MP Voting – Policy, Morality & Abortion

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

In reading Mr. Murphy’s recent piece in the National Post titled “Christian’s Need not Apply”, Mr. Murphy references profound ethical dilemmas at the intersection of politics and religion; I assert there should never be a dilemma there. Mr. Murphy was contemplating the challenge of religious conscience, voting, the abortion issue and Justin Trudeau’s insistence that all liberals must vote in favour of pro-choice. Now, the abortion is the most difficult of issues by which to make a point because, it has been so badly tarnished by an extended and heated debate; one hopes if the point can be made here, it will provide a means by which to conduct governance absent the inappropriate imposition of what is often religious doctrine. I should premise this discourse by saying that I live in harmony with the Charter of Rights and freedoms and most Christians would find little fault with the way I live, save perhaps a little too much zeal in Scotch consumption; the key thing to note, however, is the delineation between the two – religion & governance.

 

In forging policy, the very first question is “what are we endeavouring to manage”. If the policy is related to human action and or human interface, the next question is “what goods are being moved forward or harms are being reduced”. Here we take our guidance from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Section 7, Life, Liberty and Security of person provisions that we are at liberty to conduct our lives as we see fit, save a direct and immediate threat to another or the public at large. The Supreme Court of Canada has read the charter and is applying it, and this will be the rigour by which legislation will be tested in the future. The only time a personal action can be managed by a statute in Canada and have continuity with the Charter is when it has externalities that affect public health & safety – in an immediate way. Mr. Trudeau Sr. said “the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation” and he was right, nor the kitchen, nor my liquor cabinet, nor my medicine cabinet – the government has no role to play in private and personal choice. To have a diverse and secular society this is as it must be.  

 

The critical assumption that must be maintained in the contemplation of legislation is that we are governing a population of informed adults who have the right to make choices and resist the inclination to protect people from themselves. The paternalist bent in governance in Canada is offensive to the informed and enlightened. The encroachment on personal liberty is insidiously escalating in Canada and has been for some time, government finds its way into every aspect of our personal lives. The channel by which government often finds its way into our personal lives is via morality-based legislation, the other channel is through government-provisioned services – e.g. medical services, between the two, Canada has become a totalitarian state. By accepting that others’ truths are as valid as our own, we can forge a human interface between diverse groups that is harmonious. Societal harmony is in no way everyone believing the same thing, it is providing a venue by which people of diverging beliefs can co-exist.

 

The abortion issue is most challenging, for me and most others I believe, because it bumps up against a universal concern for the sanctity of life. At the other end of life, death, the way is crystal clear; it is an adult managing their own life’s end. With the issue of abortion, it is the suspension of a created life that is so troubling for us all. Here, however, we need to ask ourselves, what rational woman would end a pregnancy absent good reason. How is an organization as blunt and unwieldy as a government going to intervene effectively in such a herculean choice to be made by a woman?

 

If offering council to a young woman who was contemplating ending an accidental pregnancy, my advice would be to carry to term and find an agreeable arrangement for the child’s well-being. This advice would be offered less from a moral perspective and more from a concern for the long-term happiness of the young woman. I have limited experience here, but I do know, that no one I’ve encountered has found happiness from having an abortion and many have from happiness witnessing a new life.  The most important consideration here is that there was an accidental pregnancy in the first place – the event in and of itself demonstrates a complete lack of leadership in the young girl’s life – she has really been failed by the people responsible for her. Even in the case of just an unwanted pregnancy, the personal circumstance is so nuanced there is no way to draft legislation to address what is a deeply personal issue. We have to rely on the good judgement of women and support mechanisms to maintain this as a very last resort in the most difficult of circumstances – where the whole complex of events makes it medically necessary. Will there be errors made, it is inherent in the whole human endeavour that tragic errors occur, it is a question of finding the best means to mitigate human tragedy. 

  

The very best way to address any moral issue, and this is no exception, is by being active in civil society. Seek to effect good and wholesome behaviour through culture, a culture of love, informing, support and health, rather than a culture of the persecution of the sinner. It is the ambient culture of shame, the overzealous suppression of sexual inclination and the seemingly unquenchable desire for the “moral” to punish that has driven so many women to abortion and many to extreme harm and death. If it is Christian morality you’re drawing on for guidance here, the look to Christ for direction, as opposed to dogma, Christ taught about tolerance and love as opposed to fear and control. Most of the pain associated with the whole challenge could be avoided with openness and being proactive, this of all issues calls for leadership at the forefront, rather than managing the aftermath.

