The following letter to the editor was published in the Toronto Sun on December 23.
A reader writes (Dec. 16) that "Judeo-Christian based societies are hands down the most decent, fair societies on Earth today". That is true, but he has reversed cause and effect. The reason this is true is not because of religion but because of the separation of church and state and recognition, to at least a significant degree, of individual rights and the freedom that brings - including religious freedom by definition.
The citing of communist dictatorships as athiest failures is flawed because in those cases the state was not secular, rather it elevated "athiesm" to a position as a religion and demanded its citizens obey. The vast majority of people, at least in the former Soviet Union, were never atheist, they were just not allowed to publicly practice their religious beliefs - one freedom among all the others they were denied. The current Chinese government still persecutes religious minorities.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god. Atheists are not the problem, the problem is always and only when people have their freedoms denied by a despotic government; it is irrelevant whether such an oppressive, and often murderous, government is secular or religious.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Gas prices and Hurricanes
As usual, during the recent hurricanes, there have been accusations of gouging (contrasted with accusations of price-fixing during normal times), and demands for investigations, charges, and price controls against oil companies.
Higher prices during an emergency are the free market's version of rationing - it encourages people to make do with less, which means supply lasts longer and more people can get at least some of it. Highest prices in one area (e.g. areas hit by the hurricanes) also help direct more of the existing supply there from other areas that do not need it as desperately. If a situation lasts for more than a short time, those higher prices also encourage more production to fulfill the demand.
Price controls just guarantee shortages. It does so, because it encourages many people to buy more than they need (leaving none for many others) while at the same time suppressing the profit motive that would cause supply to go where it is most needed (and thus most profitable) - in fact supply is driven out of a price-controlled area in favour of any place free of the controls. Government then often compounds the problem through rationing - exactly what the free market and profit motive would've done far more quickly and efficiently if left alone.
The emergency area needs as much of various resources it can get - not only gas but building supplies, food, fresh water, etc. High prices frees up these resources in areas outside the emergency area (people use less) and even higher prices in the emergency area draw in those resources and at the same time ensure people there buy the minimum needed, thereby maximizing distribution to as many as possible.
Theocratic Law
For sometime, Ontario has been considering allowing legal backing for Sharia law (it has finally, fortunately, decided against it). Recently it has come to light that some members of Muslim groups opposing enshrinement of Sharia have not only been criticized, but have had their lives threatened by other Muslim groups. I had the following letter to the editor published by the Toronto Sun on Sept 25, 2005.
It is telling that Muslims opposed to enshrining Sharia law here are now the target of threats and intimidation from other Muslims. Given this mentality of some - that violence is acceptable in their quest to bring ancient religious law to Canada, how can it not be clear why such religious codes must never be given force of law in a civilized nation?
Secular law is a necessary, though not sufficient, prerequisite for guaranteeing individual freedom, including the freedom to peacefully practice any religion. A measure of freedom is the ability to disagree with others without fear of violent reprisal. As this current situation (and the entire history of theocratic law) demonstrates, religion-based legal codes are not compatible with such freedom regardless of the religion involved. Theocratic law is collective law by definition and inherently opposed to individual freedom.
It is telling that Muslims opposed to enshrining Sharia law here are now the target of threats and intimidation from other Muslims. Given this mentality of some - that violence is acceptable in their quest to bring ancient religious law to Canada, how can it not be clear why such religious codes must never be given force of law in a civilized nation?
Secular law is a necessary, though not sufficient, prerequisite for guaranteeing individual freedom, including the freedom to peacefully practice any religion. A measure of freedom is the ability to disagree with others without fear of violent reprisal. As this current situation (and the entire history of theocratic law) demonstrates, religion-based legal codes are not compatible with such freedom regardless of the religion involved. Theocratic law is collective law by definition and inherently opposed to individual freedom.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Private Medicine is a Right
The debate in Canada is getting more interesting. One of the laws here is that private insurers are not allowed to compete with the government insurance, they are only allowed to offer extended insurance beyond what government programs cover. For example, the government system does not, for most people, cover costs of prescriptions, thus I'm allowed to buy private insurance to cover that.
