Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Stephen Harper tightrope walk | Main | Leviathan wants your prints »

Friday, March 13, 2009

Stephen Harper to libertarians: You’re naive, and you don’t believe in personal responsibility

Standing in a room of conservative activists sipping a beer, there is a sudden silence and moment of confusion as a speaker at the microphone inexplicably stops speaking mid-sentence.

All the people at the front of the room have diverted their gaze to the entrance to the room.  Suddenly, the prime minister of the country comes blazing through the door with his RCMP security detail.

After a quick progression through the crowd, shaking hands and small formalities, Preston Manning takes to the microphone to introduce the prime minister.

Over the next twenty minutes or so, we would be treated to one of the most bewildering speeches I’ve ever heard Stephen Harper give.  After launching into a sweeping defence of conservatism he would direct his attention towards classical liberals and libertarians who he acknowledged, some of whom were in the very room he was speaking. 

The treatment to classical liberals and libertarians--of which I consider myself--was nothing short of stunning.  The condescension was literally dripping from his mouth.  Was this his response to the disillusionment that libertarians across the country have had to his government and it’s policies of late?  If it was, it did not build any bridges.  Rather, it burnt them right down.

Harper made clear that the free market was not a solution to this problem, pointing to Wall Street and comparing libertarian positions on deregulation as analogous to the position of Wall Street bankers, who abused a deregulated market, then turned around and asked the government for help, taking no personal responsibility for their actions.

The implication of Harper’s statements were stunning to me; when push comes to shove, libertarians don’t take personal responsibility. 

Harper also demonized the Liberal and NDP party’s “toxic coalition” of liberals and socialists.  But it was never particularly clear to me how Harper differentiated his policies from the “toxic coalition” other than to suggest that there would be more bureaucracy, and a court challenges program, if it weren’t for them.  The argument Harper seemed to be making--simultaneously attacking fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and socialists--was that his approach was the least bad.  He asserted his position as the most pragmatic and the most truly conservative.

The speech also contained a definition of what conservatism is.  In his words it is made up of the “three Fs: freedom, family and faith”--a definition which might leave some libertarians feeling even more uncomfortable with it’s social conservative undertones.

Harper took the gloves us last night.  He made it clear who’s in his tent.  The message was clear: libertarians need to get on board or get out of the way. 

Posted by Mike Brock on March 13, 2009 | Permalink



Harper's speech is music to my ears!

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-13 11:19:38 AM

It's awesome when someone bailing out all sorts of folks so they don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions (using the money of people who WERE cognizant of the consequences of their actions) criticizes a group that's opposed to this because they, apparently, are the ones who don't believe in personal responsibility.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-03-13 11:37:40 AM

The message was clear: libertarians need to get on board or get out of the way.
Posted by Mike Brock on March 13, 2009 | Permalink

All 15 of you.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-13 11:41:27 AM

Harper does have a point when it comes to a lot of folks who call themselves libertarian. Take Marc Emery for example, here's a quote from his BCMP platform: "Reopen Riverview Hospital to provide safe immediate housing for the most at-risk in society, including the poor, women, and minorities...Use the taxes from marijuana sales to build more hospitals, cover medical expenses of the growing elderly population, provide drugs for addicts through maintenance programs, and supply other essential drugs like insulin"

Increases to socialized healthcare... Increases to socialized welfare programs... Marc wants it both ways. He wants to freely sell/smoke his pot while the rest of us chip in (through the existing tax base) to cover the health/social costs. Has he ever once advocated that the tax dollars not spent on enforcing drug laws be returned to taxpayers? Nope! Those dollars need to be redistributed to bigger and better government programs!

You can be pissed at Harper for pointing out the hypocrisy Mike but I'd rather save my ire for the pretenders like Emery who give people like Harper the opportunity to point it out...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-03-13 12:10:26 PM

Not only libertarians but fiscal conservatives will be dropping out rather than getting on board a bus that is now irreparably damaged.

Harper believes that "conservative values" of fiscal prudence apply to everyone except central banks and government regulators, who are free to create financial bubbles whenever they please, and to blame the victims for the mess when they pop.

He won't be so smug when the fundraisers notice that the well is going dry.

