Thursday, February 26, 2015

Economics - Market Transcendence

The combination of our educational systems complete abrogation of teaching economics and the devaluation of enterprise in Canadian society at large has fostered a societal ignorance of the economy. It is as though the separation of us from human endeavours associated with enterprise is possible. The very essence of humanity is the exchange of goods and services, economics is the medium of expression; a means by which we can observe the vast complexity of human exchange. The attempt by many in the world of academics to marginalise the market based economy has put us in pearl of leaving unexplored the most relevant of human studies. The financial representation of the human reality and its influences on our behaviour is the most useful of lenses to view the world. Markets, when properly facilitated provide wealth and prosperity, the wealth and prosperity that facilitates all the rest of the social complex. The unprecedented wealth we enjoy in western society today can be squarely attributed to the unique dynamic that a market based economy in concert with democracy produces.
The generalised state of unawareness regarding matters relating to the economy allows the propagation of policy that ignores the value of the market or worse seeks to curtail the market as the primary means by which we supply people with goods and services. The amount of distortion that takes place around economic policy in the political process is contorting the public’s view of economic policy in a manner that is detrimental to the country as a whole. So much of the political process’ address of economic issues is consumed by class warfare; a particularly pernicious political element being people promoting redistributionist policy. Redistributionists would do better to focus on a state of generalised prosperity rather than a state of generalised equality.  Rather than taking from productive people, provide equitable access to a growing pie. The question of paramount importance is that, in order to promote the wellbeing of people we need a vibrant economy, and a vibrant economy starts with business being able to respond to opportunity absent distorting policy.

The most common of distortions is the linking of capitalism to negative outcomes related to displacement, dislocation and exploitation. Capitalism is a means of exchange ONLY, capitalism if un-distorted by authority will distribute wealth broadly. Marx linked the painful events for the working peoples around the industrial revolution to capitalism, wrongly. The causes of dislocation and poverty as the industrial revolution unfolded, where a product of disequilibrium of labour supply in the context of new technology. This disequilibrium in concert with government failing to respond to a changing circumstance, or perhaps in some cases exacerbating dislocation with policy that exploited the vulnerable, was the cause for the pain experienced by the working classes. Capital is a mere abstract representation of human action, if something bad happened or happens, it is the product of human thought as opposed to capitalist process. Capital allows for the aggregation of energy (Capital) which is fungible, this aggregation of capital does afford power to the holder and raise the possibility of the power being misapplied. The misapplication of power happened throughout history absent capitalist processes, and in regimes that sought to function by eliminating the pooling and use of capital through central planning, evil happened; evil happened on a grander scale in these regimes because power was concentrated with one government, instead of a million capitalists. While capitalism can greatly enhance human progress by providing a fungible energy resource to apply to any human endeavour, it is value neutral – it cares little whether it is directed to good or evil – remember if you don’t like what you see it is us your looking at. In the presence or absence of capital processes, evil can occur or the beauty that resides in humanity can shine. What this document advocates is an enlightened capitalism, where there is a culture and regulatory commitment to universal prosperity by giving access to an ever growing human dynamic.      

Social issues around meeting humanitarian obligations are best met by providing a floor on human existence and then providing access to the education necessary for people existing at that floor to progress. The presence of universal healthcare is mute when universal prosperity is present. Social services are only relevant when the economy is so poorly managed that people are unable to pay for the services they need. I offer these statements only to demonstrate how abundance transforms lives, realising there is a requirement at present for social services. The desire to promote a competitive and productive economy stems from the view that prosperity fosters more prosperity. The key recognition necessary for people holding redistributionist inclinations is that the economy is unlimited. The economy can grow large enough to provide abundance to all people all the time. The abstract element of this realisation is that the economy is detached from the physical world as services represent a larger and larger portion of the overall economy. When services generate prosperity the wealth generated maybe directed at physical requirements and so draw on raw resources, but equally likely outcome is that wealth will be directed at services. Read these words, there is no limit to the size of the economy and the abundance it can provide. As the economy grows, equitable access brings people off the floor to various socioeconomic circumstances depending on their abilities, chosen life cadence and circumstance. All it really takes for this realization to take hold is to concede that abundance is at least as common as scarcity and the both scarcity and abundance are a mental construct.  

