$1.4-million for every job saved - The Globe and Mail.

Thank goodness the government is looking out for us in these troubled times. If it were left up to me I would never have thought of this solution. I would never have thought to take a million and a half dollars from other Canadians and give it to a business which loses money hand over fist in the hope that doing so will save 1 auto worker’s job. I am far too simple-minded to come up with something so ingenious.

I know it is the Conservative government which did this but thank goodness they had the Liberals and NDP to appeal to their conscience and make sure they went through with this bold plan. They would have preferred even more money be spent, maybe $2 million or more per job just to make sure it worked.

No, I would never have thought of such a wonderful plan. I would have treated the car makers like everyone else. I would have said, well, if you can’t make cars that people want to buy it is better to close up and let those who can do your work instead. Now I can see how utterly unimaginative that would have been.

What would we ever do without governments to solve our problems for us? (Oh how I would so very much like to find out!)

You call that an ‘attack ad?’Sun.

Nailed it on: (1) Liberals are hypocrites; (2) Iggy is more American than Canadian; and (3) Harper acts more like a Liberal than anything else.

In “The downside of up”

yet another champion of conservativism shows how intellectually bankrupt conservatism is. This time it is former Reform Party leader Preston Manning.

Manning’s thesis is that the lesson we should take from the recent economic downturn is that free markets don’t work. He says the smaller government of the last few decades resulted from carrying the pro-market principles he once espoused too far. In his own words, “Not until the recent financial meltdown and economic downturn did we come to realize that there are limits to the application of this ideology.” He now advocates an increased role for government saying that “both law and freedom have essential roles to play in achieving a better economic paradigm.”

Now take a careful look at that last statement. The phrase “both law and freedom” discloses the depth of Manning’s treachery. There was a time, when it was politically savvy for conservatives to acknowledge that the function of the law was to preserve individual freedom. Manning’s juxtaposition of “law” and “freedom” necessarily implies (a) that the law can and should have another objective, and (b) that this objective must involve the restriction of freedom.

Gee Mr. Manning, where do we sign up to help with your gentle crusade against the excesses of freedom? Excesses like wealth, prosperity, personal liberty, and social harmony far exceeding that of any of the civilizations you claim to take your lessons from. Just what our world needs, another person calling for more and bigger government. Thanks so, so much.

The economic and technical advances of the last decades occurred against a backdrop of governments which generally opted to keep their hands in their own pockets than in the pockets of their citizens. The philosophy of freedom which conservatives said they believed in actually worked. Even the recent downturn is evidence not of markets failing but of how markets can self-correct. Left alone the market would have disposed of failed businesses and even industries, redirecting capital into those which actually produced the goods and services people actually want.

But conservatives must be the most loathsome invertebrate species on the planet. Having won all the battles they still conceded the war. They are not potential allies of libertarians but a dangerous distraction from a philosophically consistent defence of freedom. I would prefer to contend with an avowedly socialist government. Freedom would be better served by the more open and honest display of collectivist errors then the subtle treachery of woolly wolves such as Harper and Manning.

I used to believe Preston Manning was the greatest Prime Minister Canada never had. Now I see that he would have proved Stephen Harper’s equal in disappointing those of us who truly appreciate the power of the sovereign individual to create the wealth prerequisite to the welfare of every person in our society. Platitudes such as this,

“Now is the time — when the economic slowdown is creating new opportunities as well as hardships — for those of us who are pro-government and those of us who are pro-market to recognize each in the other the necessary complements to our own one-sidedness.”

are just a coward’s way of couching the betrayal of principle in emotionally-laden mush. Saying, “can’t we all just be friends” to those philosophically opposed to freedom is simple surrender. To conservative traitors those of us who still believe individual freedom is worth fighting for say: we don’t need you, we don’t want you and frankly, we can’t stand you.

The latest polls show a widening lead for the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff over the governing Tories. Why? Well, mostly because Ignatieff is proving himself highly skilled at the kind of mealy-mouthed manipulative opportunism that the Canadian media and public lap up.