Posted by: Dennis | 2009-03-13 12:25:19 PM

Small "l" libertarians and small "c" conservatives don't have idols while Harper ego went through the power discovering process of over-blowing. Ok Stephen, fight your own battles. I for one will stand and watch how you trash and burn yourself supported by Flaherty and alike.

Posted by: xiat | 2009-03-13 12:28:18 PM

Yes. Libertarians are the ones who don't believe in personal responsibility. That's why they opposed the bailouts. Because it's really important that we, those of us who didn't screw things up, take personal responsibility for the errors and screw ups of other people.

Is that what Harper means by "personal responsibility"? That one group of people should take responsibility for the actions of a different group of people? Strange. It's not just that that fails to sound remotely libertarian, it also fails to sound conservative.

If Harper wants to pick a fight with libertarians, he has to do a lot better than this. He just comes off sounding ignorant, ill-informed, and, frankly, dumb.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-13 12:28:22 PM

Harper hasn't only abandoned libertarians, he has abandoned all those that consider themselves fiscal conservatives. He has apparently joined the ranks of Keynesians, a discredited and illogical set of beliefs. So I guess now we have party of social conservative Keynesians.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-03-13 12:39:56 PM

Harper believes that "conservative values" of fiscal prudence apply to everyone except central banks and government regulators, who are free to create financial bubbles whenever they please, and to blame the victims for the mess when they pop.
Posted by: Dennis | 2009-03-13 12:25:19 PM

What financial bubble was created in Canada by the central bank and government regulators? Are any chartered banks losing money or about to go belly up?

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-13 12:45:37 PM

Some will support Harper no matter what, and others will support him (holding their nose at times) as a lesser evil than the Liberals or NDP. This is all part of human nature.

I also admit to finding his speech, as it is being reported, very disappointing. He should have stayed clear of using labels, such as conservative, libertarian et cetera, since they have different meanings for different people. He should have stating his views and policies in my opinion and let the labels fall where they may.

There seemed to be a lot of contradiction in his speech, as some have pointed out. Talking of personal responsibility does not go with bailouts as Janet pointed out. He mentioned the three Fs of conservatism: freedom, family and faith, and again his policies and action fall short of supporting the first two. Our freedom of speech remains under serious attack just as the traditional family remains under attack.

As for faith I see it as a personal matter and not a government matter, other than the assurance of being free to practise one's faith without government interference. This is not to say that I support those who demand that morality be reduced to personal preference, for this can only lead to chaos.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-13 12:52:46 PM

Surely this is not news to anyone.

Harper wants to win a majority. That means caving to which ever special interests yelp loudest.

I don't think Harper was ever over endowed with principles but, in the face of the Count and a recession, any principles he might have had will be tossed under the next poll.

Posted by: Jay Currie | 2009-03-13 12:54:43 PM

Christ, we might as well support Iggy. Same policies, less disappointment.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-03-13 1:12:20 PM

There will no insulting Freedom hero # 003 Marc Emery here-- and if anyone does, that will be considered wrongness and your comments" may" be deleated.. Unless you can show a sales receipt for one of his " No Extradition Shirts" - you are bad

so smarten up all un-evolved people ad homininin' around and smoke a bong and chill out--wear your funny hat and when you wake up it will be a hempy world around you--- you will be healed from your wrong ways.. and bio fuel will cost less than bottled water

If Stephen Harper would just chew gum, he'd be way more interesting to watch--h blew his chance to confederate the Conservatives to the marijuana party-- loser

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-13 1:14:39 PM

Harper's speech could just as well have been made by Jack Layton.

As for Stig's comment, Harper was referring to the consequences of the bubble that occurred in the United States, and so was I.

Not every central bank participated in the creation of a bubble economy, and thankfully Canada's did not to the same extent as the U.S., but that's not an argument for the efficacy of central banking.

Posted by: Dennis | 2009-03-13 1:20:08 PM

>>The speech also contained a definition of what conservatism is. In his words it is made up of the “three Fs: freedom, family and faith”--




Posted by: THENONCONFORMER | 2009-03-13 1:47:18 PM

"March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a speech yesterday that Wall Street, consumers and homeowners caused the global recession, the National Post reported, without saying where it obtained the text. Harper said the belief that people could live beyond their means led to the recession, the Post said. Harper was speaking in Ottawa at an event organized by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, an Alberta-based research institute. Harper’s office declined to provide a copy of his remarks when contacted by Bloomberg. " Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper should look into his own backyard. It was the price gouging oil companies who caused the recession, forced 50 percent of our American consumers, car exports, to stop buying.. because it was too costly to own a car.. so how come he cannot see the truth.. he is in the pocket of the oil companies still too?

