fools. Reducing our carbon footprint hurts us and helps countries like India and China. We should be trying to increase our carbon footprint, so that we are wealthier and healthier.

– Increase the amount of Canada’s protected marine and coastal areas to five per cent by 2017 and 10 per cent by 2020.

No. All the marine and coastal areas should be desocialized. The end.

– Phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

Well, yes, absolutely! Now this probably wouldn’t result in any less spending overall, because the subsidies cut from A would just go to B, but in and of itself this is a good policy. The government should not subsidize any industries.

– Along with the U.S. and Mexico, develop a North American clean energy and environmental agreement.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! These kinds of agreement, whether they are ‘free trade’ agreements or ‘environmental’ agreements, result in harmful political integration and a surrender of sovereignty. We have less than 10% the population of the rest of North America. Canada would be surrendering power to other countries that don’t share our values. The agreement would harmonize regulations and benefit the most powerful and politically connected special interests.

Infrastructure and Transport

– Boost infrastructure funding through “alternative sources of capital” such as having large pension funds invest in major infrastructure projects in urban and rural communities.

The details are very fuzzy on what the Liberals intend for this. They have not given any concrete plan. They say they want to entice investment from private pension funds to invest in Canadian infrastructure projects. That could mean all sorts of things. In all fairness, we cannot judge this policy (but it will probably be bad).

– Provide infrastructure funding for affordable housing, public transit, transportation, climate change and “smart cities.”

NO!!! I mean, this is just dreadful. The federal government should not fund any of these things. The fact it extracts money from the provinces, takes a huge cut for itself, and then parcels out the rest based on political influence makes things worse. It would be far better to just cut that part of Ottawa’s budget and leave all infrastructure decisions in the hands of the provinces.

And don’t you shudder to think what happens when the government starts dishing out cash for “smart cities”? Smart to whom? Ottawa? All the stupidest possible public infrastructure fantasies will have their crazy advocates fighting over the federal money that’s up for grabs. Someone please save us.

– Hold a big city mayors’ meeting in Ottawa annually to discuss pressing infrastructure issues facing cities.

This is completely useless. A bunch of big city tax-devouring beggars rack up a big bill on a fancy trip to Ottawa so they can hang around with Justin Trudeau and talk about how much federal money they need, without which their cities will be lousy. Waste of time and money, and surely leading to nothing positive in the future.

Foreign Affairs and Defense

– Make Canada a “world leader” at multinational institutions.

National Post could have left it out of the article. This doesn’t mean anything. I am sure Justin Trudeau would like to give lots of speeches at the United Nations or something, but that doesn’t help anybody.

Realistically speaking, Canada probably shouldn’t even be in most of these “multinational institutions.” They do not represent Canada’s interests and tend to be counterproductive regarding the goals of prosperity and justice throughout the world.

Canada can be a “world leader” by advocating for peace and free markets, and be demonstrating those values to the world with its own domestic policies. This is not what the Liberals are offering.

– Reopen nine Veterans Affairs regional offices closed by the Conservative government.

I understand why this riles people up. The government treats veterans very poorly. But these are fake cuts. Veteran Affairs spends more money in total each year, so even if some regional offices close and a bunch of bureaucrats get fired in one place, the money is being spent elsewhere in Veteran Affairs. Are the veterans better or worse off than before? It’s impossible to say for sure. That is the problem with government spending.

You’d be better off just getting eliminating all tax on military families and getting rid of Veteran Affairs Canada. Any money that Ottawa would otherwise tax and spend would just stay in the provinces and their health care systems could deal with sick and injured people.

– Create a cabinet committee to oversee and manage Canada’s relationship with the United States.

One of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

– Host a new trilateral summit with the United States and Mexico.

No.

Social Issues

– Strengthen the federal government’s role in safeguarding the national health-care system; meet with the premiers on how to improve the system in areas such as wait times, affordability of prescription drugs, and availability of homecare.

What is it with the Liberals and having all these meetings and committees?

Anyway, we really need to rethink our heath care system. We should leave the money in the provinces and let them figure it out. When something is as important as health care, you want your influence to be closer to home. Therefore, the Liberal desire to strengthen Ottawa’s role in “safeguarding” the health care system is the exact opposite direction we should go.

– Restore door-to-door home mail delivery by Canada Post.

Whatever. This basically just subsidizes Amazon. Mail delivery should be entirely privatized.

– Reinstate the long-form census and make Statistics Canada independent.

The long-form census is ridiculous and it’s insane that some think the government should threaten people with imprisonment if they don’t want to fill it out. What is wrong with people?

Democratic Reform and Governance

– Introduce changes to strengthen the Access to Information system and ensure this applies to the Prime Minister’s Office and ministers’ offices.

