Help Marc Emery!

I met Marc Emery at least twenty years ago, when he was still living in London, Ontario and operating the City Lights book store. We had the libertarian political philosophy in common, and I admired his drive and energy. I was also amused by his frenetic style, something quite unlike my own staid demeanour. Around that time, or perhaps a bit later, Marc became involved with the marijuana movement and quickly became a spokesman and activist for anything marijuana.

I lost track of Marc when he moved away from London. He escalated his activism and eventually set up shop in Vancouver and sold mail order marijuana seeds via the Internet. On July 29, 2005, Marc was arrested while on holiday in Halifax. Although Mark had suffered several Canadian arrests and even served a brief jail sentence or two, Canadian authorities had never paid all that much attention to him and his activities, certainly not recently. He appears to have been arrested mostly at the behest of the American DEA. There was to have been an extradition hearing this past May, but that has now been postponed until November of 2007, I believe.

If Marc Emery is extradited to the United States, he is basically screwed. And if Canadian authorities cave in to American pressure and allow his extradition, it pretty much tells us that we, as Canadians are screwed too. Will the notion of Canadian sovereignty then become even more of a joke? Emery sold marijuana seeds to people who wanted them, something that falls well within the libertarian definition of a 'victimless crime.' He hasn't hurt anyone. He hasn't swindled anyone. Most of the money he earned from the seed sales was channeled to various marijuana activists and groups. The fact that anyone is paying any attention at all to Marc and others like him is testimony to the fact that our priorities, and specifically the war on drugs in the United States, is seriously out of touch with reality. This sort of nonsense has to stop.

I want to be clear here: I personally don't use marijuana or any other street drug. I rarely even have an alcoholic drink. I think that people who use any sort of mind altering drug should instead stay lucid and enjoy and appreciate the beauty (mostly) of the world around them. But, and this distinction is critical, it is none of my business if someone else smokes dope. None. Nor is it any business of anyone else, and most particularly not of the United States government or its agencies. Driving drugs underground has had the deplorable result of turning millions of U.S. citizens into criminals. I have seen it reported that although the United States has only 5% of the world's population, it has 25% of its prisoners. If that statistic is true, it is truly scary.

I don't want to live Marc Emery's lifestyle. But I don't think that he should suffer a minimum sentence of ten years in a U.S. prison, or even as much as life imprisonment without parole. We cannot depend on the United States government or the DEA to behave rationally. The only way to save Marc is if the Canadian authorities develop a backbone and disallow extradition.

What can we do? Read this. Or this. Send his lawyer some money. Tell others. And tell politicians everywhere to concentrate on arresting real criminals and leave people like Marc alone.

Please!

The Rights of Children

I always enjoy it when my friend Sylvain drops in to read a post on my blog. Sometimes, he leaves a comment, and I am always interested in what he has to say. Sylvain and I agree on a lot of things but, as would be the case with any two random individuals, we also disagree about some things. That is what makes life interesting.

I'm not sure to what extent we actually disagree in the situation I am about to write about here. I'll let you, dear reader, figure that out.

Sylvain left a comment on my last blog post about the Amish. To save you the trouble of going there to see what he had to say, I will display part of his comment here:

"However, I think your comparison between the Amish and Libertarians is flawed. They may, as a group, do pretty much what they want, but individual Amish persons see their liberties and choices SEVERELY curtailed by their own group's authority. It is a form of deeply repressive local government.

Also, while they may not be unhappy, Amish kids are not given the same choices and opportunities as others. And if they ever want to get out into the real world, they will probably be very disfunctional and ill-equipped for modern life.

I'm personally opposed to early indoctrination of children into their parents religion. Kids believe everything their parents say, so by the time they are old enough to choose whether or not they want to be religious, or which religion to join, they have already been brainwashed into believing their parent's religion is the ultimate truth. Most people never get over that early programming."

OK. Where do I start? First of all, I was not suggesting that the Amish are libertarian in any comprehensive way. They want to be left alone and don't typically interfere in the rights of others to do what they wish, so that is certainly a laissez-faire or libertarian outlook, at least as far as others, outside of the Amish community, are concerned. But Sylvain zeroes in, correctly, on the Amish society itself, and points out that their system is "repressive" and that there is an "early indoctrination into their parents' religion." Let's dwell on those statements.