Posted by: THENONCONFORMER | 2009-03-13 2:02:13 PM

When will people realize Harper is one Big Political Phony.
His govt. intervened against free speech. He capitulated on so-called "same-sex marriage." A politician with guts would have used the not-withstanding clause. He and his party, the so-called "conservatives" ditched referendum and recall, now they want to be unchallenged as "incumbents" according to latest news reports. I could go on and on. The latest poll has them neck and neck with the Liberals. He could not win a majority when he ran against Dion and earlier against Paul Martin despite ALL the Liberal scandals. What a political farce this guy is!!

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2009-03-13 5:44:49 PM

As to him reportedly saying he is for “three Fs: freedom, family and faith”-- Who is he kidding?
Here is more info on Harper. I wrote this some months ago, the numbered links can be found at my blog. graysinfo.blogspot.com

Harper's "Conservatives"
By Stephen J. Gray

“He [Harper] can be slippier [sic.] than a greased pig” (Paul Wells, Maclean’s Magazine, September 17, 2008).

Conservative leadership is the buzz word of the election campaign. And Mr. Harper is being touted as a “leader.” So let us examine what Mr. Harper the leader says and does on a number of issues:

Free Speech: “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” says Stephen Harper, president of the National Citizens' Coalition. “It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” [1]

Yet, the Harper government intervenes against free speech: “The Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and B'nai Brith Canada will be intervening in the Lemire case in support of Section 13, arguing that it is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech” (Canadian Constitution Foundation Letter of April 28).

Bilingualism: “As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.” (Stephen Harper) [2]

Now Mr. Harper says this: “My friends, for me a prime minister should speak French,” Harper said, calling French “the founding language of this country” (Source: The Gazette, Sept 8, 2008 [3]).

Same-sex marriage: “I don't see reopening this question [of same-sex marriage] in the future.” (Stephen Harper, CTV News Dec. 7, 2006 [4]).

Sexual orientation and its illegitimate offspring “same-sex marriage” were never in the Charter, yet we had the silly spectacle of a supposedly “conservative government introducing a motion on this that they knew would be defeated. A government with principles would have used the not-withstanding clause to return sanity to this country. But unfortunately Mr. Harper is on record as saying, regarding this nonsense called same-sex marriage, “I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue” (Lifesite News December 16, 2005, [5]).

The Status of Women: This group achieved increased funding under the Harper Conservatives as witness the following quote from a minister’s speech: “As a demonstration of our firm commitment to the success of Status of Women Canada, Budget 2007 provided $10 million in funding to the Agency, bringing the total budget to $29.9 million, a record for Status of Women [emphasis added] Canada” (Speech for The Honorable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, on the occasion of an appearance before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, House of Commons, Ottawa, February 5, 2008, [6]).

Abortion: “The Conservative government won't be initiating or supporting abortion legislation, and I'll use whatever influence I have in Parliament to be sure that such a matter doesn't come to a vote…” (Stephen Harper, [7]).

And we thought we lived in a democracy? Or is it a hypocrisy?

And talking about hypocrisy, based on the evidence we have seen from Mr. Harper’s government, are they really a conservative government? Or is it back to the days of the Red Tories and the Mulroney government? A former Reform party member and MP had this to say about Mr. Harper: “he will be remembered as an opportunistic, masterful tactician who, in the course of only three years completely purged the Conservative party of its Reform ideals and restored the Mulroney model of government.” (Lee Morrison, former Reform M.P. in the Calgary Herald, September 14, 2008 [8]).

Furthermore, a former Mulroney supporter is now in “charge of various files…” Read this:

“[Senator] Ms. LeBreton is one of the women Mr. Harper put in Cabinet and trusts. She was a staunch Progressive Conservative, most closely tied to Brian Mulroney, and made it into Mr. Harper's inner circle despite her vocal opposition to his vision to unite the right (the former Reformer Party/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives). Mr. Harper appointed her Conservative leader in the Senate and put her in charge of various files,...” (National Post, September 22, 2008).

