The Shotgun Blog
« Motion passes: long-gun registry limps on | Main | Muslims for unconditional free speech »
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Liberal Party to libertarians: You're a bunch of Peter Pans
With the new Parliamentary session now begun, there's a blog post out there by Liberal MP, Glen Pearson (London North Centre) that you need to pay some close attention to. In this post, widely circulated by Liberal MPs, Pearson explains what the Liberal Party stands for and what they are fighting against.
If you're in any doubt, look in a mirror, it's you:
What this session of Parliament should be all about is the open struggle between public and private life. Famed American author, Thomas Friedman, has described our current condition: “We have this tendency to extol consumption over hard work, investment and long-term thinking.” Friedman goes on to elaborate on how our concentration on ourselves as opposed to our country has led to the privatization of citizens.
... there is no need to take the common good into account because only individualism prevails. When Thatcher shockingly declared, “There is no such thing as society,” she could just as easily have been describing the current government’s outlook on Canada. And the way they’ll live it out will be a relentless attack on government itself as the only way to true prosperity and freedom to live as we wish.
Except it doesn’t work that way. It’s a kind of libertarianism that leads to the empowerment of the few over the many: the very condition that the lovers of freedom fought against two centuries ago in both Europe and North America. It’s the kind of ideology that imprisons us as citizens. Author Alan Wolfe describes it perfectly when he states: “Libertarianism is a political philosophy for Peter Pans, an outlook on the world premised on never growing up.” Well, this session of Parliament will be about whether Canadians decide it’s time to mature, or remain adolescent.
"Private" citizens - quelle horreur!
Every now and then here on the Western Standard, there's a debate on where libertarians belong. Is it the Tories, the Greens, the NDP, the Liberals? I don't have the full answer to that, but what I can say is that wherever we might think we belong, it ain't the Liberals.
Posted by Robert Jago on September 22, 2010 in Canadian Politics, Libertarianism | Permalink
Comments
There's nobody for us. But there are some individual MPs who are pretty good, I think exclusively in the Conservative Party (can anyone correct me on this?)
For example:
Maxime Bernier and Scott Reid
Posted by: Terrence | 2010-09-22 9:38:20 PM
"“Libertarianism is a political philosophy for Peter Pans, an outlook on the world premised on never growing up.” Well, this session of Parliament will be about whether Canadians decide it’s time to mature, or remain adolescent." - Glen Pearson
With doublespeak like that, Orwell would be impressed. Pearson represents the party and mentality responsible for growing the nanny/welfare state which institutionalized adolescence for the entire population of the nation by robbing individuals of their abilities to make adult decisions about most everything including their own health care, education, free speech, and once again confirmed, self defense with guns. He is just another happy-faced fascist hiding behind a party name that has been perverted to mean the opposite of its origin
Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-09-22 10:18:10 PM
Mr. Pearson and the purported Liberals should get familiar with what is going on with Libertarians at http://www.libertarian-international.org
Posted by: Ralph Swanson | 2010-09-23 2:25:41 AM
So it's clear:
Always vote AGAINST the Liberals.
And, unfortunately, in today's Canada that can only effectively mean a vote the CPC.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2010-09-23 2:49:03 AM
So why vote? We have no one to vote for in our corrupt system, just don't do it. I mean whe our top candidates are Max Bernier and Scott Ried (a socon who would have no issues with state interference when it comes to social issues) the it's time to stop participating all together.
But then I've always had a soft spot for Agorism.
Posted by: Mike | 2010-09-23 3:25:43 AM
We will miss all twelve of your votes.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2010-09-23 4:48:29 AM
Mike
Why would you consider socons being in favour of state interference when it is the social liberal who often is the most unlibertarian? The social liberal is the one enforces those rotten human rights commissions to bully others especially socons like those crybaby homosexuals. It is the social liberal who wants to ban pro-life from universities and who believe in censorship. Many more example of this nonsense exist.
Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-23 6:06:50 AM
"Author Alan Wolfe describes it perfectly when he states: “Libertarianism is a political philosophy for Peter Pans, an outlook on the world premised on never growing up.” Well, this session of Parliament will be about whether Canadians decide it’s time to mature, or remain adolescent."
The descent of the Liberal Party is complete. This ignorant fool doesn't even understand that the Liberal Party was founded as a classically liberal party, something which most people today would call libertarian. So George Brown, Alexander Mackenzie and Wilfred Laurier were Peter Pans? William Gladstone wasn't a grown up? But Pierre Trudeau is an example of mature behaviour? I'm not even referring to his childish stunts, just his spendthrift politics. Was the NEP a product of mature reflection?
Modern statists love to say that a classical liberal / libertarian perspective would never work in the real world, but it was just such a public policy perspective that dominated this country's politics until about World War One.
We survived half a century and settled an entire continent using basically classical liberal ideas, with one or two exceptions, but it's all fantasy. However spending well beyond your means, strangling the economy with taxes and regulation, well that is completely practical. See how well it worked in Greece. The closer we get to their ideal, the close we get to bankruptcy. The closer we get to our ideal of freedom, the more economic and civil society flourishes.
Posted by: Publius | 2010-09-23 6:09:03 AM
I mean social liberals want to ban pro-life groups from universities.
Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-23 6:09:37 AM
I fail to understand the problem. Libertarians have much more in common with the Conservatives than the mis-named 'Liberals'. The next government of Alberta will be proof of that.
Posted by: Leigh Patrick Sullivan | 2010-09-23 7:47:26 AM
What a bunch of mind-numbing, logic-defying nonsense, intermingled with appeals to vague, undefined platitudes such as the "common good". If this is the best one can expect from a modern liberal, then there's basically no hope for them.
What is this notion of the "privatization" of citizens anyway? As opposed to what? The "nationalization" of citizens?
Posted by: Dennis | 2010-09-23 9:06:07 AM
I's not "them" we need to worry about it's the damn fools who fall for this nonsense and keep voting for them.
Posted by: B | 2010-09-23 9:50:43 AM
Pearson has the details wrong, but the "Peter Pan" analogy is not an entirely incorrect one. Deconstruct a number of libertarian arguments and it soon becomes plain that they acknowledge neither "us" nor "them," but only "I." That's a sign of narcissism. And, quelle horreur! it's actually something liberals and libertarians share.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-23 12:26:47 PM
I's not "them" we need to worry about it's the damn fools who fall for this nonsense and keep voting for them.
And what does that say about the ones who can't convince those fools to vote otherwise?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-23 12:28:18 PM
At the risk of creating a lengthy thread here, would Shane like to offer for discussion a couple of libertarian arguments that he finds narcissistic and infantile?
Posted by: Dennis | 2010-09-23 12:37:31 PM
Its narcissistic to impose yourself on other people,libertarians value the individual and even people we disagree with.
Posted by: don b | 2010-09-23 12:43:37 PM
Don't mind Shane. He's been posting here for a few years now and still doesn't comprehend (or more likely doesn't want to) that libertarians reject the notion of collective rights, but have no problem with the concept of respecting others and society in general.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-23 1:02:14 PM
At the risk of creating a lengthy thread here, would Shane like to offer for discussion a couple of libertarian arguments that he finds narcissistic and infantile?
How about the notion that the "collective," which figures as the main antagonist in libertarian philosophy, should accept whatever risks or harm may befall, rather than curtail the liberty of the individual to even the barest fraction? Or the fact that many of them freely admit to being "anarchos" of some flavour or other, a philosophy that rejects all authority and all government, without which there can be no society?
I can think of no society in history that has prospered under anarchy. But I can think of several that collapsed rather swiftly after their culture became too decadent and inward-looking.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-23 2:05:09 PM
Its narcissistic to impose yourself on other people,libertarians value the individual and even people we disagree with.
You've got it backwards, Don. Rules exist to prevent you from imposing yourself on others in unacceptable ways. To prevent the rules from becoming themselves an imposition, there are rules for making the rules.
