Bulletin
Vol.27 No. 1
Fall 2006
Doug Burn, Editor
Libertarians Declare “Clean Water” Act a Dirty Trick
Libertarian Party Rejects ‘Smart Growth’ as a Dumb Idea
Politically Homeless? Here’s an Alternative
Published Letter to the Editor
Libertarian Contests By-election
Michael Cloud – Libertarian Motivator
Annual
General Meeting
Saturday November 4, 2006
9:00 AM - 4:00 PM
Ramada Hotel Toronto Don Valley
185 Yorkland Blvd, Toronto
(East of the Don Valley Parkway
and South of Sheppard Avenue East)
Registration $50, $55 after October 31
($12.50 or $13.75 after Tax Credit)
Includes lunch
(Press Release July 26, 2006) The Ontario Libertarian Party considers Bill 43, the "Clean Water" Act, to be a serious threat to property rights and simple justice, and insists that it be withdrawn. This Bill is a sledgehammer "solution" to a mosquito problem and will create more problems if it is enacted. It is clear that this Bill is an attempt by the government to gain centralized control over private land. Read more.
Press Release(July 12, 2006) The Places to Grow Act and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe represent even greater centralization of government planning, in which the people who force decisions on Ontarians are even further away from real life. The Libertarian Party is the "Party of Choice," and as such, we reject this dictatorial power grab that seeks to impose “better choices” on individuals. Read more
This article was submitted to The Landowner, a publication of the Ontario Landowners Association. Their motto is “This land is our land—Back Off Government.” Visit www.ruralrevolution.com for more details.
At a meeting of the Durham-York-Victoria Landowners Association on June 1, 2006, one of the attendees asked Randy Hillier if the Ontario Landowners Association was going to form a political party and run candidates in the next provincial election. There seemed to be agreement among many in the audience that neither the Liberals nor Conservatives (and definitely not the NDP) would properly defend their property rights at Queens Park. This leaves them without a political home.
What many may not know is that there is already a registered party that is an advocate of Property Rights – the Libertarian Party. Libertarians believe that property owners have a right to do as they wish with their property, so long as they do not harm anyone else. Since this right is not guaranteed by our Constitution or Bill of Rights, government at any level is free to take some or all of your property from you, taking away your livelihood and potentially making you totally dependent on the state for your very survival. The Libertarian Party is opposed to legislation like the Green Belt Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.
These acts, and many others, demonstrate that the government believes that it can dictate what landowners may or may not do with their property. It is not even our elected representatives who will make many of these decisions, but unelected bureaucrats such as the Conservation Authority deciding what you can do with the water on your lands. Our politicians have turned this responsibility over to the “experts” so they can absolve themselves of responsibility and sympathise with your plight when you are prevented from earning a living by some “permit inspector.”
Rural landowners probably understand better than most city folk that the politicians, with advice from the bureaucrats, decide when it should be “legal” to use force. For example, they decided it was “legal” to FORCE tobacco farmers to install heat exchangers in their curing sheds, because too many of them had decided this was not a wise investment for their operations. They decided to FORCE cities to increase the population density in certain neighbourhoods, whether people want to live in such high density areas or not. You can likely identify many more decisions made by the politicians that limit your ability to decide for yourself.
We can all agree that force is justified to defend life, liberty and property. If someone attempts to attack, kidnap or kill you, you may defend yourself with whatever force is necessary and available. Similarly you may use force to prevent someone from taking your property without your permission. The police are justified in using force to capture individuals suspected of such action. In fact, we need the police to perform this function to avoid individuals taking the law into their own hands. When someone fails to live up to their side of an agreement we need the courts, to authorize use of force if necessary to remedy the failure or fraud. We also expect the government to organize the national defence, to use force to defend us from foreign aggressors. Libertarians believe these are the only legitimate reasons for the use of force by individuals or the government. Unfortunately, our politicians now believe that they should use force to take property from its citizens instead of to protect them.
