Nov 242011

Pink Floyd The Wall“Give me the child until he is seven years and I will give you the man.” Jesuit maxim.

A recent report by early childhood educators has called for the introduction of two year old toddlers to the public school system.  The authors of the report cite studies by their colleagues demonstrating the supposed benefits to the child for such an early introduction into the structured institution of the state-run school but they have also cited ancillary possible benefits of keeping women in the work-force rather than staying at home rearing their children.

The real benefit, of course is neither seen by the mothers nor the children.  It is realized by the educators.  Not simply in their financial gain from the estimated $1 billion in federal funds necessary for the program but in the propagation of the ideology of the vast majority of public system educators today.

“Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever. “  Vladimir Lenin

It is no secret that the political ideology of the public education system is one that differs greatly from many if not most of the parents who find no alternative for the education of their children.  From the newly hired supply teachers fresh out of teacher’s college to the veteran Directors of Education to the Ministers of Education themselves the ideology of the system can be properly defined as being on the far left of the political spectrum.  There is no doubt in my mind that the purpose of previous governments in making it possible for children to attend half-day junior kindergarten to all-day junior kindergarten to now toddler kindergarten is the promise of molding the child’s mind into one that is amenable  to the ideology of the left.  Few intelligent adults fall for it.

If we take a look at the schooling of previous generations we find many positive results.  Our forefathers were intelligent and socially adjusted people.  They are the people who made the world what it is today and yet many of them did not even finish high school.  Many didn’t have the advantage of kindergarten and yet they thrived.  How can this be? This is flying in the face of all of the current research on early childhood education.

The monolithic public education system has been, and continues to be the source of many social conflicts. In Toronto we have the accommodation of the children of Muslims who leave class to pray in the school gymnasium while no such accommodation is afforded any other religion.  A place of learning the truth of nature such as math and science has been reduced to a mosque.  Can you imagine the conflict going on in the minds of the children when the teacher, after perhaps instructing his students in science then dismisses half the class so that they can pray to some super-natural imaginary deity?

Also in Toronto we see the vilest form of ignorance rear its ugly head after decades of silence; the establishment of schools based on race.  These afro-centric schools, designed to teach black-skinned Canadians about the history of a continent they have never visited rather than the history of the country they were born into are an affront to reason and an insult to the very children they are segregating on the bases of their distant ancestry.

Not too long ago there was a tussle between the parents who preferred their children to be taught how to read using a method of systematic phonetics rather than the “whole-language” method.  The illiteracy rate under whole language was up to 17% of high school graduates.  That’s right, 17% of graduates were illiterate.  It naturally begs the question how could they have graduated.  When I was a trustee on the Board of Education for the city of London I asked the same question to the Director of Education.  His answer was that the Board has never failed a child.  All children graduate under the child-centered learning system otherwise it would be an admission that the system was a failure.

There is the on-going debate of how young a student must be before the teacher shows him how to put on a condom.

There are debates on the teaching of evolution to children of parents who believe that the world is only 6,000 years old.

There the never-ending debates on class sizes, standards of dress, standards of conduct, standards of punishment, standardized testing, group instruction verses individual instruction.

There are the parents who can only shake their heads when their child has to stay home for several Fridays each year because his teachers are taking part in professional development even though these same teachers have two whole months in the summer to keep up with their profession.  Not that such professional development has been seen to improve their teaching skills one iota over the decades.

And while on the topic of teachers we have the teachers’ unions which can and have held every student in the province hostage when they strike to increase their already overinflated salaries.  Given the poor results of their teaching I would think that most of them don’t deserve half of what they get.

What galls many of us though is the political indoctrination of our children into a destructive ideology.  All children in our school system have seen the Michael Moore documentaries calling for such things as gun-control, socialized medicine, and welfare statism.  All have been inconveniently inconvenienced by the propaganda film of Al Gore.  Many of the schools turn their lights off for one day of the year and study in the dark as they worship “Earth Day”.  Many promote “Buy Nothing Day,” perhaps the most destructive instruction that they can get; the idea that consumerism is evil.

All of this overt and unapologetic manipulation of our children’s minds, much of it out of our control, combined with the poor learning results has led me to the conclusion that given the choice of no formal education at all or 20 years at the hands of these so-called educators I would recommend no formal education at all.

It is my opinion that a child will be better off intellectually, spiritually and emotionally if they stayed at home and played on their computer rather than submit to the daily dose of lies they receive at the hands of our publicly funded educators.

It is no secret, at least to those who have studied the matter that teaching a child to read takes very little time.  In a matter of months a child can be taught to read anything.  Over time their vocabulary increases and comprehension comes naturally with experience.  It is this natural propensity for children to learn that these early childhood educators wish to take credit for.