Supposedly they want to make all government data open by default otherwise the government must provide written response in 30 days blah blah blah. I think the people should have access to all the government’s data without restriction, but I don’t necessarily think the Liberals would help with this. The changes to the Access to Information Act, written by government lawyers, would probably just add more ways to avoid producing information.

Government agencies have secrets because they exist. You wouldn’t care about the Access to Information Act if the government didn’t have so much power.

– Create a quarterly, more detailed parliamentary expense report, and open up the secretive House of Commons Board of Internal Economy.

Theoretically we could get some entertainment and scandals out of this. Ultimately it wouldn’t matter much. So Ottawa would hire a few more bureaucrats to provide more detailed accounting of how parliament wastes money. Big deal. Why don’t we just… cut their budgets? Members of Parliament shouldn’t even get a salary.

– Create a non-partisan, independent process for advising the prime minister on Senate appointments.

Lame. No one cares. No one likes the Senate.

– Allow more time for questions and answers during question period, and introduce a prime minister’s question period.

Might occasionally be good for theatre, but otherwise has no meaningful impact on anything. The money will still be spent. At best it might slow things down — fewer laws, fewer ways to hurt Canadians. That would be good.

– Ban partisan government ads and appoint an Advertising Commissioner to help the Auditor General provide oversight on government advertising.

Lame. Why can’t we just ban all government advertising?

– Revamp the electoral process by eliminating the first-past-the-post voting system; will study measures such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

All of the different electoral approaches to democratic majoritarianism are varieties of bad, and I’m not sure how they would rank. But one thing is for sure — mandatory voting is evil. Threatening people with fines and violence if they don’t pick one gangs of jerks or another is just cruel. The Liberals are evil just for considering mandatory voting. If anything, the ability to vote needs to be restricted. Anyone who works for the government or gets the majority of their income from the government should be prohibited from voting.

Justice

– Legalize pot and allow it to be sold – and taxed – in approved outlets. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says he expects people would not be allowed to buy the drug until they turn 18 or 19, depending on the province in which they live.

This is an improvement over the status quo. Putting sin taxes on it and allowing only “approved outlets” are bad ideas but this would lead to fewer injustices related to the drug war. The drug war is a complete failure. Surely the money would be spent elsewhere, maybe just allocating more resources to other parts of the drug war. Nonetheless, this would probably result in less state aggression against people overall.

  – Consider reviewing mandatory minimum sentences.

Depends on the crime, I guess.

– Require judicial nominees to the Supreme Court of Canada to speak both official languages.

Yawn. No one cares.

Aboriginal Issues

– Rebuild the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

This doesn’t tell us anything. There is only one right way to do this: abolish the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and desocialize all First Nations, Inuit, and Metis land.

– Call a national inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women.

Inquiries, committees, meetings…

– Implement all 94 recommendations from Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Has anyone read all of these? Mostly they just feed into the problem — demanding meaningless gestures, money, and more interference from the Canadian state, which has done such damage to the indigenous Canadians. They should be demanding freedom. They should be trying to get the federal government out of their lives completely.

– Create more transparency and accountability with First Nations; pass legislation in consultation with First Nations people on implementing the reforms.

– Provide stable, predictable funding for First Nations education to close the “unacceptable gap” in learning outcomes for First Nations students.

With funding comes control. More federal control over First Nations. This is more the same. First Nations need sovereignty and property rights, not more ‘help’ from Ottawa.

Conclusion

That was quite the slog. After all that, there can be no doubt the Liberal Party’s platform is genuinely wretched — a tissue of economic stupidity and amazingly pointless proposals. Their tax cuts are pathetic. You wouldn’t even notice. They definitely want to increase taxes and the burden of government in various ways. The aboriginal policies were a joke. Overall the Liberals only had a few things that were actually good, particularly their scaling down of the drug war and not bombing countries that haven’t attacked us.

Compared to the NDP, the Liberals had more completely pointless proposals and they seem to like committees a lot more. Both are dedicated to economically disastrous climate change issues and neither will do anything to make Canada better overall. The NDP was definitely better on C-51, but worse on the drug war.

Overall score:

D-

Next time: We look at the platform of the ruling party — the Conservatives! You know it will be awful, but can they score higher than the NDP or Liberals? 

Scary NDP Climate Change Survey Reveals Their Desired Policies

Members of Notley’s NDP government are global warming radicals. Remember that the global warming movement is not actually about science and global warming, which is why global warming fanatics disregard the mountain of evidence that refutes them. Global warming activists slavishly cling to junk science because they yearn for power where lawmakers, bureaucrats, and crony capitalists who favor socialism can gain control over the economy.