Human endeavour emerges out of the entire panoply of resources, circumstances and environmental variants. Human actions in the context of what earth offers reaches unfathomable complexity, just trying to contemplate the most basic of human endeavours soon becomes intensely complicated. The Dali Lama teaches a concept called Dependant Origination, of which one element relates to time, as the origination of the present is dependent on the past and the future, the present can only exist in the context of the past and the future. The second element relates to the physicality and thought of the origination of an item. The example of a clay pot it used, when one begins to contemplate a clay pots creation, one begins with the creators thoughts of the design, the gathering of the clay, the composition of the clay, the temperature of the kiln, the make-up of the glaze, the construction of the kiln; as one embarks on this process with one of humanities most basic and early furnishings, the level of complexity is staggering. Some elements occur in a state of tacit awareness, knowing what thought process the pot maker went through in the creation of design is almost unknowable absent perhaps years of exposure to her actions. Now imagine the process with a computer, and staggering complexity takes on an exponentially more complexity. Our market place does all this absent any central knowledge bank; the complexity of human action is managed and valued by each other’s perception of the value of one good relative the other. There is absolutely no facility available to humanity to manage the mass of human action; it simply must emerge out of the natural inclination for people to engage each other in the context of their respective needs and desires – people left to their own interest and good intent will make a million flowers bloom.    

Knowledge is best applied at the point of action. Imagine a circumstance where the government with all its resources decided that by synchronising peoples food consumption with a view to bring better knowledge to the process by accessing professionals and by standardising everyone’s meals the government could buy food in bulk and get it cheaper. You might turn on your radio every morning and the government representative would provide the meal plan for the day, the ingredients for which you draw from a box of foodstuffs provided by the government. Begin the process of dependant originations on this process; it is impossible to know where to start. How would you manage leftovers, because it would be impossible for any government to predict the appetite of a given individual at any point in time. Extra food would have to be provided to ensure enough for big people even though most people are average, wasteful to say the least. As on begins to contemplate the government managing are meals for us, you realise what an absurd notion this is. Yet, in spite of thousand instances where central planning has failed, there are people still advocating it as a solution. Clearly, everyone can see that their lay knowledge applied at the point of action will generate a more appropriate result than profession knowledge at a distance. The closer the management of resources are to the point those resources are actuated, the more appropriate the use of those resources.  

Money measures and facilitates complex human action. The attachment of value to a given item in the context of other items or services value can only take place efficiently with an abstract representation and money is what we use. The more valuable an item the more of that item gets supplied. All the complexity associated with the delivery of a good or service is managed by itself as the spontaneous response to demand occurs. This process is so finely nuanced the details of value and production and delivery are almost unperceivable. Our society has been well rewarded for allowing humanity to manage its own affairs and its done nary a single central planner, it all happens out of spontaneous association. Please though, mine is only one word, take a look around, in every circumstance where there has been a central planning, government has reduced the population to impoverishment and subjected them to totalitarianism.

This position, of allowing humanities spontaneous actions to determine the action of the collective still allows for collective action. The critical point in accessing the value of spontaneous human action as a thought process is to consider policy creation in the context of the individual as opposed to the aggregate. Inherent in all human action is the choice of one person to do something, so this is the logical spot to start designing policy for collective, in contrast to planning for the aggregate. In this way knowledge is best applied and resources are most effectively distributed and utilised. Policy is “planned” in response to human action as opposed to policy that plans human action. As stated previously, the sum of human action is to impossibly complex to plan from a central point, to direct the actions of every individual is a Herculean task even if it were possible but policy can respond to trends that become apparent from the observation of human action. If provisions are made for the individual to accumulate wealth then society will be wealthy and for those who are unable to care for themselves special programs can be developed. Policy needs to be directed toward excellence and the outliers mitigated for, central planning for the aggregate tends to take policy to managing for the lowest common denominator. 

The single most critical thing for a successful society is the provision for people to be able to capitalise their efforts. Karl Marx spoke of this in great detail, where labour exercised action with the incremental valued added was extracted away from the labour to an extent they remained in subsistence. In an enlightened capitalist society we understand, if we want people to be capitalists they need to have capital. To the extent generosity is bestowed at large is the extent to which prosperity will be accelerated. By provisioning the masses with capital a virtuous upward cycle moves us from a world view of scarcity to a world view of abundance. The industrial revolution occurred absent the ability to manage the displacement that took place leaving people in an exploitable circumstance, Marx and Engels observed an injustice and we got communism. The unscrupulous leveraging of capital, over the offer of an honest days work created communism; a scourge that has demonstrated it’s ineptitude at every attempt at execution and yet people are still promoting it in varying degrees. I wonder when people will realise the source of the Marxist view and address it with generosity.