The Ontario Landowners Association is following a time-honoured tradition using civil disobedience when government agents attempt to take away our rights. It is important to confront government agents when they abuse their powers or attempt to enforce unjust laws, as was done at Lanark Cedar sawmill and at the Carmichael farm. However, this may not make much difference to the politicians.
Politicians will pay attention if they think they will lose votes, especially if they believe they might not get re-elected! Why would “government back off” if voters keep electing them to “solve” more problems? They will begin to back off only if enough voters vote for a party that advocates property rights and limited government. That party is the Libertarian Party. The major parties know what Libertarians stand for, and every vote for a Libertarian candidate sends a clear message to them. That message is, ”BACK OFF GOVERNMENT!”
Googling the news for column ideas, I came upon these provocative words by Carl Milsted Jr., an American ‘Libertarian Theoretical Activist’:
"The Libertarian Party suffers from [a] fundamental problem; it has two conflicting business models operating under the same roof. To some, the Libertarian Party is a true political party, an organization dedicated to electing libertarians to public office. [...] To others the Libertarian Party is a protest organization. Its purpose is to take a stand on the hard issues and to promote a radical long-term vision. [...] Either model would work independently. However, trying to be both a political party and a protest organization has been a disaster." ( http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/34/5764/Carl.asp?wid=34&nid=5764)
Milsted is right about the two models (though wrong about one of them). The same dichotomy exists in our own constitution. On the one hand, our purpose is to "engage in political activity" - to be a 'true political party'. On the other, our purpose is to "disseminate information about the Libertarian philosophy" - to be an educational vehicle promoting libertarianism in a unique manner.
There is no natural conflict between politics and education. Much of what we do serves both goals at the same time. Take one of our most successful outreach tools, the World's Smallest Political Quiz from the Advocates for Self-Government (http://www.theadvocates.org/). The Quiz is educational - it explains how political ideologies match with positions, and presents libertarianism as a credible ideology, to some who would never learn about the subject otherwise. At the same time, it is thoroughly political - it makes contact with new libertarians, and encourages them to identify, vote, and work with us.
But those goals can conflict, making trade-offs necessary. Imagine that we had a chance to increase membership ten-fold overnight. By our political mandate, that would be an unmitigated success. However, if that meant that the party ceased to be a libertarian organization, because a non-libertarian majority now controlled it that would be a disaster in terms of our educational mandate.
That is the reason for our Statement of Principles. Unlike our other literature, which is designed at least partly as a magnet to draw new people to the party, the Statement was explicitly designed as a screen or filter. Only those who sign the membership pledge to "support" the Statement are welcome to join as voting members, hold Party office, or be Libertarian candidates in an election.
From our dual-purpose perspective, the screen is as necessary as the magnets. We want to attract libertarians, and we want to screen out non-libertarians - given our goals of not just political success, but libertarian success, both actions make sense. However, it makes no sense to screen out the very people we are trying to attract - to screen out other libertarians. And that could be what we're doing here.
Take the hypothetical case of Bob. Bob gets a copy of the Quiz from us, fills it out, and scores 90%: he disagrees on military conscription, but agrees with everything else. So he is told that he is a libertarian, and signs up right away. Even better, he agrees to run for us in the next election. But then, when Bob is asked about conscription, he gives his honest opinion - and suddenly learns that he cannot be a candidate, or even a voting party member. Why? Because his belief in conscription violates the Statement of Principles, and therefore he is not a libertarian after all.
Bob's case is not unique; surveys commonly show 10-20% of the population in the libertarian quadrant, but only a small fraction of that at the very top. While there have been only a few cases like Bob's in the party, it's impossible to estimate how many of his peers simply decided to exclude themselves after reading the Statement. Given our concern with membership growth, we should look at that possibility.
The questions we must decide are: Is Bob a libertarian and do we want Bob in the Party? I would answer yes to both: Bob is certainly a libertarian, albeit an inconsistent one; and he is more likely to become a consistent libertarian as a member than as an outsider. Others might answer differently. But we should keep in mind that our judgment on Bob is a judgment on all other inconsistent libertarians in the quadrant; by saying No to him, we are saying No to all of them. Which also says No to our goal of political effectiveness.