Take this example. In immediate aftermath of Israel’s retaliatory strike against Lebanese-based terrorists Ignatieff said that he was “not losing any sleep” over the civilian deaths that had resulted. Within a weak his response to the criticism o his remarks was to brand the Israeli action a “war crime”. This 180 degree turn resulted in criticism from Israel’s supporters including the resignation of a key supporter. So, Ignatieff finally concluded that “whether war crimes were committed . . . is for international bodies to determine.”

Does this sound like a man of principles? Ignatieff, a master of Liberal political strategy knows that as Liberal leader his job is to: 1. figure out which way the parade is headed; and, 2. run to the front so he can claim to be leading it.

I’m not saying that he has never espoused principles. He has clearly stated his support for at least some forms of torture in the interests of state security. I am saying that he is yet another political aspirant who values his own electoral prospects above all else. Principles are things you say you have but rarely discuss and never allow to interfere with political ambition.

The latest example is his statement that tax increases may follow his election as Prime Minister, followed by denials that that is what he said, or at least what he meant, or at least that he necessarily implied. Granted he did not say categorically that tax increases were coming, nor would tax increases be contrary to any of his principles. It’s just so typical that he says something about taxes, then partially retracts it, ultimately giving the impression that he has made a policy statement but one which can be interpreted any way the hearer wishes.

Infamous cases of Liberal electoral deceit:
1. 1979 defeated the Tory government because its 18 cent gas tax was too high.Then after winning election instituting an even higher gas tax
2. Opposed the GST while in opposition, vowing to remove it when elected. Then when elected failing to remove it and even opposing its reduction.
3. Opposed Free Trade while in opposition vowing to tear up the FTA only to support it once elected.

Starting to see a pattern? The Liberals can be counted on for only one thing - whatever it takes to get elected and stay in power. In Canadian politics principles are for losers. Whose fault is that?

I was reading about Jainism and came across this 9th century argument against a universal creation. I like them.

“Some foolish men declare that Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.

1. If god created the world, where was he before creation?

If the “world” is all that there is then God must have created himself in the process of creation.

2. If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?

And if where he is is not a part of his creation, then who created that?

3. No single being had the skill to make the world - for how can an immaterial god create that which is material? How could god have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are face with an endless regression. If you declare that the raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have risen equally naturally.

This is really the essence of my comments to #1 and #2.

4. If god created the world by an act of will, without any raw material, then it is just his will made nothing else and who will believe this silly stuff?

Weak.

5. If he is ever perfect, and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.

This is a very powerful point. If God is literally perfect and complete and unchanging then the universe must be as old as He is because His will to create it must be co-terminus with Himself. If He is outside of time then this is really he same as saying he universe is eternal since it, and God, has existed from all time. However, the concept of “before time” makes no sense as time is just an ordering of events. Time has no meaning when a single even is considered in isolation. If you have events A and B where A preceded B then you have time. If you call B “time”, referring to a situation where the passage of time is observed, and A “before time”, referring to a situation where no change occurs, then A and B considered together do constitute time.

6. If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.

7. If you say that he created to no purpose, because it was his nature to do so then god is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.

8. If he created out of love for living things and need of them he made the world; why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?

These all go to showing that God did not create the world because creation does not disclose any beneficent purpose. I disagree with this one but I like t all the same because there are those who do reject the purposefulness of creation and this shows that if they do they should also reject creation by God. Creation necessarily implies purpose and if that purpose does not include a role for evil then God cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent. If he is both then the existence of evil serves a benevolent purpose. The only persuasive argument is that overcoming evil permits growth. If allowing that this is the only way growth may occur poses a limit to His omnipotence I am fine with that.

Thus the doctrine that the world was created by god makes no sense at all.

I like Richard Gott III’s idea that a universe may spawn another universe which spawns another which spawns the first. If this is how God does it, I think all objections are overcome but so is the idea of a literally unchanging God. Perhaps that is the real heresy that needs to be discarded.

Nature, not just man, to blame for global warming: scientists.

Looks like the first cracks in the global-warming dogma are starting to show. First it was all on man, now it’s mostly man but party nature. Next it will be mostly nature but partly man. Finally it will be, “Sorry for all the fuss, it looks like it was all nature after all - please go on with your business.”