 

 

As a nation we had reached equilibrium on this issue, an awkward consensus – perhaps an agreement to disagree; it is odd that this issue came into election concern from the progressives, normally it is the pro-life group railing against the present Canadian circumstance.  The fact that it could be activated in political interests as Mr. Murphy asserts, reflects the mercenary nature of politics; it is my sense, that in this case, it was a predominantly progressive Canada protecting hard-earned ground.

MORE ON LAW AND MORALITY

CLICK BELOW

Creation of Policy - Correct Moral Perspective

Rational Policy - Policy of Choice

Violence Against Women - Causation

Progressing personal liberty case for moral relativism

No Minimum Wage - We Need Minimum Income

One can judge the quality of a society by the way it treats its poor, the government has a role in extending care to those who are unfortunate – “what you do to the least of my brethren you do to me” someone once said – I love the quote because it personalizes the issue. The challenge, of course, is striking a balance between extending help to the unfortunate and spending.

Whether you're poor because you're unemployed, underemployed, retired absent income or disabled – you're poor, you require resources. Presently we have several government departments dispensing funds to the people in need of help, CPP, Employment Insurance, Social Services … the list goes on. Every department has its own administration, set of criteria for helping and complex operations – all of which represent OVERHEAD or add to the transaction cost that is government.

Much of the thrust of the administration of the programs is to ensure that people are only getting what they are entitled to – in large measure these departments assess people against a set of criteria and dispense funds accordingly. This is, at its core, a policing function, the challenge that arises from this process is an administrative cost, dollars spent running a department instead of helping people. If we are going to spend money helping the poor, we need to ensure that the money we allocate for help – helps.

The simplest way to ensure a base living is to provide everyone with a base income. The government would simply distribute cheques to everyone, every two weeks, those who had income exceeding the base amount would have the “base income” “clawed back” (taken back) at tax time.  This is a very elegant solution, we can be more generous, the stigma associated with social service use is gone and a base living is established.

This also is a de facto floor on living generally; minimum wage, for example, would be rendered redundant, given that the marginal advantage of employment would force wages to a living wage. The other advantage here with respect to minimum wage, is that absent the need for a minimum wage for adults, the market could accommodate youth – as it is often the complaint with minimum wages that the youth are affected due to the axis of experience and cost working against them. By way of example, if a $1000 / month minimum income was provided, the marginal benefit of employment would exceed the minimum wage in British Columbia now – at $8.50 / hour the monthly income is $1360 – there would be no advantage of working given the cost of attending work – clothes, transportation etc. This illustrates the “floor” that is formed on human existence with a “minimum income”. 

A minimum income fulfils state obligations to Liberty in Section 7 of the Charter, Life, Liberty and Security of Person. The most coercive element that exists in society is a growling stomach; it is the absence of any secure income that drives people into exploitive circumstance. We can afford to do this, in fact, studies done by the CATO institute in the United States indicate that overall, the minimum income is the most efficient way to deliver resources due to a reduction in administrative costs.

The amount and the “Clawback” regime would need to account for marginal tax considerations, marginal employment benefit and the like. I like this solution – it is simple, efficient and generous – it seems a quintessentially Canadian way to go.

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Click Here to see how Finland is Contemplating this Solution

Economics - Market Transcendence

The combination of our educational system's 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 an 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 marginalize the market-based economy has put us in peril of leaving unexplored the most relevant of human studies. The financial representation of 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 generalized 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, that being people promoting redistributionist policy. Redistributionists would do better to focus on a state of generalized prosperity rather than a state of generalized equality.  Rather than taking from productive people, provide equitable access to a growing pie. The proposition of paramount importance is, that in order to promote the well-being of people we need a vibrant economy, and a vibrant economy starts with businesses being able to respond to opportunity absent distorting policy.

The most common distortion 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 an authority will distribute wealth broadly. Marx linked the painful events for the working people around the industrial revolution to capitalism, wrongly. The causes of dislocation and poverty as the industrial revolution unfolded, were a product of disequilibrium of labour supply in the context of new technology. This disequilibrium in concert with the government failing to respond to a changing circumstance, or perhaps in some cases exacerbating dislocation with policies that exploited the vulnerable, was the cause of 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 the capitalist process. Capital allows for the aggregation of energy (Capital) which is fungible, this aggregation of capital does afford power to the holder and raises 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 is advocating is 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, realizing 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 realization 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 may be directed at physical requirements and so draw on raw resources, but a 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 that both scarcity and abundance are mental constructs.  