And don't snow me. Most of the libertarians I've met on this board value themselves before all others. Some to the point where they will line the pockets of violent criminals rather than switch their distraction of choice, knowing people will die in the crossfire. If that's not narcissism, or imposing oneself on another, then those concepts have no meaning.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-23 2:09:11 PM
Don't mind Shane. He's been posting here for a few years now and still doesn't comprehend (or more likely doesn't want to) that libertarians reject the notion of collective rights, but have no problem with the concept of respecting others and society in general.
And the palm of victory goes to me. Strip out the ad hominem and you have essentially confirmed exactly what I said: Libertarians refuse to accept any concept of group rights. No "us." No "them." Only "I."
P.S. "Respect" is an incredibly elastic word that in any case imposes no actual obligation of any sort and therefore means nothing in this context. It doesn't make the chicken bone of belligerent narcissism any easier to digest.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-23 2:14:23 PM
I'm sorry Shane, but if you're going to essentially post nothing but insults, expect insults in return. Your comment was idiotic and completely misrepresents a complex issue. When you have something intelligent to say, I will respond in kind.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-23 2:53:03 PM
That's your eternal refrain, Charles: “You don’t understand—you just don’t understand.” And then that favourite of prevaricator's many tools of obfuscation, “It's a complex issue.” This isn’t debate; it’s whining.
It is not a complex issue; on the contrary, it's very simple: The rights of you come before the rights of everyone else. No “us.” NO “them.” Only “I.” Simple.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-23 4:02:17 PM
Ignoring Shane for a minute, I disagree with Alain, for example. The conservatives are not the party of freedom or individual rights. They pay lip service to freedom, but that's as far as it goes. I have long ago decided not to vote. There's no point.
As for the Liberals, I've rarely (if ever) seen a liberal/lefty/progressive ever present the libertarian position honestly. Robert's post is a perfect example of this. The fact that Pearson would refer to classic liberal period to defend his type of "liberalism" is laughable.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-23 4:18:57 PM
Actually Shane, the individual right is paramount to "us". If the individual right is upheld, the "us" will look after it self. When it becomes "us", it becomes totalitarian. For instance, look at any country ruled by religion.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-09-23 5:26:57 PM
At least this might just put a stake through the idiotic notion of "liberaltarianism". It was stupid the minute Brink Lindsey said it, got stupider when Will Wilkinson embraced it, and after 2 years of Obamamcrats it's just a howler.
@ Charles: We need to work with and against factions on an issue-by-issue basis. And not voting ever is not smart. We have very little power and we need to leverage what little we have effectively. There's always the Libertarian Party.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-09-23 5:30:22 PM
Why will classical liberalism not work in the real world of Canada today? Mill answered that question in his Considerations on Representative Government.
"Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities."
Posted by: DJ | 2010-09-23 5:46:57 PM
I agree with Charles.
The Conservatives pay lip service to freedom.
They refuse to abolish Human Rights Commissions. They have not done anything about the Far-Left judicial activism of the Supreme Court of Canada, which has eroded our freedoms. They spend money like drunken socialists. They will not abolish the CRTC. The baby in the womb does not have any freedom, to be free from being executed. They have not done nothing to curb the power of labour unions trampling people's refusal of association. They refuse to implement free market health care.
Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-23 5:50:52 PM
Shane is such an idiot , why would a libertarian line the pocket of a violent criminal, were against imposing on other people, any libertarian would appose violent criminals .
Shane ,prohibition which your in favor off , lines the pockets of violent criminals , gangs are formed because of black market profits , thanks from the support of use full idiots like you.
Crawl back into the cave your a dinosaur.
Posted by: don b | 2010-09-23 8:27:02 PM
Well, this statement doesn't get this MP turfed from his exalted throne, I guess an assassin is the only viable option. This mindset is not unusual among the collectivist rabble we are told to call the 'Loyal Opposition'. More worrisome is this mindset may exist among the Conservatives as well. But I suppose this what being in public office for more than four years does to people. So, come the next election, will the Conservatives campaign in defence of Liberty? Or, will they pander to every single collectivist gang out there, looking for their slice of Freedom destroying influence? Time to put the Conservatives on watch. They completely ruined the gun registry vote -- what else can they screw up?