And what is that business? Feeding the third world, raising life-expectancy and quality of life globally, etc. In the end enviro-fascism will have done more harm to humanity than the money wasted by the communist threat - at least that threat provided an impetus to industrial development - still a waste but not as big a waste.

A Libertarian Solution to Evolution Education Controversy: No More Public Schools | Wired Science from Wired.com.

Excellent article on how the public school system creates social conflict using the way evolution is forced down student’s throats as an example.

Freedom of religion is held up as an example of relative harmony between people with very different and very strong beliefs. The suggestion is that freedom in education, a free market in institutions of learning, would also do away with much of this conflict.

Great article about a great man, Freeman Dyson. My favourite excerpts are these:

“Dyson has always been strongly opposed to the idea that there is any such thing as an optimal ecosystem — “life is always changing” — and he abhors the notion that men and women are something apart from nature, that “we must apologize for being human.” Humans, he says, have a duty to restructure nature for their survival.”

“Dyson says it’s only principle that leads him to question global warming: “According to the global-warming people, I say what I say because I’m paid by the oil industry. Of course I’m not, but that’s part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, you’re a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry.” Global warming, he added, “has become a party line.””

“There’s a lot of truth to the statement Greens are people who never had to worry about their grocery bills,” he says.

In a column in the Sun newspaper chain Monte Solberg suggests that his colleagues in the conservative party attempt to tap into what he perceives to be a mood for conservative vision in the country. He says, “There are times when ordinary people will leave their warm homes on a cold winter night to sit in a church basement to consider and debate ideas if they sense it will actually matter.”

And he thinks that we are in the midst of such a time. I believe he is very sadly mistaken.

There was such a time When ordinary people what do extraordinary things, things like getting involved in politics for the first time in their lives. Things like running political meetings, running for office, debating professional politicians, extraordinary things such as these all because they believed that the Reform Party shared their common sense vision. It was not merely conservative, it was democratic, both politically and economically, and by economically I mean libertarian. I would even argue that socially it have as many libertarian aspects as it had socially conservative elements. The party mirrored the beliefs of the majority of Canadians who do not normally make politics a past time.

Populist Reformers have become disgusted by the Conservative Party’s abandonment of internal political democracy, Prime Minister Harper’s petty dictatorial leadership style, Senate appointments rather than elections, and rewarding floor-crossers with Cabinet seats.

Economically the Reform Party was as close to libertarian as one could reasonably hope for. It wasn’t “conservative”. Economically “conservatism” implies Tory paternalism. I remember with great fondness attending Reform’s first national convention as a national party where avowed libertarian speakers such as Karen Selleck (sorry if this is misspelled) (edit: it was, it is “Karen Selick“) and Walter Williams were featured speakers.

If I could reverse time and undo the damage done by the attempt to cater to Progressive Conservatives in the unite the right effort I would do it in a heartbeat. The Reform Party did more good by holding the Liberal government’s feet to the fire than Harper’s Conservatives can ever do by falling all over themselves to become more liberal than the Liberals.

I wish it was true what Monte Solberg says he sees. However, I fear it is not. I fear that the time for reform has come and gone at least for a generation and we must suffer through a period of gutless, spineless, weak-kneed “conservatism” or worse before we can once again expect to see the kind of common sense, populist uprising that energized reform. But when it does arise, count me in.

So let’s see. The car makers are losing money because we are not buying their cars. Foolishly we think we own our money and we think that we get to decide how to spend it. That’s why we each call it “my” money. So we decide we want to save it, or spend it on something other than a car, or maybe even on a foreign car instead. Silly isn’t it?

Silly because that’s where the government steps in and says, “You won’t give the car makers your money in exchange for the cars they make so we will take your money from you and give it to them anyway. And by the way, you don’t get a car.”

We would be better off if the government just forced us to buy cars. Maybe hold a lottery and one in every several households over a certain income level has to buy one. Or maybe we all have to take turns buying a car every 4 or 5 years from these guys. At least these ways we’d get a new car (albeit one we would not have purchased if we actually lived in a free country). Instead we are just being robbed blind by the government and the loot is handed over to undeserving corporate scumbags and their parasitic employees. And this is what leftists call social “justice”?