What this means is that, for anything government deigns to cover, most Canadians are effectively forced to endure rationed care (waiting lists) since they cannot afford to pay out of pocket for the treatment. Moreover, even if they have the means to pay it themselves, they are not allowed to use that money in Canada, but must go to the United States - it is against the law for any doctor or hospital to take cash directly from patients since that would be "jumping the queue".
However, the Supreme Court of Canada has just handed down a ruling recognizing that barring the purchase of private insurance for any health care, and by implication, the ability to get actual treatment privately, is a violation of rights. Technically this ruling currently only applies against the specific prohibition in the province of Quebec, but it has implications for all provinces and for the Canada Health Act.
This is a good step. The idea that one should be stopped from acquiring needed or desired treatment, or insurance for same, even though one is able and willing to pay for it, is an obscene violation of rights and is blatantly anti-life. People do suffer and even die here as a direct result of being forced to wait on government lists.
Everyone talks about throwing more government (tax) money at the problem to reduce waiting times. But the only way waiting lists will ever be siginificantly reduced is to introduce private competition. In a perfect chance timing, there are currently advertisements from a firm just south of the U.S. border explaining how the increasing popularity of their diagnostic services (MRI, etc) had pushed new appointments out to a full month. They have now acquired new equipment (the latest in technology) and were now able to again offer next day appointments to Canadian customers. This is a direct result of competitive forces in a free market - the competitive free market that most Canadians, and many others, continue to insist is, somehow, evil and to be avoided at all costs.
What this means is that, for anything government deigns to cover, most Canadians are effectively forced to endure rationed care (waiting lists) since they cannot afford to pay out of pocket for the treatment. Moreover, even if they have the means to pay it themselves, they are not allowed to use that money in Canada, but must go to the United States - it is against the law for any doctor or hospital to take cash directly from patients since that would be "jumping the queue".
However, the Supreme Court of Canada has just handed down a ruling recognizing that barring the purchase of private insurance for any health care, and by implication, the ability to get actual treatment privately, is a violation of rights. Technically this ruling currently only applies against the specific prohibition in the province of Quebec, but it has implications for all provinces and for the Canada Health Act.
This is a good step. The idea that one should be stopped from acquiring needed or desired treatment, or insurance for same, even though one is able and willing to pay for it, is an obscene violation of rights and is blatantly anti-life. People do suffer and even die here as a direct result of being forced to wait on government lists.
Everyone talks about throwing more government (tax) money at the problem to reduce waiting times. But the only way waiting lists will ever be siginificantly reduced is to introduce private competition. In a perfect chance timing, there are currently advertisements from a firm just south of the U.S. border explaining how the increasing popularity of their diagnostic services (MRI, etc) had pushed new appointments out to a full month. They have now acquired new equipment (the latest in technology) and were now able to again offer next day appointments to Canadian customers. This is a direct result of competitive forces in a free market - the competitive free market that most Canadians, and many others, continue to insist is, somehow, evil and to be avoided at all costs.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Miltary Deserters
Since the start of military action in Iraq, there have been a number of deserters from the U.S. military running to Canada hoping to escape prosecution.
The good news is at least one such deserter just had his case for asylum denied by a Canadian court. There are several others that have applied for asylum and their cases should also be denied. The bad news is that Canadian law allows appeal after appeal and so these deserters are likely to tie up our courts - and be free to live here - for a few years before finally having to face justice in the U.S.
The basis of their claim? That the action in Iraq is illegal. Whether one considers that a fact or nonsense is a separate issue, however it has no bearing on a "right" to desert. These soldiers are trying to have it both ways - join a voluntary military (and enjoy free university), but not actually have to fight if called on to do so. The military has one purpose - to fight for the defense of a nation. Having soldier's that run away instead of fighting when called on kind of defeats the purpose of having a military.
During the Viet Nam conflict, the U.S. had a draft - conscription. If you did not volunteer service, your were forced into it. This is a blatant violation of the individual rights the U.S. was founded on - a claim by the state that they own your life instead of you. As such, it was perfectly moral for draftees to run in order to protect their own lives and, as such, when there is conscription, I personally welcome any and all draft-dodgers able to make their way here.
