Bulletin Vol. 24 No. 4
Summer 2004
Doug Burn, Editor
Federal Libertarian Party On the June 28 Ballot
Martin’s Candidate Takes Flack for McGuinty Lies
Badnarik Wins US LP’s Presidential Nomination
A Prescription for 'Peace Order & Good Government'
Jean-Serge Brisson, leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada sent us this update on the party’s success in reregistering the LPC with Elections Canada.
After a year of trying to get the LPC registered again, it happened really fast on May 13. Election Canada called me up the day before (May 12th) and asked if we had 3 more names to add to the list. At that point, we had 97 confirmed signatures. They were letting me know that Bill C-3 was about to receive royal assent on Friday May 14th and if we had the 100 names we would be registered and accepted under the new bill. Thursday morning I walked in with the three new members and it was a done deal.
Now the conditions have changed to get registered in the future and to maintain that registration. The conditions are the same for all parties.
By November 15, all parties that ran at least 1 candidate in the last federal election (meaning the 2004 election) have to send to Election Canada the names of 250 party members. It is the same process that we went through for the 100. This will now have to be done every 3 years. Plus the leader has to send in a letter to basically explain the “mission statement” of the party.
The 1,000 dollars candidate deposit is still there but it is fully refundable providing all of the paperwork for running in the election is completed. That means you the candidates have an obligation to do your electoral paperwork otherwise you will lose your 1,000 dollars deposit.
We have to hold a convention before November. I am proposing to hold mini conventions in Montreal and BC (either Vancouver or Victoria) with the regular convention in Toronto to finish the tour. We could get names at these seminars giving new and old members the chance to register and elect a new leader and Board of Directors. According to the constitution, one has to have been a member for at least 30 days to vote in the convention. These mini-conventions would allow campaigning and also getting memberships activated again.
Jean-Serge Brisson, Leader
As of June 3, the following are planning to run as candidates;
Kaye Sargent, Oxford (first to register)
Paolo Fabrizio, Vaughan-King-Aurora
Nunzio Venuto, Davenport
Lewis Dahlby in Port Moody-Coquitlam and several others in Vancouver
Earl Wertheimer, ?? (Northern BC)
Jeff Paetkau, Cariboo - Prince George
(Two or more candidates expected in Quebec.)
It all started with members of a local autoworkers union telling me they got hosed again.
“What are you going to do about it?” one asked me, knowing I’m with the Libertarian Party?
“What are you talking about?” I replied.
With a loud voice he growled “McGuinty. McGuinty. McGuinty. That lying sack they lied.”
This word kept coming up “Liar, liar, he’s a liar. Your party has to help us.”
Wow we have an angry mob on our side.
“What would you like me to do?”
“Impeach him. Get rid of him. Kick him out. But, whatever you do, do something.”
“March on the legislature?” I suggested.
“Not a protest! We want him to resign and call a new election. This time we want the truth.”
The loudest guy told me, "If we go by ourselves we will get arrested but if your party leads they can’t touch us."
At this point I suggested a new web site (www.ImpeachMcguinty.com) and they loved it.
Then the local federal Liberal Party candidate Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges – Markham) decided to campaign the Liberal word outside our front door of the bakery where we were talking and I was working. Shouts of “Thief!” rang in the air. It was beautiful. We had a brief debate that didn’t last long as he and his aids realized it was a bad idea to debate.
“What about the Adscam and the GST lies and the cutting of health transfers? What about McGuinty?” they shouted. That word came up again and again. In their tones McGuinty sounded like a dirty word.
“What about it?” said the candidate.
I thought, ‘Thank you sir you and your lying cronies have brought new life to our cause.’
P.S. When told I was member of the Libertarian party he laughed and said “Who are you people?”
“Well,” I replied, “Sir your about to find out!”
Liberty is not dead. We just have to revive it.
Paolo Fabrizio is the LPC candidate in the riding of Vaughan-King Aurora. To reach Paulo’s hotline call (905) 851-7953 or (416) 994-8555
The new Ontario government has presented its first budget. We have heard it all before. The previous government did not disclose the perilous state of provincial finances. Corrective measures must be taken. The election promise not to raise taxes must be forgone. Taxes must be increased immediately to pay for more free medicine and education.
On the federal scene, another election circus has begun. The power seekers loudly proclaim their eternal faith in government medicine while accusing the others of insufficient devotion. Each solemnly promises to keep the voracious Medicare god well fed.