With that in mind, the government has released a fake survey regarding Alberta’s policies on climate change. It is fake because they really don’t care what anyone thinks. It’s like “you can choose any color you like as long as it’s red.”

(By the way, you don’t need to be an Albertan to take the survey.)

Basically, it is a rather unfair survey. It doesn’t really give you the option to reject all the proposals. Sure, it asks you whether you support more “government action” on climate change, but after that you only get loaded questions and the option to rank various dumb policies from most awesome to least awesome. So obviously the plan is to disregard any opinion where the respondent says they want no further government action on climate change, and just tally up results the rest of the survey and say “Such and such are the policies Albertans support the most!”

First it asks you whether you are worried about climate change. Well, despite all the chatter about it, no one really seems to be all that concerned about climate change to be honest. They care about it less and less with each year, and it’s at the bottom of their list when it comes to environmental issues.

global warming gallup poll

worriedagreatdeal

From there, each section starts with a preamble of deceptive, shallow propaganda. A large section of deception precedes the bulk of the survey:

The world’s climate has changed at an unprecedented rate since the 1950s. Increasing concentration of greenhouse gases have warmed the atmosphere, diminishing snow and ice, warming oceans, raising sea levels, and causing more extreme weather, such as floods and droughts. We can also see its effects locally through impacts such as the spread of the mountain pine beetle.

Scientific evidence tells us that – without significant action on a global scale – the consequences of climate change will be severe.

Even if all of this were true (it isn’t; global warming exists only in the minds of charlatans and cranks), it doesn’t follow that we can or should use the government to do anything about it. So the survey basically starts off with a big non sequitur and by lying to the respondent .

Then comes the craziness:

In advance of the conference, the Government of Canada has proposed a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. While Alberta’s energy-based economy helps fuel economic growth across Canada, we also account for approximately 37 per cent of Canada’s total emissions. The reputational impact of Canada’s action on climate change is likely to fall heavily on our province, which has already drawn domestic and international criticism.

This is really awful. The NDP is telling us that we should ravage the economy for the sake of our reputation among contemptuous and ignorant people — within and without Canada — who might not like us because we burn a lot of fossil fuels while we recover even more fossil fuels, supporting humanity with cheap energy which makes the modern world’s economy possible at all. At the same time, some people seeking power in the next federal election want to prevent Alberta from mining tar sands and burning fossil fuels in the process.

Slight detour: Regardless of any commitment Ottawa makes, there is no real constitutional authority for the federal government to interfere with a province’s resource development. The 1982 Amendments to the Constitution Act explicitly state the that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over their non-renewable natural resources. Of course, as always with these matters, there are some loopholes. The federal government has jurisdiction over  “local Works and Undertakings declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the Advantage of two or more of the Provinces.” That’s a problem. Plus, we had the National Energy Program regardless of any constitutional division of powers. So the Constitution Act doesn’t seem to be worth a damn. On the other hand, provincial governments have the constitutional right to do anything they want regarding the resources in their territories.

But anyway…

Then the propaganda tries to make us care about another climate change conference and fairy tale treaties:

In December 2015, the United Nations is hosting the Conference of Parties in Paris. The desired outcome is to create a binding treaty that will commit all nations to significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

This is completely Irrelevant. These treaties never go anywhere. No one cares about them. There are no sanctions. The governments of the world never bothered to implement the Kyoto treaty of 1992 or its update in 1997. It lapsed on with the end of 2012. Game over. No one cares.

Then comes this nonsense:

Alberta’s energy economy depends on its ability to reach – and sell – our resources in markets throughout North America and around the world. These markets are increasingly demanding cleaner forms of energy. If we don’t take action on climate change locally, Alberta will find itself increasingly isolated and shut out of markets.

This is just wrong and sneakily misleading. When it comes to the environmental issue, opposition to the pipeline infrastructure stems from people, rightly or wrongly, being afraid of toxic substances flowing through the country in pipelines with the potential to leak out or spill and poison everything around them and kill everybody. It has nothing to do with climate change! Alberta can implement all the climate change policies it wants, but people will still have rational and irrational concerns about pipelines. Alberta’s efforts to access new markets for its products will not at all be helped by its abusive government’s bigger, badder climate change policies.

From there, the various agree/disagree questions reveal all the dream policies of the NDP. Question #14 is where it becomes obvious that they don’t care about your opinion. These are the things the NDP wants and it’s going to do them.

Now, thinking about the options discussed above, please rank them by priority with the highest being the action you would most like to see taken. Drag the choices into your preferred order, or use the arrow buttons to move the options up or down.

choices

So it asks you to rank a bunch of terrible policies that all belong in the “evil and uneconomical” category: an exploitative interprovincial cap n’ trade system, increasing taxes on industrial companies that burn fossil fuels, increasing subsidies to companies with political connections, increasing taxes on everyone, and subsidizing middle and upper class people who own buildings and houses.