But there is no conscription now (and hopefully never again). One is not required to provide military service. Doing so is completely voluntary, but for that reason, one is also expected to uphold their end of that voluntary contract. Violating it, by deserting, deserves prosecution.
In any civilized country such as the U.S., a soldier has the right, and in fact the duty, to refuse to carry out an order if he believes that order is illegal or immoral. In other words, a soldier cannot claim "just following orders" to justify illegal or immoral acts. However, a soldier better be right because in refusing such an order, it is also proper for him to face military justice in order to establish the rightness of his claim. He cannot refuse an order on whim, and he cannot decide, contrary to his nation's laws, what is legal or illegal.
The action in Iraq was perfectly legal by the laws of the United States - the very laws under which he volunteered his services to the military. There is no basis for subsequently claiming it is illegal under any other law because he did not volunteer, let alone be drafted, under any other law.
In summary, it is perfectly within his choice to refuse service, thereby violating his military cotnract, but only if he is also willing to face the just consequences of his actions for doing so. Running away to live here in Canada is the action of a coward, not a conscientious objector.
The good news is at least one such deserter just had his case for asylum denied by a Canadian court. There are several others that have applied for asylum and their cases should also be denied. The bad news is that Canadian law allows appeal after appeal and so these deserters are likely to tie up our courts - and be free to live here - for a few years before finally having to face justice in the U.S.
The basis of their claim? That the action in Iraq is illegal. Whether one considers that a fact or nonsense is a separate issue, however it has no bearing on a "right" to desert. These soldiers are trying to have it both ways - join a voluntary military (and enjoy free university), but not actually have to fight if called on to do so. The military has one purpose - to fight for the defense of a nation. Having soldier's that run away instead of fighting when called on kind of defeats the purpose of having a military.
During the Viet Nam conflict, the U.S. had a draft - conscription. If you did not volunteer service, your were forced into it. This is a blatant violation of the individual rights the U.S. was founded on - a claim by the state that they own your life instead of you. As such, it was perfectly moral for draftees to run in order to protect their own lives and, as such, when there is conscription, I personally welcome any and all draft-dodgers able to make their way here.
But there is no conscription now (and hopefully never again). One is not required to provide military service. Doing so is completely voluntary, but for that reason, one is also expected to uphold their end of that voluntary contract. Violating it, by deserting, deserves prosecution.
In any civilized country such as the U.S., a soldier has the right, and in fact the duty, to refuse to carry out an order if he believes that order is illegal or immoral. In other words, a soldier cannot claim "just following orders" to justify illegal or immoral acts. However, a soldier better be right because in refusing such an order, it is also proper for him to face military justice in order to establish the rightness of his claim. He cannot refuse an order on whim, and he cannot decide, contrary to his nation's laws, what is legal or illegal.
The action in Iraq was perfectly legal by the laws of the United States - the very laws under which he volunteered his services to the military. There is no basis for subsequently claiming it is illegal under any other law because he did not volunteer, let alone be drafted, under any other law.
In summary, it is perfectly within his choice to refuse service, thereby violating his military cotnract, but only if he is also willing to face the just consequences of his actions for doing so. Running away to live here in Canada is the action of a coward, not a conscientious objector.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Bush, Religion, and Morality
There has been much discussion in the press and in many forums about whether Bush's re-election was driven by the religious right and whether this gives him a mandate to further a religious agenda in the U.S. - possibly breaching the wall separating church and state.
Of those who voted for him, it's a sure bet there would be at least a few who are actually in favour of breaking down this wall, paving the way for a partial or even full theocracy. But such would be an extremely small minority and are not a threat. That doesn't mean there is no danger at all, certainly there is a possibility of some erosion, perhaps a few leaks; but not a breach.
Bush, for his part, is a mixed bag, on the one hand indicating through some statements that he has no religous agenda and that he understands the reason for separating church and state and will uphold it in the U.S., while on the other hand, saying that he would accept a theocracy in Iraq as long as it is "democratically" chosen by the Iraqis. If a theocracy is wrong anywhere then it is wrong everywhere.
More recently some sites have published statistics indicating that, while there was indeed an increase in votes coming from the religious right over the last election, it was a much smaller increase than Bush received from other groupings where religion was much less a concern.