To bring people firmly to a state of believing in an enlightened capitalist economy they must see the fruits of others labour and see the path to access that abundance. The most effective way for people to progress, assuming they have skills to apply to occupation, is to allow them a means to accumulate a portion of the fruits of their contribution to capital. Generous credit policy to purchase a home is an excellent example of policy that empowers the individual. A young couple caught in circumstance where they are both working to pay rent and to feed their family are greatly support by a 100% loan on a home; as it releases them from the rental trap and puts them on the path of capitalising their efforts. A free education, as demonstrated later, provides the state with greater revenues and builds human capital reserves and empowers people. Generosity in human development and empowerment works. As demonstrated so aptly by the homestead acts, government gave land and on that foundation people responded by accumulating 25% of modern US capital reserves. The key to all successful economic policy is to seed prosperity with the individual and watch the collective result.

When prosperity is seeded with the individual, people are free. When prosperity is doled out from a central source people are controlled. The damaging precept of much government policy is the one of control. In all societies that focus on control of people, society entrenches in to a state of fixed stratification and the number of impoverished people grows. In Peru, for example, where the process to gain property rights is so convoluted that average people are unable to secure property, impoverishment grows. The back drop of Peru policy development has been one of an elite exercising control; that is the purpose of complex and convolute legislation, to facilitate access for the well capitalised and keep those who are without capital in a ready state of exploitation. This circumstance happens at the expense of the elite as well as generalised prosperity provides more opportunity for capital use and returns, a charming paradox. Contrast this with counties like Canada and the US, which have extended more opportunity to allow access to capital by appropriate rule of law and effected a more generalised state of prosperity. Seeding the individual with a generous means to accumulate and access capital is the ticket to prosperity. The chatter for equality will become muted when a generalised state of abundance transpires because equality is the language of the have nots, and talk of equality fades when the consideration is focused on the degree of prosperity.

The essence of any government action must be prudence. Generosity in prudence requires engaging in generosity in the context of return on investment. In the case of homesteading, assets that were idle came into action, people who received the land paid taxes to governments commiserate with the new assets value and infrastructure grew up around them. Government spending must be rationalised to government benefit in clear terms. Present funding through government rarely is submitted to the rigours of cost and benefit. The value of a Doctor to the tax roles is greater than the average, a doctor then represents an incremental benefit in tax revenue, the funds provided to the creation of a doctor need to be rationalised to the incremental benefit. The assertion of generosity here is in the creation of a value adding, wealth generating investments as opposed to grants without condition.  

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Canadian Security Intelligence Service - Civilian Oversight Overhaul

The issue of CSIS and oversight is a concern. The push for immediate political oversight is impractical and the present circumstance of only retrospective assessment is inadequate. There is requirement to reconfigure oversight functionality so that it can be “real time” and absent political influence.  

The oversight entity should be composed of past political participants, past judicial participants and operational personnel. There should be a maximum two year term per individual and terms should have alternating termination years.  The size of the entity, beyond operational personnel, should be five people and three would represent a functional quorum.

Appointments to the oversight entity should be done through a joint Commons & Senate committee chaired by the sitting government, with partisanship participation determined on a prorated basis of the House of Commons sitting configuration.   

While one realizes that we must permit personnel to function as freely as possible under their respective and legislated mandates, given the nature of the endeavor gray areas are encountered and when they are, civilian oversight should be activated prior to actions being taken. The oversight function would be actuated at the request of operations, that is to say, when operations encounter a situation that pushes up against civil liberty concerns or privacy concerns, the oversight entity would be activated to extend authority to proceed or not. This proactive oversight would then be augmented with retrospective oversight of general operations as well.  
The presence of experienced Judiciaries in the mix of the oversight entity would permit action to be taken with what would be “in effect” a court order. This would allow for expeditious execution and a means by which to “circumvent” the cumbersome aspects of the judicial process. The CISI organization functions in a space of highly sophisticated antagonists, who know how to function in a damaging way more or less in plain sight – our legal system is their shield. When CISI finds themselves in this circumstance we need an entity that can sanction activities necessary for the preservation of our dominion over territory and national interests. The “organizational judgment” as to the appropriate response to a threat, the degree of threat, and the magnitude of threat – would lie with the oversight entity.
CISI needs to be our protection from ourselves as well as exterior threat. Given it may find itself investigating members of government for corruption, there must be a firewall between the organization and the active political space. The oversight group needs to be small, to facilitate security and to facilitate an adequate degree of adroitness. A configuration of the type of entity outlined above would provide both the adroitness required to react and the comfort that learned patriots are protecting our rights.