Posted by: AB Patriot | 2010-09-23 8:35:55 PM
AB Patriot: "I guess an assassin is the only viable option"
No, it isn't. And that statement is not at all 'on'. Without any equivocation whatsoever, let me say that threatening the lives of the democratically elected representatives of the people of this country is absolutely wrong. You don't do that to a Tory, a Liberal, a Dipper, a Green, a Bloquiste, a Marxist-Leninist. No one.
If this guy got that seat in Parliament, it's because he won the confidence of his riding in a free, open and competitive election. When it comes to choosing their own representatives, the people aren't wrong.
If you don't like the way an election turned out, work harder on changing people's minds - don't threaten to blow them out over the pavement.
If there's nothing else that free market Libertarians can agree on, it's this - the non-aggression principle. To even threaten violence against any person is to put yourself so far outside the mainstream of libertarian thought, you may as well be a Maoist.
Posted by: Robert Jago | 2010-09-24 1:00:55 AM
Cyto - the libertarian party does not run in my area.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-24 6:08:39 AM
Actually Shane, the individual right is paramount to "us".
Actually, it goes even further. Paramount in this context means "most important." As far as you're concerned, your personal liberty is not the most important thing, it's the only thing.
If the individual right is upheld, the "us" will look after it self.
Actually, that's not true. The whole trouble with libertarianism is that it assumes that each member of the human race lives on a different planet.
When it becomes "us", it becomes totalitarian. For instance, look at any country ruled by religion.
On the other hand, let's look at any country ruled by anarchists. Oh, wait, there aren't any. Theocracies and dictatorships are far from the ideal, but they can at least be made to work, unlike libertarianism.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 6:24:21 AM
Stanley, have you noticed at all that the Conservatives do not have a majority and that until they do, it's both foolish and unfair to expect them to govern like it? Can you imagine the hay the opposition would make over an "attack" on "human rights"? And if the Tories are no longer fit in your opinion, whom would you put in their place?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 6:27:47 AM
Shane is such an idiot...
Screeched the semi-literate fucktard dopehead.
why would a libertarian line the pocket of a violent criminal, were against imposing on other people, any libertarian would appose violent criminals.
Good. Then all libertarians shall cease purchasing illegal drugs instantly, starting with you.
Shane ,prohibition which your in favor off , lines the pockets of violent criminals...
No, the people handing over the money are the ones lining the pockets of violent criminals. Prohibition has been in place since 1925 but did not seem to be a problem until the mid-1960's. The mere existence of the law is not the problem. The problem is the existence of lawbreakers.
Crawl back into the cave your a dinosaur.
Policy wisdom coming from the keyboard of a deranged doper too lazy to reach for the apostrophe. What a howler.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 6:32:43 AM
Well, this statement doesn't get this MP turfed from his exalted throne, I guess an assassin is the only viable option.
Better pack lots of ammo, AB, because he's the people's choice. Bump him off and they'll just vote in another like him. Though I do admit I find Ontario's stubborn defence of the Libs completely puzzling. It's like they're doing it out of spite. Apparently tribal thinking isn't dead in the West after all.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 6:36:14 AM
Cyto - the libertarian party does not run in my area.
Well, why don't you do something about that, Charles?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 6:36:47 AM
Robert Jago is right , libertarians are apposed to violence . Shane Matthews promotes violence , he may believe its ok , because he supports the praetorians , but its still violence .