A political party cannot win elections without a core-voting constituency. For political success, we need as a first step to build that core vote - and the natural place for it to come from is the remainder of the libertarian quadrant. Our party needs the support of that 10-20% of voters; and it simply cannot get that, unless it is a party that those same voters can join.
Given that we do not want to rule out political success, then, we should re-examine the screen: the Statement of Principles and the membership pledge. Because, as it stands, those do exclude Bob and the rest of the quadrant. I suggest that our next convention, in two years' time, adopt the reforms needed to make those documents consistent with our political purpose.
Reform should proceed on two tracks. One is rewriting the Statement itself, in more inclusive or less absolutist language. Despite one rewrite in 1980, the present Statement is still more or less plagiarized from Ayn Rand's writings; and Ayn Rand does not appeal to everyone. Perhaps this new millennium is time for new wording. Even the best rewrite, though, would be only a cosmetic reform: any Statement of Principles must contain core libertarian principles, the Non-Aggression Axiom at a minimum; and consistency with those principles is precisely what is at issue here.
So it is also necessary to look at reforming the membership oath: "I support the principles of the Libertarian Party." That wording, adopted in 1991, was itself a major step toward a more inclusive party. (Previously, members had to "certify that I believe in, and promise to uphold" the Statement.) But what does 'support' mean? How much 'support' do we really want to require before allowing someone to vote at a General Meeting, to hold internal office, or to be a Party candidate?
I think we can agree that each of those three would require a different level 'support'. That leads to the insight that we can balance off 'watering down' the membership pledge by keeping, or even tightening, requirements in those other areas. For example, candidates can be required to sign that they "support" (or perhaps more explicitly, 'will not contradict') the Statement, as part of their Candidate's Agreement with the Leader. We can also adopt a signed Oath of Office, requiring all Party office holders to (why not?) "Certify that I believe in, and promise to uphold" the Statement.
I urge everyone to give some thought to these reforms. Two years is scarcely enough time to debate the subject fully and reach a proper consensus. Please - I will be writing more on this subject in the future, and would value your input.
In all the debate about the law and smoking I was listening for one word which I never heard, 'precedent'.
'Tobacco kills' was the banner heading for the lobby, which caused the lurch into tyranny that is now virtually a nation-wide denial of individual liberty. Their techniques have varied from slanted and selective statistical tricks, which are then presented as 'scientific' evidence, to language distortion to sweeten the pill, such as 'smoke-free' (an absurd notion) instead of prohibition. What's done is done. But the mentality, which supports it, will soon be looking for other ways to make people do what's good for them - and like it. They will not have to look far today to notice other 'killers' to attack.
Obesity is surely the most widespread example. This can easily be turned into 'Eating kills'! The attack can be based on multiple studies linking all sorts of disease to specific dietary habits. It must involve the rigid control of the type and amount of food consumed or served, particularly in the cases of growing children. Some idle luxuries, such as candy, meringue, sugar icing etc must be banned from sale or advertisement.
‘Driving kills’! The huge death toll on our roads, right across the age spectrum, calls for drastic action. A curb on the import and production of high performance cars would be a sound start and gas rationing introduced to ensure that cars be only driven for essential purposes (as in wartime Britain) How good it would be for the environment and the spirit of Kyoto, let alone the fitness from doing much more walking, cycling, rollerblading etc. But here the biggest snag appears for the architect of paradise.
Fitness is statistically the most sure-fire killer of all! Professional athletes have the lowest average age of death, by a stunning fourteen years, than any other livelihood. Tissue studies show that our young giants have spinal arthritis comparable to middle-aged and elderly people. 'Sports medicine' - our new specialty – costs our beleaguered Health Care System millions a year for the care of sport injuries, quite apart from the early mortality.
PS: So this Libertarian freak will be watching with great interest the next steps on the road to the caringest society.
P.J. (Paddy) McQuade, Stratford, Ontario
This past spring Gerard Kennedy resigned his seat as MPP for Parkdale-High Park to run for leader of the Federal Liberal Party. On August 16 Premier McGuinty finally dropped the writ for a by-election on September 14.