When designing any government structure, especially a government structure like an intelligence oversight system, one must ensure that a concentration of power is avoided. The prospect of a single entity overseeing all intelligence agencies in Canada is a serious concern. You need to effect a circumstance where one agency is a safeguard against the other. All intelligence agencies require civilian oversight, but separate oversight - RCMP, Military etc require their own. There can be siloed oversight and operational co-operation, the important thing is to maintain operational autonomy.  

Friday, February 13, 2015

Progressing Personal Liberty - A case for moral relativism

In the acceptance or creation of a moray, one needs to begin contemplation with the presence or absence of harm and or the presence or absence of goodly outcome.

Morality finds our minds mostly as memes from our parents, cultural influences and is extracted from the Meta narrative in which our development is steeped. The innate human morality that exists, such as the almost universally recognised morality of reciprocity (or as it found in the Christian world – the golden rule), is augmented by the aforementioned. There is a tendency for many to grip morality in an unconscious manner, given the nature of its introduction to our beings, morality is absent of a rationale, it just is. Yet morals come to us both tacitly and explicitly, sometimes in accord and sometimes in discord. Often the Meta Christian narrative ascribes moral conduct that challenges fundamental human inclination. It is from these realities that much inner and outer conflict occurs under the influence of morality, often effecting “moral action” that results in pain. It is this paradox where morals intended to manage human behaviour for good can distort human action with the most inhuman results. The ability to discern morality is innate and "god" given, it is in this context humanity must take the liberty to examine its conduct in the context of morality and revise morality under an umbrella of more complete knowledge. The best place to begin to consider morality is to ask, does this belief and my application of it, result in good outcomes or in pain for others. Strict and fervent adherence to unclear and tacitly transmitted moral structure is the source of outright evil. There have been actual cases of mothers out casting their own daughters as the result of the daughter’s unwanted pregnancy. What could cause such behaviour, the meeting of a child’s error with absolute immoral neglect? Extreme travesties happen as societal moral pressure contort the human psyche to the point where moral code promotes inhumane action.

As many such moral precepts transfer as memes from one generation to another and where little thought is given to their origin or purpose, contemplation is required to ensure good action. Morality when considered in the context of rational purpose and good outcome takes on a healthier character. Much biblical morality comes to us in this fashion from our parents and or the Meta narrative of society at large. Biblical morality was committed to paper thousands of years ago when the mastery of biology and other related science was undiscovered. People learned from life experience that sexuality out of wedlock caused social strife; exposure to illness and that caused conflict. What is necessary for Christianity to keep pace with an informed society is the recognition that knowledge and technology has offered the neutralization of threats that precipitated the necessity for the moray in the first place. In the absence of a rational basis for the assertion of a given moray, people begin to challenge the validity of that moray and more damaging, they then begin to challenge the morays carrying contemporary pertinence. It is a better circumstance to allow the examination of morays in the context of good outcome and contemporary knowledge, and provide latitude on morays that can safely be allowed to pass from the collective consciousness.              

When one sets about the task of rationally examining the collection of morals that determine our life action, it becomes a cumbersome task, as they reside so deeply in our psyche and morph with every life exposure, the multitude, variability and transient nature of morals make them almost impossible to list and make explicit. A young boy is schooled by his mother to extend kindness to others and yet is later in life asked to find a moral reprieve from acts of war. So, even a moral tenet in Christ’s teachings as fundamental as respecting the life of another, finds societal circumstance justifying its psychological circumvention. Was St. Augustine’s just war theory an act of moral relativism, or a practical moral adjustment, to what is at its roots, a passive theology.  The precedent for the adjustment of morality in the light of circumstance is hardly new, only now it has a new handle, moral relativism. Moral relativism is merely a means to rationalise moral conduct to new knowledge or circumstance. Moral action, is action that is absent harm and promotes good, and good is like the beauty of the sun’s rays across rolling countryside in the early morning, you'll know it when you see it. Goodness resides innately in humans and evil arises from circumstance. Morals are a code to promote circumstance absent evil and an environment where good can flourish.    