As an individual who has always hated being told what to do, I have, as far back as I can remember, considered the issue of the rights of children. I was a precocious kid, preoccupied as early as age eleven with matters like the whys and hows of life and our place in the universe. I can remember my mother blanching as I corrected a visiting pastor about something that I thought he should have known, his age being several multiples of mine at the time. I thought that by the age of fourteen, even the most dense among my peers would certainly be able to manage their own affairs, to vote in elections, have sexual relationships, etc. I believe that I would have managed quite well on my own, perhaps stubbing my toes frequently on the path to self-sufficiency, but arriving at that goal eventually in relatively good shape.

I'm glad, though, that I didn't have to take that path. As it was, I was on my own, off and on, from age seventeen on, but that was not age fourteen. And at age seventeen and older, I still made mistakes, lots of them. And I had the benefit of plenty of guidance from parents who understood the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, responsible and irresponsible and prudent and imprudent. And that, my friends is what really matters.

How so?

In the mid-1970's, I met a documentary film maker who was very passionate about children's rights. He was a very bright individual and I enjoyed listening to him. Over lunch one day, we discussed the issue, and as I listened to him, I realized that the more I heard him expound on children's rights, the less I agreed with him. I was already heavily involved with the Canadian libertarian movement (in fact, I may have been the leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada at that time) and I found my disagreement with him a bit troubling. After all, the libertarian position is that human beings are born with natural rights, and that interaction between human beings, even with children, should be respectful and even-handed. That might preclude things like corporal punishment, and even some more benign forms of punishment like deprivation of toys, the company of friends, etc., don't you think? How then, would a parent keep control over his or her children?

Hmmm... control... that is not a very libertarian concept, is it? Should there be no exercise of control over children at all then, and no attempt made to teach them anything unless at the child's own behest, and with his or her complete co-operation?

Sorry, folks, I don't buy that.

I think the real test of how well we will fare in the world, once we leave our parental home, is how well our parents parented us. Children need to be taught how to behave, how to cope, and how to recognize that while they have rights in life, everyone else has those same rights. So, if values need to be taught to children, does it matter what the context of the teachings might be? Does an ethical person who happens to be an atheist do a better job of teaching his children than, say, an Amish person? Will someone who never spanks his child, regardless of circumstance or provocation, be a better parent than a born-again Christian who will give his child a swat on the behind when deemed necessary?

I believe in children's rights. But I believe in parent's rights to guide their children as well. I also believe in the rights of strangers not to be subjected to the swagger of foul-mouthed little miscreants, whose parents might not have taken their responsibilities towards their offspring very seriously.

I got more than a few spankings when I was a child. Did I deserve every one? Maybe not. Did I ever do things which, had they been discovered, might have upped the count? Many times. Did it cause me any lasting harm? No.

And you, dear reader, did the spankings you got as a child (you did get spanked, didn't you?) cause you permanent harm? Do you hate your parents as a result, or do you recognize that sometimes parents simply do the best they can, and sometimes (gasp!) even make a mistake or two. I know that some of you, as do I, come from very religious, Christian fundamentalist families. Are you scarred for life because of it? Are you as good a parent as your own parents were to you?

I think that overall my parents did a mighty fine job. I am not at all sure that my more modern approach to child-rearing is better, or even as effective, as the way my parents raised me.

So, full-circle back to the Amish: Yes, the way they raise their children might be repressive in some ways. But I would trust an Amish child. I wouldn't find it necessary to hide the silver if one came visiting. I would expect, and get, good manners and a helpful and respectful attitude. I would be far less likely to get these things from most children I encounter on the streets and in the malls of Canada.

Life is a complicated affair. The more we meddle with how people do things, including raising their children, the more things get messed up. I think that parents who abuse their children should get jumped on with lead boots and, if they survive, get locked up for a long time. But spanking is not abuse. I think that parents who make their children do disgusting and unnatural things in the name of religion or of some weird cult should be punished severely. But raising children in a loving, supportive, religious home, doesn't fit that particular rubric, does it?

I think that we all need to do the best we can and to recognize that there are differences between us. Different is not synonymous with bad.

So... do Sylvain and I agree or disagree on this point? He and I will have to share a bottle of wine someday, and make an attempt to sort it all out.

From my website -- an attempt to explain Political Philosophy to my young son.

Political Philosophooey

Dear Zachary:

Liberal, Democratic, Conservative, Republican, Libertarian. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Anarchism, Capitalism. So many names. So many ‘isms.’ What do they all mean? How do they relate to each other. What do they mean directly to you, to me and to everyone else?

You’ve heard me rant many times about the irrational need of so many people (the electorate) to be controlled and manipulated by an endless supply of bozos (politicians and bureaucrats) who revel in creating a mountain of stupid laws to meet that need. Let’s discuss this perplexing situation a bit. We can start by defining some terms:

politics -- The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

philosophy -- Inquiry into the nature of things based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. (ibid.)

phooey -- Function: interjection. Used to express repudiation or disgust. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Can you see where I’m headed, Zachary? Do you get the feeling that perhaps I have some small degree of scepticism about whether there is any value to political philosophy?