This makes one wonder, is Ms. LeBreton now in charge of the abortion “file?” Ms. Breton has said this on abortion:

“… there are certain issues, particularly those that concern women and children, and those of particular concern to women, and here I will use the abortion issue as an example, where even if 99.9 per cent of the members of my party were going one way, I would not support any policy that did not give women the right to choose” (http://www.parl.gc.ca/infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=147&art=983).

And on the “right to choose,” Mr .Harper is on the record as saying this: “Let me be very clear on the positions I’ve have taken on that. I want there to be no misunderstanding. I’ve said repeatedly, that I will not, that my Conservative government will not be tabling any legislation impacting in any way a woman’s right to choose” (June 27, 2006, LifeSiteNews,

Mr. Harper is heading for a majority government.( He did not get it) But on moral issues is there really any difference between the “conservatives” and the other parties? Are we now immersed in “throw the dogs a bone politics” where we are being promised all kinds of goodies with our own tax dollars and moral issues are not even discussed? Are we back to what a former Reform M.P. called in his Calgary Herald article, “Liberal, Tory, same old story?” And will social conservative people buy the “story” that we have a “conservative” party to vote for and allow themselves to be fooled a second time by the Harper “conservatives?”

For, as Andrew Coyne wrote in MacLean’s of September 10, 2008,
“…Harper's whole time in office has been spent reassuring the public he has no plans to lead them anywhere, that under a Conservative government nothing much would change — they would govern much like the Liberals,…” [9]

Stephen J. Gray
October 6, 2008

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2009-03-13 6:13:51 PM

There's a whole lot of whining going on here.

Perhaps some Harper criticism is justified, much of it is misguided under the current world market circumstances.
As an original Ontario Reform Member,I admit to some discomfort, particularly in regard to the HRC's kangaroo power, and the seeming non concern at the top.

BUT consider the alternative of a coalition of the troika of the two communists, Layton, Duceppe (the separatist) and the dual citizen socialist Dion, being in power.
Canada today would be would be a de facto communist country, had they succeeded.

The fact that there are more leftist supporters of political parties than conservatives or libertarians in this country combined with a solid leftist Canadian media, is being forgotten in this debate,

Or even the Libs under Iggy, what would we have?
More Liberal corruption? The Harper conservatives in my view are still the best option for this country.

In my view every Harper government day in power should be a Thanksgiving Day,even for libertarians.

Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2009-03-13 8:40:14 PM

When the best Prime Minister Canada has had in over 50 years says libertarians are naive and irresponsible, I am inclined to take his opinion seriously.

Posted by: Jack Stupid | 2009-03-13 11:19:48 PM

Harper is a huge disappointment to libertarians and fiscal conservatives. I would seriously consider voting for Iggy just to send a message to future Conservative leaders that they can't ignore their base, that being unprincipled will not cut it. At least Iggy stands up for Fort McMoney. He seems to be trying to take the socialist edge off the old Liberals. But I don't expect anything but heartache from ANY politician anymore.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-13 11:52:32 PM

What the economy and the country needs right now in the midst of a global recession, and possibly soon to be depression, is fiscal conservatism. Harper has made it clear that he will do the exact opposite. By doing so he is not embracing reality he is denying it. Nobody has ever spent their way out of a recession before and nobody ever will.

He will lose the next election and then will be forced to remain silent from the opposition bench's because when he had the chance to do as he always said he would, he didn't. Politics does not reward cowardice.

Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-03-13 11:54:27 PM

As to his three supposed principles, Freedom, Family, Faith. I don't recall much government policy the last three years involving any of these. But hey thanks Steve-O for reinforcing the inaccurate negative stereotype that conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of unintellectual, pot smoking libertarians and bible thumpin' rednecks.

Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-03-14 12:04:58 AM

Given how far the lefties have dragged Canada into socialism over the last four decades, what do some people expect.....miracles? Harper's doing a pretty good job considering where he's starting from.

Harper, Flaherty and Co. cut 28% of the GST and everybody's buying the lefty language that it was just 2% and forgetting really quickly that the other guys wanted so dearly to raise it instead.

When's the last time any government in Canada relaxed the chokehold of tax, squeeze and grab?

....or stood up for our troops in any meaningful way?

....or stood in any way against the politically correct torrential rush leftward in all things the ruling class could catch hold of?