Thursday, February 12, 2015

The Tale of TWO Christianities and the path forward for Female Liberation & Liberation Generally

Christ lived 2015 years ago, yet we allow our impression of his life to be formed by a committee of men in Rome 400 years after he died. Perhaps there is merit, now, in an enlightened world to reconsider some prior impressions and interpretations of Christ’s life. Perhaps by being willing to see that others have contemplated his life through a different lens, we can begin to contemplate his message through the lens of modernity, perhaps we then can develop a Christianity that is relevant to our times and offers flexibility on our the path forward; rather than has so often been the case, where religion has foiled or obstructed human progress.  

Origen of Alexandria converted to Christianity around 200 AD. I read a description of his interpretation of god. It has it, that god is a concentration of spirit from which souls emanate, one might imagine a wellspring of human spirit genitally bubbling, and each bubble is a human soul and seeks to unite with a human being. This entity that is god exists in perfection and binds the entire universe on a foundation of perfection. Upon death the sole then reunites with the perfection of god and becomes one with the universe.

There is a refreshing absence of threat in this view. It is consistent with the cyclical nature of other phenomena in the natural world that are readily observable. There is the presence here of a harmonious acceptance of my humanity and the absence of contorting doctrines; there is only the unobstructed union with perfection. I can imagine a beautiful child coming into being and being touched by perfection. The child, as it’s life develops will then be exposed to the rigors of life’s existence and upon death be returned to perfection, having lived a life absent the fear of the all mighty and only with love to look forward to. This view finds accord with Jesus as was exemplified by his good works on earth and his innate tolerance and peacefulness.

This view stands in startling contrast to the doctrine of original sin, which has an innocent child labelled a sinner on the assertion that human inclination, the inclination that emanates from divine origins is wrong. Augustine was seriously challenged as a human being and tormented by his own sexuality. Of course he would ascribe ugliness where beauty lives. When I see a child, I see beauty and the opportunity for good things to come. Augustine projected his own angst around human sexuality and turned a beautiful exchange between a man and woman in to a sin. His legacy pervades Christendom’s psyche to this very day, distorting human conduct through the negative conditioning that finds expression in many of the formal Christian institutions, the sin lies in placing evil on a creation of a perfect god and inserting guilt where joy should be. One of the most unfortunate events in the journey of Christianity was the credence given to a sick man. 

I would be concerned about leveling this complaint against original sin, save that many in the two institutions that have to manage its legacy share this view. Distorting doctrine is in no way peculiar to original sin or Christianity – it is merely the subject matter I am familiar with, the general sternness by which religion in general has dealt natural human inclination is resulting in much pain and distortion. 
With Origen’s Christianity, liberation lives, as a person you're connected to perfection, always present and always accessible. So rather than quaking in fear at a patriarch hijacked by a human being for concern of power, you're in direct connection with the supreme being and able to live life liberated from anthropogenic influence, with the full knowledge that perfection will be the net result of your existence.

In the 400 AD version of events there has been a gross infidelity in the delivery of Christ’s message, as it has been anthropomorphized with his message sullied first and second as his message has been hijacked by political concern. One is hopeful now that in the ambit of the hard won advancements that the enlightenment has given us, we can bring free and open minds to the task of theological contemplations. I dare say, unless the people of Christendom do, the absence of contemporary support due the absence of relevant doctrine in the modern context, will leave Christendom to erode against its own intransigence until it fades to inconsequence; as it has done in much of the “enlightened” world - this would be a loss to us all.    

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Death with Dignity - Our Right Our Choice

Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay
Minister of Justice and Attorney General 

RE: Supreme Court Decision – Death with Dignity

I am relieved at the Supreme Court decision to allow us to manage our own life’s end. It is fundamental that we, as free people, retain the right of dominion over mind and body. One always wishes to live forever, we all come to the end, and when we do, we should be permitted to manage it.

I have advocated for this approach aggressively over the years. I sat through my mother’s death; we removed the intravenous and watched her die for 3 days. It was an utterly stupid circumstance, her death was a forgone conclusion, we were forced to sit, watch her suffer and wait for the inevitable; this is emblematic of “palliative” practices in play now.  I loved my mother, I cared for her without government help, and then I had the government between her and I in her passing, she suffered for no reason – her fate and the fate of millions who have suffered rests on the heads of people who have distorted the compassion that Christ himself taught us.