However, what most statistics do show is that a very high number voted for Bush, or at least for the conservative right, out of concern for moral values. This concern cut across many groups regardless of their religious positions.
This seems to indicate a general trend towards renewed recognition of the importance of moral values, this after decades of moral values being more and more trivialized by many of the world's intellectuals. The left, over the last few decades, has become less and less principled while for the right it has increased, and this seems to have drawn more people to the right.
Renewed interest in moral values and moral principles is a good thing, however for centuries there has been a packaging of morality and religion that has been and continues to be accepted by a large majority. Many cannot imagine that there can even be a code of morality without a religious backing. This comes down to the alternative between reason or faith. If one believes moral principles must be accepted on faith - handed down from some higher authority than man - then one comes to such conclusions as "in reason there is no reason to be moral".
But this belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the role morality plays in our lives. Obeying a commandment is not an act of morality. Choosing an action because it is right is an act of morality. But to determine what action is right requires the use of reason, not faith. Judging the morality of an action is a measurement we must make in each situation. But a measurement of what? To measure anything there must be some standard, what is the standard of measure for a moral code proper to man? The only reasonable answer is: life - human life. The act of murder is not wrong because some alleged higher authority commands it, it is wrong because it violates a human's life - it is one person taking what is not rightfully his to take. The purpose of choosing one's actions based on moral principles is not for the sake of some afterlife, it is for the sake of this life here on earth. Ayn Rand said: "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."
Along with the separation between church and state, we need a separation between church and morality. The former is dependent on the latter and without it, the former will be breached eventually.
Of those who voted for him, it's a sure bet there would be at least a few who are actually in favour of breaking down this wall, paving the way for a partial or even full theocracy. But such would be an extremely small minority and are not a threat. That doesn't mean there is no danger at all, certainly there is a possibility of some erosion, perhaps a few leaks; but not a breach.
Bush, for his part, is a mixed bag, on the one hand indicating through some statements that he has no religous agenda and that he understands the reason for separating church and state and will uphold it in the U.S., while on the other hand, saying that he would accept a theocracy in Iraq as long as it is "democratically" chosen by the Iraqis. If a theocracy is wrong anywhere then it is wrong everywhere.
More recently some sites have published statistics indicating that, while there was indeed an increase in votes coming from the religious right over the last election, it was a much smaller increase than Bush received from other groupings where religion was much less a concern.
However, what most statistics do show is that a very high number voted for Bush, or at least for the conservative right, out of concern for moral values. This concern cut across many groups regardless of their religious positions.
This seems to indicate a general trend towards renewed recognition of the importance of moral values, this after decades of moral values being more and more trivialized by many of the world's intellectuals. The left, over the last few decades, has become less and less principled while for the right it has increased, and this seems to have drawn more people to the right.
Renewed interest in moral values and moral principles is a good thing, however for centuries there has been a packaging of morality and religion that has been and continues to be accepted by a large majority. Many cannot imagine that there can even be a code of morality without a religious backing. This comes down to the alternative between reason or faith. If one believes moral principles must be accepted on faith - handed down from some higher authority than man - then one comes to such conclusions as "in reason there is no reason to be moral".
But this belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the role morality plays in our lives. Obeying a commandment is not an act of morality. Choosing an action because it is right is an act of morality. But to determine what action is right requires the use of reason, not faith. Judging the morality of an action is a measurement we must make in each situation. But a measurement of what? To measure anything there must be some standard, what is the standard of measure for a moral code proper to man? The only reasonable answer is: life - human life. The act of murder is not wrong because some alleged higher authority commands it, it is wrong because it violates a human's life - it is one person taking what is not rightfully his to take. The purpose of choosing one's actions based on moral principles is not for the sake of some afterlife, it is for the sake of this life here on earth. Ayn Rand said: "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."
Along with the separation between church and state, we need a separation between church and morality. The former is dependent on the latter and without it, the former will be breached eventually.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Sharia Law in Ontario
The Province of Ontario has apparently all but officially announced it will be sanctioning the operation of Sharia law here. Defenders of this say it poses no problems since it will obviously be a watered-down version – women won’t be stoned to death for their “crimes” for example, and women and others will be safe since, if they do not like the ruling against them under Sharia, they will be able to appeal to Ontario law.