Put it this way: If the Toronto Star doesn't like Stephen Harper, he's doing something right.

Posted by: Phil Miller | 2009-03-14 12:13:04 AM

I wrote the following 4 years ago regarding Stephen Harper's convictions and principles...


Stephen Harper is simply a born-again red-tory.

He's gone home to his roots (viz. his policy) while proclaiming ONCE AGAIN (this time without the help of The Report Magazine) That he's back to his evangelical personnae.

The essay was a research attempt to nail down exactly what Stephen Harper believes in.

Conclusion..He believes in staying employed as Prime Minister.

Posted by: MW | 2009-03-14 12:28:50 AM

harper is not a conservative and he is not a libertarian... he is a fascist. he believes in Father-knows-best... that whole power and authority paradigm that so many Ned Flanders types love.... they think that just because THEY need a dad, or a coach, or a minister, or a god to keep them from acting on their own weird impulses, then everyone else needs the same thing. Maybe 10-12% of the population believe in that crap, but the rest of us don't. "Faith"?... Meaning belief in some invisible giant that lives in the sky, as depicted in a bronze-age fairytale book about talking snakes, virgin births, and zombie carpenters.... the man is a joke. He is a rule-happy punishment fetishist.

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2009-03-14 4:57:44 AM

Why don't all you "libertarians" vote for the Libertarian Party? Odd isn't it that "libertarians" want to send the Conservatives a message by voting Liberal. Or is the real reason you're not really "libertarians"?

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-14 6:27:31 AM

Harper is a huge disappointment to libertarians and fiscal conservatives.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-13 11:52:32 PM

Then all libertarians have to do is vote for the Libertarian Party in the next election.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-14 7:04:07 AM

There is huge dissent within what's left of the Conservative party and it shows.
Is Harper's idea of "responsibility" getting on the Socialist bandwagon he seems to be promoting?
Funny, he was a very different man not so long ago....and that was the man we elected. Not this cheap socialist imitation.

Posted by: JC | 2009-03-14 7:27:46 AM

If you want listen to Harper's speech, I had my tape recorder going about 30 seconds into it.
It's 17-minutes long -- the three 'f's stuff is around the 12 minute mark, I believe.


Posted by: David Akin | 2009-03-14 8:48:28 AM

Akin, you're the man! Thanks.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-03-14 9:32:13 AM

Mr. Barth--

when will you be dressing up as Jesus again and walking the streets of Ottawa? Way way more than 12% of Canadians laughed at your YouTube Jesus fantasy ego trip.. and your wife dressed up as Mary was hilarious !! -- it was as funny as medical marijuana itself'

Maybe work on your politics/ daddy figure hate stuff, after all.... you are over 30 & these people write your disability cheques

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-14 9:39:13 AM

Political mystery explained.

Harper has been bought by the Bilderbergers. He has climbed the greasy pole and is now a member of the Elite ruling class of Earth.

You may have noted the every politician who gets to the top of the greasy pole changes his stripes almost over night. Then they get in that warm fuzzy middle where no one is pleased and everyone is holding their breath in the hopes that the promises they believed will eventually be fulfilled ... such as the end of the gun registry or the ridding of section 13 of the HRC charter.

There are rules at the top and they are not 'for the people'. They are for the ruling elite and perhaps their off-world advisers if you believe that much of the scenario.

Believer the Aliens part or not, the Elites have not interest in our freedoms, prosperity or power. They are interested in cleaning up the planet (using the scam of warming and now dimming) at our expense for themselves. Nextly, reducing our numbers to what is a suitable mass to guarantee the continuation of the comfy high tech life-style and all it's medical and other benefits.

It is so much easier to toss bullshit in all directions from the middle. That's why politicians toss from the middle. That way, even those on the fringes are targets that can be hit.

Posted by: Momar | 2009-03-14 10:08:19 AM

419: Anytime you want to help clean up after his wife seizes, be my guest. Until then, keep the troll act to yourself. Glad the Jesus bit got a reaction... it seems the troll has been trolled.

So 419, are you really Kathy S.? Sounds like her.

Posted by: The Watcher | 2009-03-14 10:13:07 AM

Another amusing point in all this is that Brock doesn't consider himself a conservative but rather an archo-libertarian. He doesn't vote Conservative, so what difference should it make what Harper thinks of another political party.