You’ll notice it fails to include the option of “no further government intervention, thanks.”

Then in goes on to ask whether you support more horrible policies, including:

  • Redistributing money to favored municipalities and spending more money on government institutions for “retrofits”
  • Subsidizing homeowners (which tend to be middle or upper class people) with ‘incentives’ and grants (theoretically, incentives could include reducing taxes and regulations on more energy efficient technology — but who are we kidding? This is the NDP).
  • Subsidizing and protecting politically favored renewable energy producers.
  • Literally killing (or “phasing out,” as the NDP likes to say) an industry that some people don’t like. Don’t you love when the government decides who will be in business and who won’t be?

This is all quite terrifying. This tells us what the NDP wants. They just want to beat us over the head with fake survey results in a pathetic attempt to justify their destructive policies.

If you want bureaucratic control over the economy, inefficiency, unemployment, and impoverishment, you should support the NDP’s climate change policy.

If you want to subsidize India and China, where they don’t care about the bureaucratic rules and regulatory systems in Alberta, then you should support the NDP’s climate change policies.

If you want to get less energy and pay more for everything, then support the NDP’s climate policies.

If you are a good person, you should oppose them.

Mises on Social Justice Warriors

Ludwig von Mises had the social justice warriors nailed 50+ years before they became a thing.

This search for a scapegoat is an attitude of people living under the social order which treats everybody according to his contribution to the well-being of his fellow men and where thus everybody is the founder of his own fortune. In such a society each member whose ambitions have not been fully satisfied resents the fortune of all those who succeeded better. The fool releases these feelings in slander and defamation. The more sophisticated do not indulge in personal calumny. They sublimate their hatred into a philosophy, the philosophy of anti-capitalism, in order to render inaudible the inner voice that tells them that their failure is entirely their own fault. Their fanaticism in defending their critique of capitalism is precisely due to the fact that they are fighting their own awareness of its falsity.

“The suffering from frustrated ambition is peculiar to people living in a society of equality under the law. It is not caused by equality under the law, but by the fact that in a society of equality under the law the inequality of men with regard to intellectual abilities, will power and application becomes visible. The gulf between what a man is and achieves and what he thinks of his own abilities and achievements is pitilessly revealed. Daydreams of a ‘fair’ world which would treat him according to his “real worth” are the refuge of all those plagued by a lack of self-knowledge.

The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, pp.14-15

Canada’s Socialist Healthcare and Its Cruel Treatment of Seniors

Canadians are rather deluded. Many of us like to think we have a wonderful healthcare system, but it is just a pathetic lie people tell themselves because it’s easier to believe in a fantasy than learning anything about economics and the nature of government ‘services.’

Among the most disgraceful aspects of Canada’s healthcare system is how it mistreats old people who need to be taken care of.

Let’s say you have a grandmother who has lost the ability to take care of herself and now requires professional daily assistance. She overdoses on some medication because she can’t keep track of how many pills she has taken in a day. Your family takes her to the hospital emergency. After a week in the intensive care unit, your grandmother is moved to the “temporary stabilization” ward for old folks awaiting transfer to a private facility. Of course there were assurances by hospital staff as to comfort and care.

Instead, this is what Grandma gets:

This new room they moved my grandmother into is a disgrace. It’s like a mental institution for old people. People all around are screaming and crying and shitting themselves. There are four people in my grandmother’s room and it is the size of a closet. Grandma is having a nap and asked me to stay beside her bed while she sleeps and not leave her here alone. She said she is tired from crying all day. What a disaster. This place is the last place on earth I would want her to be. I won’t be able to sleep tonight if I leave her here. It’s absolutely horrific. The women in the bed across from her shit the bed and the whole room is making me want to puke. They put alarms on all the old people and if they move from a chair, bed, or anywhere they are placed it goes off with inhumane loudness. The one lady with a soiled bed has gone off four times since I’ve been here, And she said, “For God’s sake you can’t even move in this place with that alarm scaring the heck out of you.”

This is transcribed from the first-person account of a visiting family member. Does it sound like a place you would want your grandmother to be?

This is what our tax money pays for. What a joke. It isn’t even healthcare. It’s just warehousing sick old people. It reminds me a lot of Yuri Maltsev’s stories about Communist Russia’s hospitals.

Socialist healthcare cannot be fixed. If Canadians really had compassion instead of merely the pretense of it, they would demand our healthcare system be completely defunded and all restrictions on the provision of private healthcare be eliminated.

Instead, Canadians will continue to believe the lie and the healthcare system will remain atrocious.

%d bloggers like this: