Connect with us

Opinion

What is Libertarianism?

Published

11 minute read

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/

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

More from this author
Opinion / 3 years ago

Leave our Kids Alone

Federal Election 2021 / 3 years ago

Vote Splitting

Business

DOJ drops Biden-era discrimination lawsuit against Elon Musk’s SpaceX

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Justice Department has withdrawn a discrimination lawsuit against Elon Musk’s SpaceX that was filed during the Biden administration. The lawsuit accused SpaceX of discriminatory hiring practices against asylum seekers and refugees. The move follows ongoing cost-cutting measures led by Musk as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency under the 47th President Donald Trump’s administration.

Key Details:

  • The DOJ filed an unopposed motion in Texas federal court to lift a stay on the case, signaling its intent to formally dismiss the lawsuit.

  • The lawsuit, filed in 2023, alleged SpaceX required job applicants to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents, a restriction prosecutors argued was unlawful for many positions.

  • Elon Musk criticized the lawsuit as politically motivated, asserting that SpaceX was advised hiring non-permanent residents would violate international arms trafficking laws.

Diving Deeper:

The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has moved to drop the discrimination lawsuit against SpaceX, marking another reversal of Biden-era legal actions. The case, initiated in 2023, accused SpaceX of discriminating against asylum seekers and refugees by requiring job applicants to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Prosecutors claimed the hiring policy unlawfully discouraged qualified candidates from applying.

The DOJ’s decision to withdraw the case follows a judge’s earlier skepticism about the department’s authority to pursue the claims. No official reason for the withdrawal was provided, and neither Musk, SpaceX, nor the DOJ have issued public statements on the development.

Elon Musk was outspoken in his criticism of the lawsuit, labeling it as a politically motivated attack. Musk argued that SpaceX was repeatedly informed that hiring non-permanent residents would violate international arms trafficking laws, exposing the company to potential criminal penalties. He accused the Biden-era DOJ of weaponizing the case for political purposes.

The decision to drop the lawsuit coincides with Musk’s growing influence within the Trump administration, where he leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Under his leadership, DOGE has implemented aggressive cost-cutting measures across federal agencies, including agencies that previously investigated SpaceX. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which proposed fining SpaceX $633,000 for license violations in 2023, is currently under review by DOGE officials embedded within the agency.

Meanwhile, SpaceX’s regulatory challenges appear to be easing. A Texas-based environmental group recently dropped a separate lawsuit accusing the company of water pollution at its launch site near Brownsville. The withdrawal of the DOJ lawsuit signals a significant victory for Musk as he continues to navigate regulatory scrutiny while advancing his business ventures under the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

Business

PepsiCo joins growing list of companies tweaking DEI policies

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

PepsiCo is the latest major U.S. company to adjust its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies as 47th President Donald Trump continues his campaign to end DEI practices across the federal government and private sector. The company is shifting away from workforce representation goals and repurposing its DEI leadership, signaling a broader trend among American corporations.

Key Details:

  • PepsiCo will end DEI workforce representation goals and transition its chief DEI officer to focus on associate engagement and leadership development.

  • The company is introducing a new “Inclusion for Growth” strategy as its five-year DEI plan concludes.

  • PepsiCo joins other corporations, including Target and Alphabet-owned Google, in reconsidering DEI policies following Trump’s call to end “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”

Diving Deeper:

PepsiCo has announced significant changes to its DEI initiatives, aligning with a growing movement among U.S. companies to revisit diversity policies amid political pressure. According to an internal memo, the snacks and beverages giant will no longer pursue DEI workforce representation goals. Instead, its chief DEI officer will transition to a broader role that focuses on associate engagement and leadership development. This shift is part of PepsiCo’s new “Inclusion for Growth” strategy, set to replace its expiring five-year DEI plan.

The company’s decision to reevaluate its DEI policies comes as President Donald Trump continues his push against DEI practices, urging private companies to eliminate what he calls “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.” Trump has also directed federal agencies to terminate DEI programs and has warned that academic institutions could face federal funding cuts if they continue with such policies.

PepsiCo is not alone in its reassessment. Other major corporations, including Target and Google, have also modified or are considering changes to their DEI programs. This trend reflects a broader corporate response to the evolving political landscape surrounding DEI initiatives.

Additionally, PepsiCo is expanding its supplier base by broadening opportunities for all small businesses to participate, regardless of demographic categories. The company will also discontinue participation in single demographic category surveys, further signaling its shift in approach to DEI.

As companies like PepsiCo navigate these changes, the debate over the future of DEI in corporate America continues. With Trump leading a campaign against these practices, more companies may follow suit in reevaluating their DEI strategies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X