Watering down evil does not make it non-evil, and if those convicted under Sharia can appeal to Ontario law and have their sentence voided anyway, then there’s no valid purpose in sanctioning it in the first place.
Some defenders also claim that Muslims have the right to practice Sharia here under freedom of religion protections. That is wrong; freedom of religion does not include the right to set up your own laws, laws are a function of a government. To allow Sharia to be sanctioned is to allow the creation of a theocracy running parallel to our secular government.
A theocracy, by definition, is opposed to individual rights and freedoms. To tolerate any part of a theocracy to any degree is to violate those principles and further erode all our rights. It directly violates equality before the law.
The majority of those who will be judged under Sharia will not appeal to secular law, if that were so then the Muslim groups advocating this would have nothing to gain by it. They want to practice Sharia precisely to retain the power over others, particularly women, which they had in the theocratic nations they came from. Victims of this law will be under great pressure from their families (read: husbands and fathers) and from their community to submit and not go outside to appeal rulings. For them to appeal would, in most cases, also require them to leave their families and friends as life would become even more intolerable for them to stay after “dishonouring” their faith and their families.
This action must be stopped.
Watering down evil does not make it non-evil, and if those convicted under Sharia can appeal to Ontario law and have their sentence voided anyway, then there’s no valid purpose in sanctioning it in the first place.
Some defenders also claim that Muslims have the right to practice Sharia here under freedom of religion protections. That is wrong; freedom of religion does not include the right to set up your own laws, laws are a function of a government. To allow Sharia to be sanctioned is to allow the creation of a theocracy running parallel to our secular government.
A theocracy, by definition, is opposed to individual rights and freedoms. To tolerate any part of a theocracy to any degree is to violate those principles and further erode all our rights. It directly violates equality before the law.
The majority of those who will be judged under Sharia will not appeal to secular law, if that were so then the Muslim groups advocating this would have nothing to gain by it. They want to practice Sharia precisely to retain the power over others, particularly women, which they had in the theocratic nations they came from. Victims of this law will be under great pressure from their families (read: husbands and fathers) and from their community to submit and not go outside to appeal rulings. For them to appeal would, in most cases, also require them to leave their families and friends as life would become even more intolerable for them to stay after “dishonouring” their faith and their families.
This action must be stopped.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Antitrust - Where do I begin...
Let's begin here: U.S. Antitrust Agency Probing Plan to Shut Refinery
So the government, via antitrust laws, are now to decide when a company can open and close its facilities.
They already extensively control corporations in just about every respect - from deciding for a company what it's products should be, what can or cannot be delivered with those products, what prices can be charged, what agreements it can enter into with vendors or retailers, etc.
They define what constitutes a market for any product in order to decide whether there are antitrust violations. Did you know there was a specific market for "Super-Premium Ice Cream"? There never used to be, until one company started producing such a product, got a little competition from others and suddenly the government swoops in and successfully blocks the first company from buying one of its competitors. They found they could not block it based on the entire ice-cream market, nor on even on the sub-markets of regular or premium ice-cream - there was plenty of competition there. So they looked harder and discovered there was a super-premium product and only three or so companies offered it. Aha! Evil ice-cream monopoly must be stopped!
Even non-profit help organizations are not immune - one such organization to help alcoholics was busted under antitrust because they required their affiliates to sign an agreement not to enter into any other affiliates area. Oh, but there must be competition between the affilates in any given area, says the government! Competition for what? Catering to alcoholics that need help at no charge to them and for no profit?
Back to the case that triggered this post - the planned closing of a refinery in California. The claim being made by government is that closing it is simply an effort to further constrict supply in the state and there by force prices even higher. Never mind that it has been losing money due to costs of transporting crude inland to that location. Never mind that the reason California has the highest prices is because they require the refineries to meet specfications different from anywhere else.
The linked article above focuses (as do most reports) on the large profits oil companies are making in California, always forgotten is the large expenditures ($billions) the oil companies have had to make refitting refineries to meet ever more ridiculous state laws - expenditures that have to be covered out of future profits.