The people grow weary. Yet, in spite of countless disappointments and betrayals, they have yet to grasp that integrity in politics is impossible in socialist Canada. The unbridled distribution of political favours and plundered loot is not within the purview of any politician who values integrity above the illusory rewards of election victory. Such politicians can survive only when liberty is given the recognition, respect and protection it deserves.
Elections are won by political parties, which reflect as closely as possible generally held beliefs and assumptions. The outcome of the federal election has already been decided and all the fuss is simply about which set of personnel will be the power holders. When it is over, socialist ideology will remain dominant along with its energy sapping rewards for the undeserving, its numerous constraints and obstacles to human achievement and happiness, its demand that everybody play small, and its relentless progression toward enslavement one government law at a time. If there is no reversal, liberty will continue to fade until there is hardly any vestigial memory of its once brilliant existence.
Some thoughts to consider. Firstly, socialism claims to be an ideology promoting compassion and benevolence, yet creates a zero sum game where my gain through government force will be at your expense and vice versa. Liberty and capitalism do not allow for government coercion. We must both be satisfied. Under which of these circumstances are we likely to think kindly of each other?
Secondly, there are people who will reach the top no matter what. Equality of outcomes is only possible in the imaginations of certain academic theorists. Would we prefer the winners be those whose most important skill is mastery of political pull or those whose greatest skill is in creating and producing what others value? Big government leads to more of the former while small government leads to more of the latter.
Thirdly, democracy is confused with freedom. Individual freedom, not democracy, is the necessary condition for those who would pursue happiness. Democracy can be a useful tool, but only when used to closely limit government power. When used to legitimize the illegitimate exercise of power, it becomes the enemy of freedom. Therefore, unless there is a libertarian candidate needing encouragement within my riding, I will not be voting in the federal election.
“Government is a broker in pillage
and every election is a sort of advanced auction of stolen goods”
– H.L. Menken in The Baltimore Sun
Libertarians believe in universal, individual, human rights. But rights cannot be observed - we can’t see, hear, touch, or smell them, or detect them with any kind of instruments. So how do we justify claiming that they are not just an idea, but actually exist?
One reasonable answer would be: rights exist if there is evidence that they do, and no evidence that they don’t. The only available evidence is testimonial - people speaking and acting as if rights exist - and it’s not reasonable to believe that, if there’s similar evidence to the contrary. If, however, there is no contrary evidence - if all the testimony is to the same effect - it is reasonable to believe the only conclusion supported by evidence. And we can observe whether that is the case.
First, though, we need to define what we’re looking for; so what is a right? When is a statement like "John has a right to do F" true? We know for sure when it can’t be true; when "It is wrong for John to do F" is true. So: John has a right to do F if and only if it is not wrong for John to do F. But that can mean either:
a) "John has a ‘liberty right’ to F" (It’s not wrong for John to do F, or wrong for anyone to interfere with John’s F-ing, either.); or
b) "John has a ‘claim right’ to F" (It’s not wrong for John to do F, and it is wrong for anyone to interfere with John’s F-ing).
In a hockey game, for example, every player has a ‘liberty right’ to score a goal - no one is penalized for trying to score or for preventing a goal, either. In contrast, there’s no ‘liberty right’ to crosscheck - cross-checking is wrong and does incur a penalty - which means that every player has a ‘claim right’ to skate without being cross-checked.
Like hockey penalties, laws and moral rules restrict liberty rights by declaring some acts wrong. But no matter how restrictive, they are not evidence against liberty rights. Take a law that fined me for not voting. That law says nothing about how I tie my shoelaces, or countless other things, so it’s no evidence that I do not have liberty rights at all. And the same law cannot also fine me for voting - it cannot deny my liberty right to not vote, without giving me a liberty right to vote. So each law is evidence for my having liberty rights.
As well, every law or moral rule establishes a claim right. If I don’t have a liberty right to do something to someone, it must be wrong for me to do that; in which case, that someone has a claim right against me (that I don’t do that to him). And if no one has a liberty right to do an act X at all, each and every person has a claim right that X not be done.
If laws exist, legal rights exist. If morality exists, moral rights exist. Since both laws and morality exist, rights exist; and everyone who believes laws or morality exist - speaks or acts as if they exist - believes that rights exist.
But what about the skeptic who insists that he does not recognize any laws or moral rules? Well, he’s saying that nothing we do is wrong - so he’s agreeing that we do have liberty rights. And he also must agree that’s it not wrong for us to punish him if we think he does wrong - which is all we need to have claim rights against him.