The management of one’s own life end is an extremely personal matter, the state has no role to play here, save to ensure that people’s wishes are respected. Much of the challenge with ceding choice to the individual on this matter emanates from an archaic interpretation of Christian Theology. The Christian moral complex has served us well in most regards, where it is failing us or where it bumps up against freedom of choice, the state is obligated to side with the individual – that is what a secular democracy requires.

The constant refrain against death with dignity from the people with disabilities is unwarranted. One understands their concern in the context of government conduct in the past, that is to say, programs like state sanctioned sterilization terrify us all. The same progress that is facilitating the choice this court decision provides, has quelled any inclination that any one rational actor might have in treating the disabled in a way that is untoward. The concern expressed by many in the disabled community with regard to the systemization of their demise is grossly insulting to us all, or to suggest that we would stand by while people were encouraged to end their lives is equally insulting. The fears are unfounded, we are becoming increasingly more concerned that the disabled community finds its way into society, the whole trend in Canadian society is to become more inclusive.  This group’s fear should in no way affect my choice to end my life as I see fit.

There seems to be a generalized mindset from opponents to the right to choose to end one’s life that somehow the government will, or other actors, begin to take control of that choice. They fear monger about the systemized euthanizing of our old people or the disabled. These are irrational comments, we are effecting a state of CHOICE, the only way someone can have their life ended is by choice. These irrational arguments and fear mongering emanate from the desire to impose a single moral complex on the entire population, the state has no place in the imposition of morality; morality is best dealt with in the civil society. The sanctity of life is in no way diminished by extending the choice to people to have a dignified end, or an end of their choice, the quality life itself however, is bolstered.  

The key element of “regulation” or law in this matter is to ensure that CHOICE resides with the individual in totality. This must be ensured by government, the only means that a Doctor’s assistance to end life is rendered is by the direction of the affected individual OR by a written directive in the form of a living will.  It is critical that this is never a “medical” decision, or a decision of medical personal or a government representative, this must always be isolated from the state and to the individual. By way of example, should a ward of the state fall into a circumstance that is terminal and be rendered unable to offer clear direction to the state or is deemed absent of capacity to choose, then all the conventions for the preservation of life or hitherto conventions of palliative care must be applied. Provisioning this, loud and clear, in the legislation sees to the liberty of the competent and addresses the concerns of the frail and disabled.  

The days of government managing the personal lives of the populace are waning, the Canadian population is generally progressively inclined, well-educated and very competent – they are best suited to run their own lives. I adhere in the main to the Christian moral complex, which is what shaped me; education and study have informed any choices I make outside that complex – that is my right and my choice. Others may make choices to live under a different code perhaps, which is their choice and their right. One has to have confidence in their belief system’s validity to accept the presence of another under Canada’s dominion, it is theological insecurity that is fueling opposition.
We are a secular democracy as opposed to a theocracy; we need to work to support that in the context of a morality neutral public square, that is to say, the public square needs to facilitate the innate right to maintain a given morality when exposed to the public square. By ensuring the choice to end one’s life is resides solely with the individual, we ensure the public square is neutral – my making a choice in private has no influence or effect on others. This is the spirit of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is supported by subsequent court process, that our actions absent threat of harm, or harm to others, are permitted.
Please encourage your counterparts in government to be courageous in forwarding the right to hold dominion of one’s mind and body, it is the most fundamental element of human existence, and it is the most sacred responsibility of governance.   

Thank you your work and leadership thus far.

Kind Regards,

Neil E. Thomson

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Canada - Let's Talk Culture

It is curious to me that there are a group(s) of people who see fit to pass judgment on others chosen way of life – whether it be diet, social habits – and the like.  They make observations, and engage in the application of various sources of pain from a position of anonymity – and never engage in discourse or debate to defend or support their position.  The challenge I have is that most times they are unclear on the criteria they are acting on: they execute in a subjective soup.

