What is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism has developed over the course of many centuries. It is a deep and rich philosophy that cannot be fully described in one short article. Rather than delving into history, I want to share some of the key concepts of Libertarianism, some questions to consider and how I think the concepts apply in 2021.

Individualism

Key Concept: Only individuals make choices and therefore should be responsible for those decisions.

Questions to Consider: Should government start mandating one hour of exercise per day? Should government ban alcohol and tobacco? Should vehicles be removed from the road as they can lead to injury and death? Should government be given authority to remove all risk from our lives regardless of the resulting consequences of a zero-risk strategy?

How it applies in 2021: Health decisions should be the responsibility of each individual based on their own risk assessment. This applies in all situations and under all conditions.

Individual Rights

Key Concept: Individuals have the right to be secure in their life, liberty and property. Government is not the grantor of rights, rather the protector of said rights.

Questions to Consider: Should government be able to suspend individual rights indefinitely whenever a “public health crisis” presents itself? Should government pursue “climate lockdowns” in an effort to meet emissions targets?

How it applies in 2021: There is no justification for government to suspend the lives of its citizens, their freedoms or their ability to earn a living and provide for their families.

Spontaneous Order

Key Concept: The actions of millions of people working together in order to achieve their individual objectives is the origin of a civil society. Central government is not required for the development of languages, law, markets or other complex institutions.

Questions to Consider: Governments across the world were given unfettered power in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, were they able to effectively navigate this complex situation? Given government’s track record on the pandemic and other major issues, what is the outlook for a government led economic relaunch, post-COVID? If climate change is an existential threat, is government the best mechanism to address it?

How it applies in 2021: Big government policies result in inefficiencies, cronyism and corruption. Individuals working together to overcome common challenges is the most effective way to advance civil society.

The Rule of Law

Key Concept: Individuals are free to pursue their own dreams as long as they respect the equal rights of others. Laws should protect individual liberty rather than pursue a particular outcome.

Questions to Consider: Should the federal government, specifically the Prime Minister, be able to appoint judges in Canada? Should there be greater separation between the three branches of government in order to ensure impartiality?

How it applies in 2021: Recently, Trudeau appointed four Liberal Party donors as judges. It is reasonable to consider that these appointments will lead to future bias as can be seen in the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the federal carbon tax. Judges must make decisions based on the law, not personal bias or political pressure.

Limited Government

Key Concept: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” – Lord Acton. Throughout history, those countries with limited central authority have resulted in greater individual liberty, economic success and better standards of living.

Questions to Consider: Will governments willingly relinquish the power that they have acquired in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

How it applies in 2021: Despite comprehensive data showing that lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical measures had little to no impact on the transmission of COVID-19, many provinces in Canada still enforce public health orders. Certain US states which pursued a response based on individual liberty have seen similar direct COVID-19 health impacts, but have faired significantly better in their economic recovery and saw reduced mental health impacts.

Free Markets

Key Concept: Property rights and free markets enable individuals to succeed. Less government intervention in the market, leads to greater prosperity for the individual.

Questions to Consider: What are the short and long term consequences of governments paying some Canadians to sit at home for 16+ months? If an individual is willing to accept the risks within the marketplace to create opportunities for him/herself, their family and their community, should the government be able to step in and say no?

How it applies in 2021: Over the past 16+ months, unprecedented government intervention in the marketplace has led to the largest transfer of wealth from the low and middle class to the wealthy in human history. Property rights and individual liberty must never be restricted in this way again as the measures put in place by governments harmed the very people they were intended to protect.

Virtue of Production

Key Concept: There is dignity in work. Libertarians believe that individuals should keep what they earn, rather than a central authority redistributing wealth through taxation.

Questions to Consider: What has been the impact of 16+ months of lockdowns on Canadians mental health? Were government subsidy programs effective in delivering funds from one taxpayer to another?

How it applies in 2021: Government programs, however well intentioned, never deliver the results that they initially intend to produce. If Canadians were afforded the ability to work throughout the pandemic, to maintain their employer/private health insurance and keep their hard earned money in their pockets, they would have been a much better position to fight a virus than if they transmitted the virus while unemployed, isolated and poor.

Harmony of Interests

Key Concept: One individual’s plans for employment, business or otherwise may conflict with someone else’s. In a free society, these individuals work together to find a solution that works for all parties. When government intervenes, political pressure leads to handouts and favours to small groups to the determent of others.

Questions to Consider: Aside from war times, has there ever been a period in history that resulted in as much lobbying activity as over the past 16+ months during the pandemic? Did the numerous handouts and favours help the average Canadian or connected insiders? Who ultimately pays for the handouts given to connected insiders?

