Western Standard

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

My 2nd degree is in political philosophy and I would be ashamed if I'm wrong on this - but AB 'Patriot', don't you mean Thomas Jefferson and not John Locke?

Anyhow, an MP is anything but a tyrant. And threatening the life of an MP is absurd and wrong and ought never to be done.

Can you point to one liberty and say that this MP in question has diminished it?

I don't oppose political violence in principle, as a response to violence it is entirely appropriate. And I don't think that a vote in itself makes someone legitimate.

But what I do think is that if you have any option other than violence - you must take that first or you're nothing but a fascist.

This country is not as free as I would like it to be - but it's about as close as you can get on this planet. And if you don't like a politician in Canada, there's nothing in the world that can stop you from fighting against them and voting against them at the ballot box.

And if they step over the line, again, there's nothing in the world to stop you from taking them to court and fighting your way all the way to the supreme court and throwing your charter rights in their faces.

Political violence is rarely called for in Canada. We're fortunate, and let's not pretend we're not. We're civilized and we fight our battles with words, money and smears - not ever with bullets or the threat of violence.

The proper response to this MP isn't to threaten him, it's to call him an asshole and then explain at length why that's a bad thing.

Posted by: Robert Jago | 2010-09-24 9:46:04 PM


@Charles, I would have to argue that. Religious groups have "rights", homosexuals have "rights", governments have "rights" and so on. Although I understand your point, in practice it doesn't appear to work that way in our society. "Rights" which are defined by our society, are really nothing but a form of the gun. For proof of that, look to the HRCs. The question for me is, why do we have "rights". Why do we need them? At this point in time, we do. Winter is coming buddy, I look forward to spending more time discussing these things with you. If you got the time. Want a good laugh? I am running for council here. And stand a decent chance of winning :)

@Shane, you already know what I think the solution is.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-09-24 11:42:25 PM



"Rights" which are defined by our society, are really nothing but a form of the gun. For proof of that, look to the HRCs. The question for me is, why do we have "rights". Why do we need them?
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-09-24 11:42:25 PM

We should do away with the Charter. The Charter of Rights has been a boon for the Left of which through judicial activism has radically changed
Canada's landscape. This change as dramatically
eroded our freedoms through a landscape of severe Left-wing political correctness that is choking us.
Pierre Trudeau radically changed something that was never broken.

As a Christian I very dislike human rights codes because it violates my duty as a Christian to discriminate. I must always discriminate between right and wrong, sin and righteousness all the time.
We only need a Constitution that sets the boundaries of which the state can operate, that sets the line of which the state cannot cross or mettle or get its nose into.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-25 9:32:20 AM


Jago

Where did I say that quote was from Locke? You implied it; I did not. Of the matter of opposition and the use of violence, let me remind you that it was Locke who proposed the sage notion that when governments oppose the will of the people, then they must be destroyed. And of course the people, as a whole, are largely illiterate of Liberty. Indeed, I suspect there are many who believe that their freedom exists at the whim of their beloved MP. No doubt this MP believes that He is the source of all freedom. No doubt he believes that the state is the primary entity over all others. Judging by his provocative claims, he believes this to be so. And, this MP and others like him, will no doubt press, push, and force their Liberty destroying agenda on all; I suspect he would not think twice about using violence in any instance. Given his published beliefs, I have no doubt this MP would enjoy and be impressed by the violence he can weld at his whim. Any threat to Liberty is the highest form of violence. And those who threaten Liberty must be crush with all violence available. Death to tyrants and their fellow travellers is the only option.

Posted by: AB Patriot | 2010-09-25 10:07:55 AM


That's not what I meant Stanley. What I mean is, what is the root cause of us needing "rights"? Is it education? Is it a function of the state? Is it economic? I don't know, but now I'm interested, so I will have to research it a bit.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-09-25 12:15:18 PM


don b writes " Democracy needs checks and balances , without it , it is just tyranny of the majority."

For which Shane replies:

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?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-24 1:07:32 PM

"Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?"

Unfortunately Her Majesty's Opposition is made up of a whole crew of Glen Pearson's who want destroy our freedom and impose their elitist statism on us. The Liberal Party never cared about majority opinion, they only cared about their stridently Far-Left world view they want to impose on us. They use Orwellian doublespeak when the play lip service to the will of Canadians.

"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms?"

This Charter has been used by Left-wing activists particularly radical social liberals to impose their agenda on this country regardless of the will of the majority, gay marriage is one example.

"The Supreme Court?"

Because of the Charter Left-wing activists particularly radical social liberals got their agenda shoved down our throats via the means of a activist Supreme Court. "Charter challenge" nonsense is an example. 100% of socons launching a charter challenge such as pushing for rights of the unborn, tradition marriage protection rights, etc have been were thrown out while 100% of radical social liberals launching a charter challenge whether gays or feminists etc, where never rejected.

"The ability to vote out unsatisfactory legislators?"

Too few have been voted out.

"A free press?"

In Canada a free press? Socons know how often their letters to the editor get rejected. The Liberal Media is afraid of a frank brutal holds barred debate on many things.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-25 2:49:21 PM


    Rights" which are defined by our society, are really nothing but a form of the gun. For proof of that, look to the HRCs.