Actually, I do think that political philosophy has value. It gives us context necessary for comparing varying political and socio-economic systems. It is sometimes easier to value the presence of something featured in one system by being reminded of its absence in another. I’m just annoyed that it is increasingly difficult to define one’s position. Terminology, nomenclature, rhetoric is seemingly even more elastic in matters political than anywhere else.

That’s a problem. A big problem.

Just about everything has a name. It is easier to direct attention to something by using a one-word name than by using a descriptive paragraph. The less time and effort it takes to identify something, the more time can be spent discussing the pros and cons of the thing. That is good. Political philosophy (as defined above) is merely a discussion of how we should govern ourselves. Discussion is good. Discussion is not the problem.

Do any of us actually understand all of the ‘isms’ I mentioned above? Do we understand the laws that rule us? Even more importantly, how many of us understand the effects those laws have on each of us individually and on all of us collectively? Very, very few.

Why is that? Politicians obfuscate. It gets them re-elected. If no-one can understand what is going on, then the perception is that we need someone to guide us through the fog. Many people want to be led. A few people even think that they need to be led.

Bureaucrats complicate. It gives them more work to do. It gives them job security. It means promotions as ever more bureaucrats are added to the Ministry of Redundancy.

Ergo ‘political philosophooey.’ That’s what I think. It’s all, pardon the expression, crap.

Let’s take a closer look at the various ‘isms’ and then try to understand what each means to those living under each system. Let’s begin with what I consider to be the worst ‘ism’ of them all: communism. All definitions used are from The American Heritage Dictionary. My personal comments follow each definition.

communism 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2. Communism.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

The appeal of Communism, in my humble opinion, is that its adherents actually think that they have collective ownership of property and that they believe that everyone under the system is somehow ‘equal.’ The reality, of course, is that common ownership is nominal only. Real control of property is with the central authority, whatever they might call themselves. Citizens in countries controlled by communists, past and present, are poor, anything but free, often brutalized. That, in no way, appeals to me.

Communism has been the direct cause of more deaths than any other political system in history. Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin in Russia, Chairman Mao in China, and lesser communist tyrants elsewhere on the globe were responsible for approximately 100,000,000 human dead. That’s one hundred million. That is three times the current population of Canada or over one third of the population of the United States. I don’t think that anyone in the world would disagree that communism is at the far left of the political spectrum. Yet do-gooders, meddlers and generally liberals of every stripe, proudly admit to everyone who will listen that they are ‘left-of-centre.’

socialism 1.a. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community. b. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system. 2. The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.

Socialism is basically just watered-down communism. It is also a term that can, and has been, claimed as the operative political system in regimes which have been just as totalitarian as Stalin’s Russia and Chairman Mao’s China. Think Germany. Yep, those reviled Nazis (1933 - 1945) were, in fact, officially socialists. The name of Adolf Hitler’s political party was Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP.) That translates to National Socialistic German Workers Party. The moniker ‘Nazi’ was a nickname which evolved from the party name. Currently, European countries like Sweden are held up as shining examples of socialism, with cradle-to-the-grave social and health care and correspondingly ruinous tax rates. Canada, where we live, is well on its way to full-blown socialism. It is a slippery slope which leads to an accelerating loss of freedom and an ever-diminishing decrease in our ability to advance financially.

fascism 1.a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socio-economic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Italy, under Benito Mussolini (1922 - 1943,) is often used as the definitive example of Fascism. Sometimes Nazi Germany is cited. I have one question: If a political system’s characteristics are enslavement to the state, what difference does it make what it is called? Communist, socialist, fascist, I don’t care... just get me out of there as quickly as possible.

anarchism 1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.

The terms anarchism and anarchy typically evoke in all variety of statists a vision of hell on earth. How could we function, after all, without a government telling us what to do or not to do. Impossible! Is it really impossible? I think not. I would rather live in a nation completely without government than in one where every action is controlled, monitored, taxed. Anarchists are often portrayed (usually incorrectly) as a bunch of violent, nihilistic misfits. Personally, I am disinclined to do anything violent to achieve anarchism. All I want is to be left alone. Anarcho-Capitalists, Individualist Anarchists and Agorists all make some interesting points and are worthy of analysis.

capitalism An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

True laissez-faire capitalism can only exist in a free society with property rights recognized as a natural extension of the rights to life and liberty. I don’t know of any place in the world where there is true capitalism. Canada and the United States have statist variants of capitalism where businesses are rewarded or punished according to the mood of the electorate. When economies slow, let’s throw the business community a bone via moderately decreased taxes so employment will rise. When the economy is booming, let’s tax businesses until they bleed. Oh, and above all, let’s blame business for everything. Overweight? Blame McDonald’s and sue them for millions, so you can sit on your fat ass and cry in the beer that you buy with the money that the courts will extort from McDonald’s on your behalf. The general public’s approach towards business is much like a sick marriage or love affair where one party sucks the life out of the other, one indignity at a time, while professing everlasting love and devotion.