People can and do disagree on what our legal rights (what rights a law says we have) or moral rights (what rights we should have) are. But we cannot dispute that there are such rights, as we all agree that there are.
In a stunning come-from-behind victory, Texas constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik won the US Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.
Badnarik, 49, of Austin, Texas, won 423 votes - or 54% - from delegates at the Libertarian Party's national convention in Atlanta on Sunday, May 31. Coming in second was movie producer Aaron Russo, followed by long-time radio talk host Gary Nolan.
Badnarik's victory was considered a shock because both Nolan and Russo had beaten him in the polls and primaries. According to many undecided delegates, Badnarik's superior performance in the Saturday debates propelled him ahead of the other candidates.
In an emotional acceptance speech on the convention floor, a surprised Badnarik declared, "Never in my wildest dreams!" Then he thanked delegates for their support and made it clear that his campaign will stay focused on forcing the government to abide by the US Constitution.
For the past three years Badnarik, a software engineer, has been teaching classes on the Constitution, and his message of forcing the government to strictly abide by that document appealed to many Libertarian delegates.
According to many political analysts, the Libertarian nominee could cost President George Bush the November election by attracting votes from frustrated Republicans in key swing states such as Wisconsin, Oregon and Nevada.
The Libertarian presidential candidate appeared on all 50 state ballots in 1992, 1996, and 2000, and the party is working toward that goal in 2004.
How can Canada be changed for the better? The Libertarian Party of Canada believes that beginning to honour our constitution is the best way to begin positive change in Canada. What does this mean? Please read on to find out what this means for the issues that affect you.
Marriage:
Authority over marriage is split between the provinces and the federal government. In recent years debate has arisen as to the correct status of homosexuals. We believe that marriage is primarily a religious institution and not a state institution. Therefore, to protect the sanctity of marriage, while protecting the rights of homosexuals, we believe that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
Health:
A healthy care system is important to Canadians, just as it is important to us. However, the constitution gives complete authority over health care to the provinces. The recent foray of the federal government into health care is unconstitutional; because of this fact we would repeal all federal health care legislation. We would let the provinces manage health care as is their constitutional right and duty.
Education:
Libertarians like most Canadians want a strong education for the next generation. However, like health care, the constitution gives authority over education to the provinces. We believe that the provinces should manage education as the constitution demands. Because this is the case we would repeal all federal legislation regarding education.
Marijuana & Drugs:
Libertarians, like most Canadians, want our children to live healthy lives free from the destruction addictive drugs can cause. However, the federal government has no constitutional mandate to interfere with the private affairs of its citizens. More important, however, is the fact that current drug laws are counter-productive. They create crime and a black market. They also prevent addicts from seeking treatment. As a result of these facts we would immediately dismantle the prohibition beginning with the (mostly) harmless marijuana.
Copyrights & Patents:
We, like most Canadians appreciate the contributions made by artists and inventors. In order to create an incentive to create more works, the constitution gives the federal government permission to create a system of copyrights and patents. However, the current system has greatly outgrown its proper scope. It is at such a point where it is beginning to create a disincentive to create for fear of infringing someone else work. Therefore, we would introduce several reforms to greatly limit the scope of the copyright and patent systems.
Abortion:
The question of abortion is not one of jurisdiction, morality, or even of rights. Rather it is one of definition. Morality is a question for religions and philosophers not government. Every person has many rights; these include the right to your own life and how you live it. You do not have the right to take the life of another. None of these facts are in dispute. What is in dispute is the definition of 'person.' Specifically is the unborn baby a person entitled to his or her own life? How you answer this question determines how you think about abortion. Because of this, The Libertarian Party takes no position on abortion. Rather, we leave it up to individual candidates to decide their own position.
Currency, Inflation, Banking, and Debt:
Full authority over the monetary system is given the federal government. The Libertarian Party believes in sound fiscal policy. Briefly, we believe in a dollar backed by gold. We believe in a country free of debt. We believe in passing on a county in good financial condition to the next generation.
Taxes:
A Libertarian government would be a small government. Because most services would be transferred to the provinces as the constitution demands the federal government would be very small. This would allow us to drastically reduce or even eliminate taxes.
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
- Ayn Rand
If only it would come included as a special free gift in your favourite breakfast cereal or bundled with your Operating Software like Internet Explorer.