Wrong, Steve. The trouble with the HRCs is that they are not legitimate law-enforcement bodies and for all intents and purposes act as if the law of the land does not exist. They were originally organized to arbitrate rent and workplace disputes; they are utterly unsuited to their current mandate and it shows. Despite their name, enforcing the Charter isn't their job. Thank God.

    The question for me is, why do we have "rights". Why do we need them? At this point in time, we do.

And at what point in time would they have been unnecessary? Before 1925, when pot was outlawed?

    Want a good laugh? I am running for council here. And stand a decent chance of winning :)

We'll let the voters decide. Some advice: Don't come to work stoned, and shower beforehand in any event. If word gets out you're a stoner you won't stay on council long. Maybe in Nelson. :-)

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-25 6:41:50 PM


    Unfortunately Her Majesty's Opposition is made up of a whole crew of Glen Pearson's who want destroy our freedom and impose their elitist statism on us.

We'll do without the campaign talk, Stanley. It's true that the Liberals and the Bloc are throwbacks to the 1960s, and the Dippers, to the 1930s. Nevertheless, like any opposition they hold the government to account, especially since it's a minority government.

    This Charter has been used by Left-wing activists particularly radical social liberals to impose their agenda on this country regardless of the will of the majority, gay marriage is one example.

There is nothing wrong with the Charter as written. It gets a bad rap because it is currently being insanely overinterpreted by a crew of old hippies left over from the Quiet Revolution. Judges are unelected and completely unaccountable. We should fire them and replace them with jurists, not campus radicals.

    Because of the Charter Left-wing activists particularly radical social liberals got their agenda shoved down our throats via the means of a activist Supreme Court.

See above. Social-engineering horseshit and radical Leftist bias notwithstanding, the courts perform their function in limiting the powers of the government. The point was not that Canada's democracy is perfect, but simply that it is not a tyranny of the majority where the party with the most votes can literally do anything it pleases.

    Too few have been voted out.

And whose fault is that?

    In Canada a free press? Socons know how often their letters to the editor get rejected. The Liberal Media is afraid of a frank brutal holds barred debate on many things.

Actually, once you get outside the 905 belt, Canada's media is reasonably well balanced. The long gun registry, for instance, has been pilloried by virtually every major Canadian paper except the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, both avowed Leftist rags and both published in Toronto. But that state of mental development is to be expected from a city that dumps its sewage and industrial waste into the same lake that provides their drinking water.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-25 6:56:34 PM


@Shane

I agree that we need a loyal opposition to keep the government in check. I never said I wanted it gone. I was just pointing out the agenda of the Left leaning opposition, not criticizing why the institution itself should exist.

As far as your comment on the Charter, I disagree with the first sentence,(the Charter is inherently flawed). I totally agree with the rest of your comment on the Charter, that the 'Supremes' are a throwback to the hippies of the sixties etc.

Your comment on the Supreme Court and your comment on the proper function and the need of the Supreme Court is bang on. But it is failing in that job miserably as you seem to agree. Again I never questioned its legitimacy.

I agree with your assessment of the Toronto Star and the Globe. I know the Star because I born and raised in Southern Ontario.

I now live in a small town on the prairies and my local town weekly paper editor had me in his office and told me during the gay marriage debate a couple years ago that he will not publish my letter against gay marriage because this is a ideologically conservative town and he wants a opinion from the other side. What a wonderful way for a newspaper to alienate their readers.
They seem to want nothing to rock the boat, keep it safe and politically correct. Yet those editors spew out their Leftist rants on all sorts of federal and international issues and hardly does anyone get to rebuttal them. They write like the Star despite being on the prairies.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-25 8:09:57 PM


Scott Ried (a socon who would have no issues with state interference when it comes to social issues)

Posted by: Mike | 2010-09-23 3:25:43 AM

Are you speaking of the Scott Reid, MP who was praised this week by Tom Flanagan for his steadfast opposition to drug prohibition or the one who stood up in the House of Commons this year to oppose the extradition of Marc Emery to the US? I suspect neither.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2010-09-26 2:43:21 AM


How many charter violations are there in our firearms laws, where is the supreme court?
Where is the supreme court on drug prohibition , police entering peoples private residences arresting them for what the put in there bodies.

Posted by: don b | 2010-09-26 10:08:15 AM


If the supreme court is there to protect minority rights Shane , where did they help Bruce Montague?
Didnt even want to hear the case.

Posted by: don b | 2010-09-26 10:20:19 AM


"And at what point in time would they have been unnecessary? Before 1925, when pot was outlawed?"

In the future Shane.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-09-26 12:21:35 PM


Stanley,

1. Don't gild the lily, Stan. Your statement was intended to discredit the opposition, and by extension, insinuate that it was ineffective.

2. In what way is the Charter flawed? It's not enough to simply say it.

3. I expect the courts will get better once we get rid of the flower children.

4. Yes, but the point is, the MSM overall, outside of Toronto and Montreal, is not bad and fairly balanced. You said that it was not.