How it applies in 2021: There have been a number of examples of private industry taken the initiative to create solutions to significant problems over the past 16+ months. One such example would be the COVID-19 testing program at the Calgary International Airport. This allowed the safe and free flow of people who wished to travel internationally. Instead of allowing the private sector to continue this program, the Federal Liberal government enacted the quarantine hotel program which led to division, inefficiencies and sexual harassment within the facilities. Which outcome is preferable for Canadians? I think the answer is quite obvious.

Peace

Key Concept: Free individuals have the right to defend their families, communities and property from foreign and domestic threats. The act of war however, leads to death and destruction and results in more power being transferred to the government.

Questions to Consider: Has the government fulfilled one of its basic duties in protecting Canadians from foreign threats, this one in the form of a virus? Why was the only acceptable solution for protecting Canadians against the virus to lock them up for 16+ months? Is the cure worse than the disease?

How it applies in 2021: War in the tradition description has not been seen by the Western world for a significant period of time now. Instead, we are directly involved in a war of ideologies. This is fought in the media, the classrooms, in businesses and in government. In order to preserve their Charter Rights, Canadians must be able to maintain freedom of speech, the most important Charter Right. The introduction of Bill C-10 and Bill C-36 by the Federal Liberal government strikes a significant blow to Canadians ability to speak freely. Government should be protecting our Charter Rights, not actively stripping them away.

Whatever the question is, liberty is the answer.

Sincerely,

Jared Pilon

Libertarian Party Candidate for Red Deer – Mountain View, AB

https://www.jaredpilon.com/

Related Topics:#JaredPilon #Libertarianism

Up Next

From electric scooters to Uber to SpaceX – Innovators sometimes have to ignore regulators

Don't Miss

How Big Business and Big Government are BFF’s

Jared Pilon

I have recently made the decision to seek nomination as a candidate in the federal electoral district of Red Deer - Mountain View. As a Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA), I directly see the negative impacts of government policy on business owners and most notably, their families. This has never been more evident than in 2020. Through a common sense focus and a passion for bringing people together on common ground, I will work to help bring prosperity to the riding of Red Deer – Mountain View and Canada. I am hoping to be able to share my election campaign with your viewers/readers. Feel free to touch base with me at the email listed below or at jaredpilon.com. Thanks.

Follow Author

Leave our Kids Alone

Opinion / 3 years ago

The Real “Conservative Movement”

Federal Election 2021 / 3 years ago

Vote Splitting

armed forces

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Published on December 22, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.

It is a start.

But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.

Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.

The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.

In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.

Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.

What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics

The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.

Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”

Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.

How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”

Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.

Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.

Business

For the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’

Published on December 22, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In case you haven’t heard, Chrystia Freeland resigned from cabinet on Monday. Reportedly, the straw that broke the camel’s back was Prime Minister Trudeau’s plan to send all Canadians earning up to $150,000 a onetime $250 tax “rebate.” In her resignation letter, Freeland seemingly took aim at this ill-advised waste of money by noting “costly political gimmicks.” She could not have been more right, as my colleagues and I have written here, here and elsewhere.

Indeed, Freeland was right to excoriate the government for a onetime rebate cheque that would do nothing to help Canada’s long-term economic growth prospects, but her reasoning was curious given her record in office. She wrote that such gimmicks were unwise because Canada must keep its “fiscal powder dry” given the possibility of trade disputes with the United States.

Again, to a large extent Freeland’s logic is sound. Emergencies come up from time to time, and governments should be particularly frugal with public dollars during non-emergency periods so money is available when hard times come.

For example, the federal government’s generally restrained approach to spending during the 1990s and 2000s was an important reason Canada went into the pandemic with its books in better shape than most other countries. This is an example of how keeping “fiscal powder dry” can help a government be ready when emergencies strike.

However, much of the sentiment in Freeland’s resignation letter does not match her record as finance minister.

Of course, during the pandemic and its immediate aftermath, it’s understandable that the federal government ran large deficits. However, several years have now past and the Trudeau government has run large continuous deficits. This year, the government forecasts a $48.3 billion deficit, which is larger than the $40 billion target the government had previously set.

A finance minister committed to keeping Canada’s fiscal powder dry would have pushed for balanced budgets so Ottawa could start shrinking the massive debt burden accumulated during COVID. Instead, deficits persisted and debt has continued to climb. As a result, federal debt may spike beyond levels reached during the pandemic if another emergency strikes.

Minister Freeland’s reported decision to oppose the planned $250 onetime tax rebates is commendable. But we should be cautious not to rewrite history. Despite Freeland’s stated desire to keep Canada’s “fiscal powder dry,” this was not the story of her tenure as finance minister. Instead, the story is one of continuous deficits and growing debt, which have hurt Canada’s capacity to withstand the next fiscal emergency whenever it does arrive.