I called several people in and near the riding, inviting them to a meeting on August 26. Zork and Renata Hun, Heath Thomas and Alwyn Weiss showed up. Zork, our planned candidate, and Renata had scheduled their vacation for the first three weeks of September. Believing it was important for us to have a candidate, I volunteered to run. Immediately after the meeting Zork, Renata, Heath and I collected 35 signatures (25 are required) and submitted my nomination to the Returning Officer. Heath agreed to be the Chief Financial Officer for the campaign.
I prepared an election pamphlet based on one Alan Mercer used in the November 24 Scarborough-Rouge River by-election. I printed 4,700 and distributed them with a lot of help from Doug Baird, Peter Cuff, Andrew Slater and Heath Thomas. On September 13 Marty Gobin, Josh Insang and Doug Patfield came from Whitby to help me distribute pamphlets the afternoon before Pub Night and Election Day. We all got soaked in a rain shower.
In two weeks we covered much of the area north of Bloor between Keele and the Humber River. I plan to analyze the poll-by-poll results to see if we got better results in this area than the rest of the riding.
I was invited to (and attended) three All Candidates Meetings on September 6th,10th, and 12th. Seven of the eight candidates showed up at all meetings. My message was, “Government is the problem, competition is the solution” and explained how it applies to education and health care. Most of the questions were directed to Sylvia Watson, the Liberal candidate and a city councilor in the area. Many voters were upset about her past support for an extreme sports park and a parking lot for the Palais Royale, probably costing the Liberals the riding.
The NDP candidate, Cheri DeNovo won by about 2,000 votes, as I anticipated. However I didn’t expect the Family Coalition candidate would receive more votes (366, 1.3%) than I did (162, 0.6%), since he never came to any meetings. They already have over two dozen candidates lined up for next October’s General Election.
We received a significant donation (via our web site) from a person who was not on our list before. That plus another generous donation from a friend (and previous donor) almost covered our modest campaign expenses. I also received a phone call from a person wanting a lawn sign. Unfortunately, our budget did not include signs.
On September 18, Mr. Cordiano, who spearheaded the government's “successful” drive to attract auto investment in the province, resigned his York South-Weston seat. We need to get ready for another by-election, probably after the municipal elections in November, and hopefully not until spring. Any volunteers?
Michael Cloud gave two speeches at the Libertarian Party of Canada Convention on May 21, 2005. The last time he spoke to Libertarians in Canada was in 1983. Michael has been active as a candidate, campaign manager and fundraiser for the US Libertarian Party for several decades. In 2002, in spite of an absolute media blackout on all Libertarian campaigns in Massachusetts, he received 19% of the vote as John Kerry’s only opposition for the US Senate. He also managed the campaign to repeal the state income tax, which received 45% of votes cast.
Michael’s first speech, “The Possibility of Liberty,” addressed the issue of fighting against challenging odds. He admitted that he became discouraged and essentially gave up during the 2002 campaign when in spite of all his efforts to get attention, including three full-page ads and going on a 14-day hunger strike, the media totally ignored the Libertarian Party. Then he asked himself, “Would I like to be the first Libertarian elected to the Senate? Someone will be. Why not me?” [He took inspiration from the movie Rocky. When Rocky gave up and told his girlfriend he couldn’t beat his opponent, she tells him to “go the distance.” We all need to go the distance in our fight for liberty.]
Michael asks if victory isn’t possible this time, can we make progress? Can we grow 10% this year? Another 10% next year? Can we “always fail forward?” In 1994 the USLP had 9,747 members when Harry Brown asked Michael to manage his campaign as Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. Michael recruited Sharon Stone, Perry Willis, Steve Dosbach and Bill Winter, the “Team for Success.” In two years they built the USLP to 22,700 members and a budget of $2 million. “You are only four people away from success,” says Michael.
(Visit Michael’s web site “Center for Small Government” at www.centerforsmallgovernment.com. Watch for notes on Michael’s second speech in a future issue of Bulletin.)