Posted by: don b | 2010-09-24 10:52:34 AM
"If there's nothing else that free market Libertarians can agree on, it's this - the non-aggression principle. To even threaten violence against any person is to put yourself so far outside the mainstream of libertarian thought, you may as well be a Maoist." - Robert Jago
I agree that the existing level of happy-faced fascism we enjoy doesn't warrant the libertarian-acceptable concept of retaliation but at some point, and I don't presume to know exactly at what that level of totalitarianism might be and whether evolved through democracy or not, taking up arms is justified. The US revolutionary war was fought and justified by much less despotism than we now tolerate in many ways. Given the gross lack of libertarian thinking in Canada, and the present path of gun control leading to eventual confiscation, the point is moot as Canadians will follow their British cousins in accepting creeping nanny state fascism while drinking themselves into a collective stupor (while Shane defends collective rights).
Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-09-24 11:22:25 AM
Your right john , were in a nanny fascist state right now. The police state is very expensive thats why they brought in civil forfeiture laws, but the costs keep going up. Eventually it will crash(its already happening) it will be very painful for a lot of people.I think Mike Brock has it right, buy Gold.
Posted by: don b | 2010-09-24 12:06:11 PM
The Liberal Party of Canada is a collectivist political party much the same as the NDP. The only difference being that the Liberals favour certain businesses (those from which they can benefit) while the NDP favours big unions for the same reasons. To even consider either being a home for one who values personal freedom and free enterprise is naive to say the least.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-09-24 12:28:26 PM
@Shane, I never said it was "only" thing, you did. I said it was more important than the rights of a group. This is why I think democracy, in concept, is a bad idea. It is the will of the majority over the individual. What if the majority is wrong? As it most often is. In order for a democracy to work, the people of the democracy would have to be highly educated in the fields that count in this regard. Human behavior, environmental issues, technology, and if we are to keep the monetary system, economics. How many people do you know that understand any of these? Let alone all of them. I have only met one or two who understand the monetary system, sorta. Most have no idea where money comes from. Most think its based on gold. LOL.
And so, in the environment we live in now, the only way to keep a semblance of freedom is to guarantee the rights of the individual over the rights of the group. But I'm not surprised by stance. You seem like an authoritarian type of person. And it is totally in line with religion. Sorry Shane, to me, your religious beliefs color you thoughts and opinions.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-09-24 12:42:37 PM
Democracy needs checks and balances , without it , it is just tyranny of the majority.
Under democracy, slavery is ok , if thats what the majority want.
Under our democracy its ok to brutalize drug addicts,
Robert Pickton knew that , thats partly how he got away with murdering so many women, most were drug addicts.
Posted by: don b | 2010-09-24 12:50:00 PM
Democracy needs checks and balances , without it , it is just tyranny of the majority.
What do you call Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Constitution? The Supreme Court? The ability to vote out unsatisfactory legislators? A free press?
Under democracy, slavery is ok , if thats what the majority want.
Under any other form of government, slavery is OK, if that's what one person wants.
Under our democracy its ok to brutalize drug addicts, Robert Pickton knew that , thats partly how he got away with murdering so many women, most were drug addicts.
Wow. It's almost enough to make people think twice about doing drugs, isn't it? Then again, some people seem to have that horse DNA that makes them run back into the burning stable no matter how many times some Good Samaritan leads them out.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 1:07:32 PM
Robert Jago is right , libertarians are apposed to violence .
There's no such word as "apposed," you moron. And I'll believe you when they stop funding said criminals. Not until then.
Shane Matthews promotes violence , he may believe its ok , because he supports the praetorians , but its still violence .
No I don't, yes I do, no I don't, and no it isn't.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 1:09:45 PM
Shane, I never said it was "only" thing, you did. I said it was more important than the rights of a group.
You don’t need to say it, Steve; your actions and arguments speak for themselves. Show me a libertarian, and I’ll show you a narcissist. Sure, it would be great if more of them were detached, Gandalf-like sages, but that’s not been my experience on this board.
This is why I think democracy, in concept, is a bad idea. It is the will of the majority over the individual. What if the majority is wrong? As it most often is.
A large group of reasonable people is less likely to be consistently wrong than a smaller group or single individual, which describes all the alternatives to democracy. I notice you offer no alternative to democracy. Just so this is understood by all, people who point out problems and have no solutions are about as useful as tits on a rooster, and no one with any sense will take them seriously.