What can be the cure for these grievous miscarriages of education?  Ultimately it is the complete abolishment of the public education system.  But, of course we all realize that isn’t going to happen so how do we proceed from here?

First we reject en masse this report that two year old children go to a state-run school.  It is not necessarily objectionable that toddlers go to school as many are already in competent day-care at that age.  In fact, Montessori and other private schools offer excellent educational instruction for toddlers; far superior to any which could be offered by over-paid government bureaucrats, which is what public school teachers are.  Every one of them, you may ask?  No, but the vast majority of them.

After we reject toddler kindergarten we can push to roll back the junior kindergarten program.  We can simultaneously demand that the government offer tax credits to those who choose to send their children to private schools.  Today, only the Catholics are afforded the opportunity to see their tax dollars go to the school system of their choice.  This same choice should be given to all parents.  If you choose to send you child to a private school you should be able to list that school as the recipient of your education taxes.  If you prefer the state to teach your child you could have them direct your taxes, not just to the public system, but to the individual school which your child attends.  It is simply unjust that you must pay for the education of someone else’s child against your will, as we do now.

But what of the poor neighbourhoods, and the children of poor parents?  If we are to continue with a public education system it is not out of the realm of possibility that rather than funding a system we fund the student instead.  This notion that because some small percentage of us can’t afford to educate our children makes it necessary that we fund a monolithic bureaucracy of a school system is like using sledge hammer to push in a thumb tack.  It is overkill.  Help the child who needs it but not the child who doesn’t.

The public education system has gotten away with their incompetence for far too long.  It has become a sacred cow.  The two platitudes the educators will spout if we dare to complain of their ineptitude are the following:

  1. “It’s for the kids’ sake.”  To which we reply; No it is not.  It is all about you, you overpaid, overbearing, bureaucrat with delusions of self-importance.
  2. “You’re just a teacher basher.”  To which we reply; Yes, and deservedly so.

The notion of “teacher bashing” is a bromide quickly spat out by the teachers’ union bosses who feel that their gravy train is being threatened so they retaliate, not with reasoned, cogent argument for why they are destroying the minds of our children but with schoolyard styled name-calling.

Teachers have to be held accountable, but at the root of the poor teachers and their methods are the teachers colleges.  Who teaches the teachers is the question which must be asked.  What are the teachers being taught and by whom?  I lay the blame for most of the problems of the public education system on the institutions of higher learning.  For the rest of the blame just look in the mirror.

When we continue to joyfully accept the nanny state’s offer of “free” day-care in the disguise of education we have only blame ourselves when our children graduate unable to read or write, or when our children find only contempt for us as parents for the years of mindless boredom and macaroni artwork we put them through.

The bottom line is that education is far too important a value to leave to the government.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right #227, November 24, 2011)

Nov 172011
Black Market 640x380

Black Market 168x100“An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept.”

Ayn Rand – The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg. 23

In this case the anti-concept of “black market” replaces “free market,” meaning free from government taxation, and regulation.

It is an anti-concept because it is all encompassing of not only the criminal but the virtuous.  Take for example the “black market” of human organs.  If somebody kills someone then harvests their organs and sells them on the “black market” the real crime becomes the sale of the organs rather than the murder, while a labourer who sells his labour for cash and doesn’t claim it as income to the Canada Revenue Agency is also a part of the “black market” and is smeared with the same criminality associated with the murderer, and yet what the labourer is doing was perfectly legal, if not natural, prior to the implementation of the Income War Tax Act of 1917.  A labourer selling his labour for unreported cash in 1916 was an upstanding man earning an honest living but in 1917 became a member of the “black market.”

Today all transactions must be reported to the government, quite technically even bartered goods must be reported as income and the appropriate percentage of capital gain must be submitted in cash to the government.  If your neighbour helps you move and you pay him with a bottle of rum the neighbour is obligated to report the value of the rum to the government as income.  Not to do so puts him in the “black market.”

What was once a free market in trade for cash or kind has now been labeled with the anti-concept “black market.”

At the root of this is the improper belief that all economic behaviour falls under the jurisdiction of the government.  For a man to earn a living he must first submit to the tribe by giving them a cut of his profit.  This is extortion at the very least and slavery in essence.  This stems from a change in attitude of a civilized society of individuals acting in concert for the betterment of each player in a transaction to a tribal or collectivist attitude where a central authority dictates which transactions are acceptable and which are not; where a central authority coercively interferes in the livelihood of both parties becoming a parasite for the supposed benefit of the tribe.  Over the past 94 years (since the implementation of the income tax) most of us have become accustomed to this sense of tribal entitlement to the profit of others.