Want to see what capitalism can really do? Get rid of every corporate subsidy. They merely serve to protect some businesses at the expense of others. Get rid of every useless regulation and all predatory fees and taxes. The economy will boom and there will be full employment for everyone who wants to work. Best of all, everyone will be too busy enjoying their wealth to meddle in the affairs of the rest of us.

liberal 1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

It is hard to find real fault with dictionary definitions of liberalism. The reality, however, is that modern liberals rarely believe in individual responsibility. In their eyes, students fail because of poor teachers. Employees fail to advance because their bosses discriminate against blacks, gays or women. The thought that anything that might happen to them might be their own fault is something that wouldn’t occur to a liberal. No, the system is always at fault and only the government can fix it, preferably by taxing the ‘rich’ and spending many, many millions or billions on the ‘problem.’ Decades later, the problem might still there, but liberals would believe that it is only because enough money wasn’t spent.

democratic 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality

Democracy is for the people, by the people. It means majority rule. And the majority is always right. Right? I don’t think so. Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others. Just so I am crystal clear on this matter, I think that democratic government ultimately sows the seeds of its own deterioration and ultimate destruction. The majority keeps on voting itself more and more perks at the expense of the taxpayer and attempts to legislate everyone’s behaviour until we all form a nice, homogenous, featureless, tasteless human soup. The only thing that democracy has going for it is that every other political system is worse.

conservative 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2. Traditional or restrained in style. 3. Moderate; cautious. 4.a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

The way that the term conservative is used or abused these days puzzles me. After all, the definition is quite clear. I can understand a desire to embrace traditional values and opposing change if that change is demonstrably for the worse. Conservatives typically have core values which they adhere to and champion. In typically Orwellian fashion, conservatives are labelled by others as being right-wing and, by association, are deemed as aspiring to be jack-booted fascists.

republican 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a republic. 2. Being in favor of a republic as the best form of government.

Republicans favour a government which is headed by a president and which utilizes representative democracy and not direct democracy. The intent of the founding fathers of the United States of America was to have a rule of law and not necessarily rule of the majority.

The United States has representative government, but the final choice as to who will be president is made by the Electoral College. This distinction is more nominal than practical. For a detailed explanation of the Electoral College and how it works, please click here.

In America’s republican system, a system of checks and balances allows several branches of the government to operate fairly independently of each other. At least that is the theory. In reality, if members of one party control the presidency, the judiciary, the House of Representatives and the Senate, they will be able to do just about whatever they please.

libertarian 1. One who believes in freedom of action and thought. 2. One who believes in free will.

I’ve saved the best for last. Imagine -- freedom of action and thought! Free will! That’s the sort of system I want to live in. Unfortunately, there isn’t a single country on planet Earth that has a Libertarian government. Libertarians have considerable difficulty in campaigning for and working towards forming a government. After all, they would only have to dismantle it, in great part, once they were elected. Libertarians I know personally are busy living -- going to school, getting married, starting careers, raising families -- all while minding their own business. Leave them alone and they’ll leave you alone. Some libertarians are wonderful, some are puzzling, some are pompous, some are humble. They are human beings.

So, Zachary, this has been your lesson in political philosophy. Confusing, isn’t it? I’ve tried to be as accurate as possible in my comments, but I will readily admit that my preference is to live in the freest possible system. Do you blame me?

Before I finally end this letter to you, I want to point out one more thing. The current convention of placing every political system on a horizontal (left-right) axis is nonsense. It makes no sense. Is there a better way?

There is, indeed, a better way. In the 1970s a young man by the name of David Nolan came up with a grid which had on its vertical axis the degree of individual liberty and on its horizontal axis the degree of economic liberty. Any political system could thus be more accurately charted and compared to other systems. The newest iteration of Nolan’s original grid can be found at the website of the Advocates for Self-Government.

OK. That’s it. Next time I write you a letter, Zachary, I think I am going to stick to something simple, like... well, you’re just going to have to wait and see.

Daddy