The propensity to remain anonymous builds a culture absent accountability and impairs attributing responsibility for errant actions. It reduces people from people of substance to something less desirable.  The random application of pain or discord is a tactic used very effectively by Stalin and others to quell the population’s inclination for self-advancement – in Stalin’s case, the random shooting of citizens was used to ensure the populations head stayed down – they lived in a state of surrender. Anonymity breeds underhandedness, one realizes that in the defense of good underhandedness can be a virtue; however, to make a habit of it in daily life is undesirable.

Are we culturally permitted to ignore the rights of others, to simply ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the preeminent document to direct human interface in Canada?  If the right to hold domain over one’s mind, body, property and to have a private life is no longer held sacred, then what is the society we are building? If an individual’s autonomy is taken by the anonymous, and all in authority turns a blind eye, have we taken rights and replaced them with corruption. There are many types of corruption, corruption is the permitting conduct that deviates from the stated modalities of conduct as prescribed by the government we all share; in Canada, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that defines the social contract. We can congregate, form allegiance and within a defined private association engage in whatever life modalities we choose - the Charter gives us that. HOWEVER, when you are handed a mandate by the government of Canada, you're bound to exercise yourself within that mandate in COMPLETE accord with the Charter. When historical conduct comes up against what the Charter says, in officialdom, the Charter Rules. If in governance we permit infidelity to occur between action and the principles expressed in the Charter - then we will stop being governed, and might and mass will determine where we go. When it is required to “pack” up to live, when people go outside the law to engage in force or corporal conduct, when thugs suited leather or silk run like marauders with no channel to be brought to account – what society have we built. When underhandedness becomes your life modality, then you move from sight – for some what is necessary to uphold and repair becomes the mechanism for others to destroy and harm – worse however, is that the distinction between the two becomes muddled.

A culture of subservience is a very ugly place to take society, it reduces people to chickens scratching for crumbs and approval, it progresses the worst of people; it makes the worst of people. To force people to surrender, to haze people to group think, is to make a population of Lemmings.  Lemmings are subject to following what is offered, and have followed some of the most hideous forays in human history.

There is a better way, begin first with a declaration, inspire with creed, and let creed be supported by critically thinking & independent people – who make their own choices. Make honesty integral to the person first and teach subversion as a measure of last resort - last. My mother taught never to betray a confidence and my father taught a firm handshake and that the eyes are the windows of the soul – there is merit in this life modality – while one lives in the open and with it comes a degree vulnerability, it sends the message that you're willing to challenge and be challenged – to make societal interface an exchange of ideas, rather than an exercise in might.  

We can do better, in Canada we've got the gift the enlightenment gave use, albeit an imperfect and incomplete document, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – we should complete the document, and we should build a culture that is consistent with its values.  

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Counter Cyclical Spending – Stimulus - Where the smart money goes.

In a healthy circumstance the government portion of GDP should be about 6%, in Canada federal spending alone is about 10%. There is a gradation of benefit and negative effect, there is an axis to manage, but at some point, the burden of government is negative.

Counter Cyclical Spending, or stimulus, is the practice of government drawing on government coffers, normally increasing debt, to counter the negative impacts of a downward business cycle.  If government is of the correct proportion to the economy as a whole, or even has the proportion consistent with the present Canadian circumstance, one can see that there is a limit to the effect the government can have just on the basis of monetary mass alone.

It is the case however, that government can to a limited degree stimulate the economy, or to direct upward pressure on aggregate demand. The answer to the question as to whether this is a healthy practice or not, is determined on the legacy of the effort. If the government chooses to hire a bunch of people and expand services, then there may be short term gain, with long term pain – as the overall burden of government is expanded and carried into the future. If, however, the government chooses to INVEST in things that facilitate the future undertakings of the nation complex, then the spending both improves the present circumstance by increasing aggregate demand AND makes future activities more efficient. One approach makes the future better, the other approach taxes future generations.

When money is so cheap - the real cost of money for the Canadian government, if manage optimally, is zero for the next ten years or so, so now is the time to borrow and build out infrastructure – physical & human. Now we make investments in physical infrastructure - communications, fiber optics, high ways, ports, bridges etc.  More importantly perhaps, in human capital, no more damn university buildings and ribbon cuttings please, what we need is real money to real people for real knowledge – inputs and outputs quantified and accounted for.

Give Canada’s young people firstly, knowledge, the structure to work in and capital – real investment, with a real accountability trail, and Canada will win – win bigger and better than any other jurisdiction, because we make life here better than elsewhere. We should be aiming higher than “jobs”, we should be aiming for exceptional lives.