Another example of this sense of entitlement and the outlawing of what was once a person’s natural right to conduct business in a free market are competition laws, also called anti-trust laws.

“Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does.  For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges price’s lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.”  There is only one difference in the legal treatment accorded to a criminal or to a businessman: the criminal’s rights are protected much more securely and objectively than the businessman’s.”

Ayn Rand – The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg. 28

“The Rule of Law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the Rule of Men,
It’s vastly more efficient!”
“Now let me state the present rules,”
The lawyer then went on,
“These very simple guidelines,
You can rely upon:
You’re gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it’s unfair competition if
You think you can charge less!”
“A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion…
Don’t try to charge the same amount,
That would be Collusion!
You must compete. But not too much,
For if you do you see,
Then the market would be yours –
And that’s monopoly!”
Excerpt from The Incredible Bread Machine – by R.W. Grant (1966)

The effect, and intention, of anti-trust laws is to hang a sword of Damocles over the heads of businessmen… all businessmen.  At any given time the government can, and has, destroyed wealth, raised the price of goods, and restricted economic choices under the guise of encouraging competition.  Ironically they have also created monopolies and subsidized one business over another in the same field.  Consider the banking industry and the telecommunications industry.  The government has also entered into private enterprise making it difficult for other businesses either to enter the market or to compete.    I am reminded of entities like Petro Canada (since privatized) and the CBC.

The businessman has gone from being an individual seeking profit by producing goods or services to willing customers to becoming the host of a parasitic society which feels an entitlement to those goods and services.  The businessmen, the inventors, the creative geniuses who create and sell these marvelous things which surround us have become a means to the tribes’ ends.

Whereas before we admired the innovators and businessmen, and erected statues in their honour we now tax them, regulate them and blame them not only for our failures but for their successes.  We now have labeled them the dreaded 1%.  And we, being the majority 99% must rein in their supposed excesses and bring them to heal.   They must do the bidding of the collective for the good of all and they must not expect to profit from their genius.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right #226, November 17, 2011.)

Nov 032011

Libertarian UtopiaLast week on Just Right, Bob Metz and I discussed at length the failing of the Libertarian movement, how it treats a limited government as axiomatic rather than the result of a long chain of logical argument in a complete philosophy.  We discussed how the leaders of the movement are primarily anarchists who suck people into the movement on the promise of implanting a capitalist society based on the respect for individual rights when in fact their real goal is the complete abolition of government and sees all government as evil.  We discussed how there are some who call themselves libertarian but are actually like Bob and myself, advocates for capitalism but from a position that it is not axiomatic as I have mentioned.

I posted my part of last week’s show on my blog at and put a link to it on Just Right’s public facebook fan page (//

It has received a rather lengthy criticism from Glenn Langton who, as I discovered by clicking on his name, was a candidate for the Ontario Libertarian Party in last month’s general election.

I will post Glenn’s comment in its entirety and follow up with some observations of my own.  Observations which I hope will prove my point of last week, that the libertarian movement and indeed the Ontario Libertarian Party is a party which promotes anarchy.

“LOL what a load of absolute bunk! I read the Article and there is a lot of oft repeated definitions that have been thrust upon the Libertarian movement, alot of preconcieved and rediculous notions tossed about by those who fear individual rights and freedoms, a free market economy, a sound financial system based on hard assets. as in any political party or organisation as well as any religious movement or organization there are to be found radical elements, people who have become disenfranchised in some form or another who find thier way to a place where they can find a degree of acceptance, these are by and large the few, of the many, in any organised movement … such is the case with Libertarians the vast majority of libertarians view government as it stands now in its cleverly disguised leftist socialist form as evil and despotic, because it is leftist, evil and despotic, most libertarians believe ther must be a minimal form of governmemt based on principals held in the magna carta, which was the basis for the earliest forms of British common law ” common” being the important word here where the common people may not be subjugated to government or monarchy, where the rule of law is applied fairly and equally to all regardless of social standing, where people are allowed to persue thier lives without interferance as long as they live by the commonly held rules of lawful existance. This was also the basis of the original U.S. Constitution which over the years has become ammended upon ammendments reducing its power to protect the people to less than nil by actually giving the power to the state, just as in Canada the common law has been disgarded in favour of statism 1 pen stroke at a time culminating in the rise of a communist to prime minister and implementing a charter that destroys personal rights and freedoms and gives all power to the oligarchists… If anyone would care to really know what Libertarians would like to achieve for all people please get past this type of rhetoric and talk to some real Libertarians people like Neil Peart, Drew Cary, Clint Eastwood, or myself or any member of the Libertarian party in your area, I would talk to a few…rather than listen to people outside the movement define what we are ( a common political tactic … “define or be defined” being the rule ) I researched for quite awhile and went to speak to people within the movemenmt for a few months before I joined I am none of the things this article states Libertarians are and that is the crux of my post and the issue I have with this article… this person is absolutely incorrect.”