Yet we have the government threatening the possibility of blocking the closure - meaning they would force the oil company to continue operating at a loss. What they miss is that forcing an inefficient facility to stay open actually puts more pressure on prices to rise in order to cover that cost. Closing that facility means gas previously refined there will now be refined at more efficient locations. Its bad enough government thinks it can command the economy, but they show their ignorance at every turn in regard to economic principles, not to mention the whole concept of a free market.
So the government, via antitrust laws, are now to decide when a company can open and close its facilities.
They already extensively control corporations in just about every respect - from deciding for a company what it's products should be, what can or cannot be delivered with those products, what prices can be charged, what agreements it can enter into with vendors or retailers, etc.
They define what constitutes a market for any product in order to decide whether there are antitrust violations. Did you know there was a specific market for "Super-Premium Ice Cream"? There never used to be, until one company started producing such a product, got a little competition from others and suddenly the government swoops in and successfully blocks the first company from buying one of its competitors. They found they could not block it based on the entire ice-cream market, nor on even on the sub-markets of regular or premium ice-cream - there was plenty of competition there. So they looked harder and discovered there was a super-premium product and only three or so companies offered it. Aha! Evil ice-cream monopoly must be stopped!
Even non-profit help organizations are not immune - one such organization to help alcoholics was busted under antitrust because they required their affiliates to sign an agreement not to enter into any other affiliates area. Oh, but there must be competition between the affilates in any given area, says the government! Competition for what? Catering to alcoholics that need help at no charge to them and for no profit?
Back to the case that triggered this post - the planned closing of a refinery in California. The claim being made by government is that closing it is simply an effort to further constrict supply in the state and there by force prices even higher. Never mind that it has been losing money due to costs of transporting crude inland to that location. Never mind that the reason California has the highest prices is because they require the refineries to meet specfications different from anywhere else.
The linked article above focuses (as do most reports) on the large profits oil companies are making in California, always forgotten is the large expenditures ($billions) the oil companies have had to make refitting refineries to meet ever more ridiculous state laws - expenditures that have to be covered out of future profits.
Yet we have the government threatening the possibility of blocking the closure - meaning they would force the oil company to continue operating at a loss. What they miss is that forcing an inefficient facility to stay open actually puts more pressure on prices to rise in order to cover that cost. Closing that facility means gas previously refined there will now be refined at more efficient locations. Its bad enough government thinks it can command the economy, but they show their ignorance at every turn in regard to economic principles, not to mention the whole concept of a free market.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Intelligent Design
I've become aware of this effort by its advocates to sneak Creationism into schools by dressing it up to seem more "scientific" and thus fool politicians and education bureaucrats into making it part of the curriculum. The goal is to use it as a wedge to dislodge the teaching of evolution.
A Google search produces a wealth of links, mostly advocating this junk. One reference working to refute it is http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/.
Creationism should not be taught as though it had scientific merit, it is purely a fiction of religion and does not belong in academia (other than as part of studying the beliefs of various religions apart from studying science).
A Google search produces a wealth of links, mostly advocating this junk. One reference working to refute it is http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/.
Creationism should not be taught as though it had scientific merit, it is purely a fiction of religion and does not belong in academia (other than as part of studying the beliefs of various religions apart from studying science).
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Even Michael Moore has a right to Free Speech
I read today: "Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel."
I have absolutely no use for Michael Moore and wish he'd just go away. However, as much as I cannot stand him or his anti-American trash, his right to free speech must be protected. That there is an election coming up is irrelevant. Actually that's not right, it is even more crucial in the context of elections that free speech be protected! If Bush should lose the next election, I do not believe it will be due to Michael Moore's rantings, but if it is, that's fair and proper too.
I have absolutely no use for Michael Moore and wish he'd just go away. However, as much as I cannot stand him or his anti-American trash, his right to free speech must be protected. That there is an election coming up is irrelevant. Actually that's not right, it is even more crucial in the context of elections that free speech be protected! If Bush should lose the next election, I do not believe it will be due to Michael Moore's rantings, but if it is, that's fair and proper too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