In order for a democracy to work, the people of the democracy would have to be highly educated in the fields that count in this regard.
That would be the ideal. Of course, that requires compulsory education, which if you think about it, itself constitutes a reduction in personal liberties. Yes, it sucks than an ignoramus’s vote counts for as much as yours; that’s why we have the gun registry in the first place. Again, though, you have no alternative to democracy.
Human behavior, environmental issues, technology, and if we are to keep the monetary system, economics. How many people do you know that understand any of these? Let alone all of them. I have only met one or two who understand the monetary system, sorta. Most have no idea where money comes from. Most think its based on gold. LOL.
Most people know something about all those things, Steve. Specifically, how it affects them personally. I know an unusual amount about all of those things, though I am certainly no Sherlock Holmes. This is yet another problem without a solution. It’s an empty exercise in teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing that accomplishes nothing.
And so, in the environment we live in now, the only way to keep a semblance of freedom is to guarantee the rights of the individual over the rights of the group.
Generally, that’s how it works. Lawmakers have to justify any intrusion on personal liberties before it is effected, under the watchful eyes of the courts. Granted, the oversight isn’t perfect. But neither is any individual. Particularly those who never follow the rules anyway.
But I'm not surprised by [your] stance. You seem like an authoritarian type of person.
I’m even less surprised by yours; you seem an anarchist type of person. Guess which approach has succeeded in societies throughout history, and guess which one never has? Now would therefore be an excellent time to explain why we should listen to you and not to history.
And it is totally in line with religion.
Just as yours is totally in line with criminality. Again: Which is more successful, to say nothing of morally superior? Religion teaches the importance of family, community, harmony. In short, respect and honour for others. Criminality honours only the self.
Sorry Shane, to me, your religious beliefs color you thoughts and opinions.
There’s no “to me” about reality, Steve; either it’s true or it isn’t. It is neither a matter of opinion nor an impenetrable fog of grey. You are knowledgeable in neither religion nor psychology; in fact I've yet to see you distinguish yourself on any subject. The one consistency I do see in your contributions is resentment.
Forgive me if I make a shattering revelation, dude: When you see those pink elephants dancing round your head after you’ve toked a few too many, they’re not really there. It’s all in your head. Along with most everything else you seem to see and believe in.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 1:33:17 PM
Didn't you just know that with a title like that, that this thread would be a hot one?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 1:33:57 PM
Steve,
I would submit to you that there is no such thing as group rights. What is a collective? How do you define that? Why does an American have different rights than a Canadian? How do you determine who decides what is a right? Is a right whatever those in power decide? I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. There's no way to define a collective objectively. There is also no logical way to determine which rights to assign to those in the collective either. The only rights that can be defined with certainty and assigned to everyone are individual rights (i.e. negative rights).
Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-24 1:40:24 PM
"The rights of you come before the rights of everyone else."
That's not what libertarians believe. Go read a book ... seriously.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-24 2:26:05 PM
[In response to "The rights of you come before the rights of everyone else."] That's not what libertarians believe.
Yet:
He...still doesn't comprehend (or more likely doesn't want to) that libertarians reject the notion of collective rights...
And:
I would submit to you that there is no such thing as group rights.
Either you are lying, or you are not libertarian. Forget books. I just have to read what you guys write. The subset of humanity that includes everyone but you is a group.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 3:51:20 PM
Robert Jago.
Evidently you have failed your Locke. Let me remind you of those greatest words..."The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and Patriots". Now, can you even hope to defend why a wannbe tyrant should not be put on notice that their actions -- actions which threaten Liberty -- will lead to their destruction? What from that destruction takes, however, is entirely up to the tyrant in question. In other words, the Liberal MP who was foolish and cavalier enough to make such an attack on Liberty truly has placed his future in his own hands.
Posted by: AB Patriot | 2010-09-24 9:10:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.