Alas, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and for a little liberty, you have to fight a lot. But you knew that already. Which is why you should come again to this year's Liberty Summer Seminar, this country's premier liberty-loving weekend.
This year will mark the fourth year of our annual Liberty Summer Seminar (some have called it "LibertyFest," and others, maybe more appropriately, call it "Libertystock"). As you may know, last year was our most successful year by far, and we are hoping to build on that momentum for this year. So make the commitment now to come this year!
Liberty Summer Seminar
Theme: "Liberty and Health"
When: August 28-29
Where: Orono, Ontario
Price: Just $50 for
students, $70 for adults if you register before
June 30.
In the coming weeks we will update our website: www.libertyseminar.org, but you can take a look to see some pictures from last year, and to get a sense of how much fun this event really is. Please also use that same registration form to register.
In the meantime, email myself (peterjaworski@ yahoo.com) or Ollivia Sexton (olliviasexton(at) hotmail. com) to let us know that you plan on coming again this year. Let's make this year's Liberty Summer Seminar the best one yet!
Don't delay, visit www.libertyseminar.org today!
Political pollsters and pundits are scouring the results of past federal elections to speculate on the possible outcome of the current election. Two themes predominate – the likelihood of a minority government and the Liberal Party record of election wins.
Of the 17 elections since WWII ended in May 1949, the Liberal Party has won 11 to the Progressive Conservative Party’s six. In nine of those 11 elections the Liberal Party won majority governments whereas half of the PC’s wins were minority governments. As a result, the Liberal Party has formed the government for 39 of the past 54 years.
The June election is shaping up to be a replay of 1984 and 1993 because in both cases the party in power had overstayed its welcome and recently changed leaders.
In 1984 Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau had held office for all but 9 months (Clark won a very short-lived minority government in 1980) of the previous 16 years and was replaced as leader by John Turner. The PC party had recently dropped Clark as leader in favour of Brian Mulroney. Compared to the previous election of 1980, the Liberals’ popular vote dropped 16 points to 28% while the Tory vote jumped 18 points to 50% and Mulroney won a majority government with 211 of the 282 seats in Parliament.
In 1993 PC PM Brian Mulroney had held office for 8 years and was replaced as leader by Kim Campbell. The Liberal Party was now led by Jean Chrétien. Compared to the previous election of 1988, the PC’s popular vote dropped a remarkable 27 points to 16% while the Liberal vote jumped 9 points to 41%. It is especially noteworthy that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party that splintered off from the Tories emerged from almost nowhere to capture a third of the popular vote. Chrétien won a majority government with 177 of the 295 seats in Parliament.
The 1984 election was also a significant surge in support for independent candidates and candidates of the smaller parties. In the three elections prior to 1984, they captured an average of 1.7% of the popular vote but in 1984 their share jumped to 3.0%. This streak of independent voting carried over into the elections of 1988 (4.7% of the vote) and 1993 (3.6% of the vote) but fell back in 1997 to 1.6% and only partially recovered to 2.3% in 2000 thanks to stronger showings by the Green Party (0.8% of the vote) and the Marijuana Party (0.5% of the vote).
The Green Party has big bucks, strong organization, media attention and candidates in nearly every riding across Canada so it shouldn’t be surprising it leads all other small parties in political polls. In fact, many pollsters this year include the Green Party alongside the Liberal and other major parties when they ask ‘Do you intend to vote for Party X. Ours and other smaller parties are the residual collected under the “Any Other Party” option.
So, how big are the Greens? Across the country they account for six out of every 10 respondents that intend for vote for a candidates other than those of the major parties. By region their strongest support is in BC where they are preferred by 10% of voters and weakest in Atlantic Canada (2%). Their support is highest among people under the age of 35 (8%) and lowest among those over the age of 54 (2%). Green Party support is roughly equal across all income groups.
Are the Green Party supporters, ‘watermelons’ (green on the outside, red on the inside) as some critics claim? On the basis of scanty evidence it appears they are not much more likely than supporters of Other Parties to choose the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois as their second choice. Although the numbers are so small that it may be foolish to generalize, in one Ipsos-Reid poll in mid-May Canadians were asked what party if they would vote for if they could not vote for their first choice. Among the 84 would-be Green Party voters, 30% chose the NDP or the Bloc whereas among the 60 supporters of Other Parties 21% chose these options. Curiously, 14% of Green supporters chose Other Parties as their second option while 11% of Other Party supporters chose the Green Party.