I'm sure most of the people on this blog who claim to be libertarians really don't know what the Libertarian Party stands for, and profess to be libertarians merely because libertarians want lower taxes. If that was all libertarianism was most people would agree with it, however lets take a more detailed look at what the Libertarian Party of Canada stands for. Here's some of their policy positions.

- Canada should remove itself from the NATO
- We question the need for an anti-terrorism law and security certificates.
- Only a simple declaration of identity should be required for entry into Canada under normal circumstances.
- Immigrants and refugees should be admitted freely to Canada
- We support the continued freedom of any individual or group to own gold or any other commodity of exchange, as well as the right to produce coinage and issue currency.

After 1 term of a libertarian government Canada would has lost its military, lost control of its borders, citizenship would be meaningless, and lost control of its currency. Canada would probably be the first country to go from the 1st world to the 3rd. Brock and the rest of his utopean libertarians, will like orthodox Marxists, who claimed when communism collapsed, that the true version wasn't implemented, turn Canada from a pretty well run country into a 3rd world hellhole.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-14 11:07:39 AM

Yo Watcher--
leave all that grade 10 sass to facebook, willya?

you are incorrect about everything you share
but that's ok....

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-14 11:12:47 AM

Well, based on the info stig provided above, nobody votes for the Libertarian Party because it's been taken over by left-wing nutbars...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-03-14 11:36:21 AM

"The fact that there are more leftist supporters of political parties than conservatives or libertarians in this country combined with a solid leftist Canadian media, is being forgotten in this debate,"

Libertarians in the Conservative party? Thats funny. Libertarians would never vote for a moralistic authoritarian government like this. Harper and his bible thumping followers are marching us closer to a police state every day. If you want to find Libertarians you will have to look in the NDP membership. I never thought I would be in the NDP, or vote other than Conservative, but the social conservative Ned Flanders types over running the Conservative party have driven all the real liberty lovers out, and we have had to find a better place to take our vote. The NDP's position on ending the drug war, is the most Libertarian principle to come out of any political party in decades.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-03-14 12:09:47 PM

Folks, you shouldn't be surprised. From the day Harper took office in early 2006, he's been a Liberal with a capital L. On his watch, Big Government has become even bigger, spending has increased to a level unmatched even by previous Liberal governments. His "tax cuts" have been fibs, as no one has seen any of the substantial personal income tax cuts that Canadians need so badly (remember: the middle class is gone, as families lose 45% of their annual household income to taxes!).

As a (fiscal, small-government) conservative, Harper has been a colossal disappointment. Not surprising when one considers that he started out in politics with the Young Liberals.

My recommendation is that Harper save himself and the country a lot of trouble and seek the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2009-03-14 12:49:21 PM

Folks, you shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by: Weener Patels | 2009-03-14 12:49:21 PM

Folks, you shouldn't be surprised that Patels has supported every major party in Canada at one time or another.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-14 1:11:27 PM

Folks, you shouldn't be surprised that The Stig is still as dumb as ever.

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2009-03-14 1:36:15 PM

when did Brock go Anarcho-libertarian?

Posted by: MW | 2009-03-14 2:00:43 PM


Apparently when The Stig says I did.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-03-14 2:11:43 PM

Apparently when The Stig says I did.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-03-14 2:11:43 PM

On your "radio" show several times.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-14 2:16:51 PM

419: thanks for the triangulation. Your ego just gave you away.

Posted by: The Watcher | 2009-03-14 2:22:12 PM

Goin' viral:


Posted by: The Watcher | 2009-03-14 2:29:07 PM

It's possible that by "archo-libertarian," the Stig meant statist libertarian, i.e. minarchist -- which is an accurate, though confusing, characterization of Brock. However, my bet's on that not being the case.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-03-14 2:43:17 PM

And the remix:


Posted by: The Watcher | 2009-03-14 2:44:02 PM

your super intelligence has shattered me again there Watcher

Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-14 8:13:42 PM

It's possible that by "archo-libertarian," the Stig meant statist libertarian, i.e. minarchist -- which is an accurate, though confusing, characterization of Brock. However, my bet's on that not being the case.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-03-14 2:43:17 PM

Brock is best described as an adherent of Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", with the weighting heavily on utopian component.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-14 8:14:38 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.