( The post was copied as is.  The layout, typos and grammatical mistakes are those of the author and not mine)

I grant that this is not what I would call a critical review of my article but instead an emotional reaction.  While this is often the norm for comments posted on facebook I would have expected a little more care be put into the rebuttal considering he is someone who ran to become a member of the Provincial Parliament.

To take his last point first, as I explained on last week’s show I was a member and supporter of the Ontario Libertarian Party in 1985 and was asked by one of its most prominent leaders, Kaye Sargent, to run.  I declined the offer.   So, to infer that I am someone who is not familiar with the local movement (at least historically) is incorrect.  With further study, and it didn’t take long, I realized that the Libertarian Party was fundamentally an anarchist movement and not going to get anywhere advocating its anti-government platform.  I stopped supporting the Party that same year.

I will move beyond the more opinionated criticisms, such as calling my article “bunk” and “rediculous” (sic).  As for containing preconceived notions?  I would have to agree.  Many before me have had the notion that libertarianism is anarchism at its root.  In this sense my notions agree with their preconceived ones.

Glenn suggests that my criticisms must come from a fear of individual rights, freedom, and a free market.  All I can say is I guess he doesn’t know me very well and I would suggest he read some of my other articles or perhaps listen to the archived episodes of Just Right.

Glenn admits that like any organization it has it elements of radicals, and the disenfranchised.  Perhaps, but later on I will demonstrate that in the case of libertarianism these radicals and disenchanted are the leaders and intellectuals of the movement.

Glenn believes that government must be based on the principals held in the Magna Carta, and that the document was the basis for the US Constitution.  While I admit I am not a political historian, to suggest that the the Magna Carta or even the US Constitution in its original form should be the basis for a government only goes to demonstrate my point that libertarians take government as an axiom, as a primary.  These legal documents are the end result of, no doubt, many decades of philosophic discussion on the nature of liberty and rights.  They are not primaries but consequences of a broader philosophy.

It is interesting to note that the US Constitution in its original form resulted from the overthrow of a country which had in its own law…the Magna Carta.

Now I promised to demonstrate that in the libertarian movement if it is the few who are the radicals, the disenfranchised or the anarchists, then these few are its leaders and intellectuals; those at the top.

Consider the Leader of Glenn’s own Ontario Libertarian Party, Sam Apelbaum. I quote from Mr. Apelbaum’s “Leader’s Report” of the Spring of this year (//  In it he compares our current political mainstream culture with the libertarian culture (the emphases are mine).

“Contrast the above with a culture which does not trust the state, does not like it, does not want anything from it, does not respect it, wants to get rid of it in every possible way as quickly as possible and, having done so, wants to get rid of it some more until ultimately the dangerous, unnecessary and chaotic institution completely disappears.  The sooner we experience this sort of thinking in significant numbers, the sooner we will see an end to the obstructions of the state and a concomitant liberation of human potential.”

This is the promotion of anarchy.  It can be taken no other way.

Glenn’s page on Facebook links to the Wikipedia article on the Ontario Libertarian Party which reads in part,

“The Party is influenced by authors and thinkers like Jan Narveson and Murray Rothbard”

The political ideology of Mr. Rothbard we covered on last week’s show.  He described himself as an anarcho-capitalist. In short, an anarchist.

Jan Narveson is also described in Wikipedia as an anarcho-capitalist and contractarian.

And finally, this year’s Annual General Meeting and Liberty Seminar of the Ontario Libertarian Party had as its keynote speaker, Stefan Molyneux.  Mr Molyneux is an anarchist whose blogs, podcasts and videos can be seen on the internet.  His is the author of the book Practical Anarchy.

As I mentioned in my article and on last week’s show libertarianism is an ideology of anarchy.  While I know for a fact that there are many good people who call themselves libertarian I believe that they have been taken in by the movement which promises less government and more freedom but at its root, as I hope I have demonstrated, is anarchistic.  The leaders of the libertarian movement are no friends of liberty but are, rather, simply haters of government.

Glenn ended his comment on my article by saying that:

“I am none of the things this article states Libertarians are.”

I am glad to hear it, Glenn.  But if you are not the kind of anarchists your own party leader and party intellectuals are then the question remains; what kind of libertarian are you?