5. What were you doing in the editor's office? Since when are you required to answer his summonses? And remember that's just one editor.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-26 7:36:28 PM


    How many charter violations are there in our firearms laws, where is the supreme court?>

Technically none; the Charter does not protect property rights. That is the one thing that should have been included that wasn't. The right to own property has its root in the common law, not in the Charter.

    Where is the supreme court on drug prohibition , police entering peoples private residences arresting them for what the put in there bodies.

Those are not protected by the Charter either. And don't lie to us. Police arrest people for SELLING drugs, not DOING drugs.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-26 7:38:21 PM


    If the supreme court is there to protect minority rights Shane , where did they help Bruce Montague?

I wasn't aware Bruce Montague was a minority, or that minorities had more Charter rights than anyone else.

If you ever want to be taken seriously, Don, you need to do two things.

1. Learn to spell.

2. Bring forth legitimate problems and intelligent debate instead of waltzing around with a chip on your shoulder and calling it critical thinking.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-26 7:45:17 PM


    In the future Shane.

So our laws now need to be future-proof?

Give it up, Steve. Not only is there no Charter right to possess psychotropic hallucinogens, there is no traditional common-law right to possess psychotropic hallucinogens. Like Don, you write everything viewed through the lens of pot use, as if that is the one immutable litmus test that determined whether a government is legitimate or not. If it isn't, pretty much every country in the world fails. So either the world is wrong and you are right, or...

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-26 7:49:36 PM


@Shane
For answer No.5 I live in a small town, I know the editor personally. The office is 2 blocks or a 5 minute walk away. I come every week to pick up the 3 other weekly papers that circulate in nearby communities. True it is one editor.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-26 9:35:11 PM


1. Don't gild the lily, Stan. Your statement was intended to discredit the opposition, and by extension, insinuate that it was ineffective.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-26 7:36:28 PM

Of course I am discrediting the Opposition. The Opposition I think is ineffective not because of the office but because it is obvious that I intensely despise their ideological outlook. Too often even when I think the Conservatives are doing not a great job since due to the fact I am philosophically to the Right of them socially and fiscally, I things the the opposition harps about and wants from the government would a be turn for the worse.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-26 9:49:56 PM


"Religious groups have "rights", homosexuals have "rights", governments have "rights" and so on."

Nope. Individuals have the right to practice their religion. Homosexuals have the right to have sex with members of their own sex. Governments have no rights whatsoever. What you are referring to are really individual rights.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-27 6:07:41 AM


"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."

Yes. And the individuals within that group all have rights which I can't violate.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-27 6:25:11 AM


Stanley, you can't claim that a political party is ineffective simply because you despise their ideological outlook. As you may have guessed, I'm no fan of theirs either. The issue is not what we think of them, but whether they hold the government to account, and they do. Let's face it: Even the Tories would get arrogant in power eventually if someone wasn't there watching them. It seems to be human nature to get too comfortable on the throne.

Is the system perfect? Ha, ha. But in the main, does it work? Yes.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-27 6:28:24 AM


2. In what way is the Charter flawed? It's not enough to simply say it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-26 7:36:28 PM

The Charter has made the Supreme Court a constitutional court.It never was before. Now it is to settle social issues which should not be their job. That is our job and Parliament's. The Supreme Court only enforced Sec 91 and 92 of the BNA Act. The Supreme Court was not even around for almost a decade after Confederation. It didn't even become a ultimate court of appeal until 1949.

I have rights that is inherent to the fact I am a human being made in God's image. My freedom pre-exists the state. I do not have to have a government declare I have a "right" to walk outside when I done so all my life. I only need government to protect the freedoms I always had.

Classical liberals like the outstanding constitutional scholars like A.V.Dicey (1835-1922) opposed written codes of rights and liberties. They maintained that a written constitution such as Britain's which was nothing more than a code of limits on the State, offered better protection for individual freedom and the rule of law than any written code of liberties possibly could. Man could do anything that was not expressly prohibited by statute or common law. A line in the sand by which the State cannot cross set by the constitution offers one of the best protections of people's civil liberties and freedoms.

In order to define a right to set it in a code, one has to have a description of that right. To describe a right ends up limiting that right in the end. Moreover it can also be a right that can be changed or canceled at whim. The Hard Left famously operates by impulse and whim.

Worse still, when the Charter states that when it comes to rights and freedoms, judges have the right to disregard some of these stated rights if when it is “reasonable” to do so, makes for extremely politically partisan rulings. It has been usually always “reasonable” to infringe on social conservatives when social liberals always get favourable treatment.

When the state mettles in this business of enforcing anti-discrimination codes (which the Charter is), it infringes on my right to discriminate. Discriminating between good and evil or righteousness and sin is the essence of being a Christian.
Anti-discrimination codes become a problem when the framers of these codes have a different definition of what we should discriminate against then what I as a follower of the Holy Bible has.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-27 10:06:13 PM


Sure, they are in the wilderness right now, but the Saskatchewan Liberals, under new leader Ryan Bater, are saying some pretty good stuff - I personally like how they are trying to formulate a more sophisticated definition of individualism.

http://www.saskliberals.ca/principles

Posted by: BT | 2010-10-09 1:14:06 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.