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 Dependent 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 is 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 the 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 a staggering complexity. Our marketplace 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 to 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 interests 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 synchronizing people's food consumption with a view to bringing better knowledge to the process by accessing professionals and by standardizing 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 one begins to contemplate the government managing our meals for us, you realize what an absurd notion this is. Yet, in spite of thousands of 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 professional knowledge at a distance. The closer the management of resources is 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 imperceivable. Our society has been well rewarded for allowing humanity to manage its own affairs and it's done nary a single central planner, it all happens out of the spontaneous association of actors. Please though, mine is only one word, take a look around, in every circumstance where there has been central planning, the government has reduced the population to impoverishment and subjected them to totalitarianism.

This position, of allowing humanity's 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 the collective, in contrast to planning for the aggregate. In this way, knowledge is best applied and resources are most effectively distributed and utilized. The policy is “planned” in response to human action as opposed to a policy that plans human action. As stated previously, the sum of human action is impossibly complex to plan from a central point, to direct the actions of every individual is a Herculean task even if it were possible, however, a 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 manage for the lowest common denominator. 

The single most critical thing for a successful society is the provision for people to be able to capitalize on their efforts. Karl Marx spoke of this in great detail, where labour exercised action with the incremental valued-added of that labour was extracted away from the labour to the extent they remained in subsistence. In an enlightened capitalist society, we understand, that if we want people to be capitalists they need to have capital. To the extent generosity (capital) 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 day's work, created communism; a scourge that has demonstrated its ineptitude at every attempt at execution and yet people are still promoting it in varying degrees. I wonder when people will realize 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. A generous credit policy to purchase a home is an excellent example of a policy that empowers the individual. A young couple caught in a circumstance where they are both working to pay rent and to feed their family is greatly supported by a 100% loan on a home; as it releases them from the rental trap and puts them on the path of capitalizing on 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, the 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 one of control. In all societies that focus on control of people, society entrenches in 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 backdrop of Peru's policy development has been one of an elite exercising control; that is the purpose of complex and convoluted legislation, to facilitate access for the well capitalized and keep those who are without capital in a ready state of exploitation. This circumstance happens at the expense of the elite and the general population as well, as generalized 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 opportunities to allow access to capital by appropriate rule of law and effected a more generalized 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 generalized 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's action must be prudence. Generosity with prudence requires engaging in generosity in the context of return on investment. In the case of homesteading, assets that were idle came into action, and people who received the land paid taxes to governments commensurate with the new assets' value and infrastructure grew up around them. Government spending must be rationalized 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, and the funds provided to the creation of a doctor need to be rationalized to that incremental benefit. The assertion of generosity here is in the creation of a value-adding, wealth-generating investment as opposed to grants without condition.  

Progressing Personal Liberty - A case for moral relativism

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, and cultural influences as are extracted from the Metanarrative in which our development is steeped. The innate human morality that exists, such as the almost universally recognized morality of reciprocity (or as it is 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 with each other. 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 outcasting 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 pressure contorts the human psyche to the point where the 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 Metanarrative 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 caused conflict. What is necessary for Christianity to keep pace with an informed society is the recognition that knowledge and technology have 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 outcomes 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 actions, 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 circumstances 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 rationalize moral conduct to new knowledge or circumstance. A Moral action, is an action that is absent harm and promotes good, and good is like the beauty of the sun’s rays across the rolling countryside in the early morning, you'll know it when you see it. Goodness resides innately in humans and evil arises from circumstances. Morals are a code to promote circumstance absent evil and an environment where good can flourish.    

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 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 soul 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 its life develops will then be exposed to the rigours of 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 the 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 into 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 levelling 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 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 to 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.    

Law, Legislation and Liberty - LEGISLATION THAT PUTS CHOICE - WHERE CHOICE BELONGS - WITH YOU

Law, Legislation and Liberty - LEGISLATION THAT PUTS CHOICE - WHERE CHOICE BELONGS - WITH YOU   

READING TIME: 10 MIN

All legislation should be viewed through the lens of the two freedoms, as in law there are "legal tests" there should be "law creation tests". The two freedoms test would ask the questions "have we reduced or expanded individual choice?" and "have we facilitated action?".  

Two Freedoms:

The First Freedom - The absence of coercion.

If you believe as I do, that the assurance of personal sovereignty is the most fundamental right - innate in our humanity and that government’s paramount focus should be the protection of personal liberty, then you will accept the wisdom of giving the first freedom priority over all other considerations in the creation of legislation. In legislation, the first freedom is best satisfied by the government engaging in the creation of legislation that commits the government to inform people, rather than to control people - educate rather than regulate.

The public is best served by having in government, deeply enshrined, a clear direction to protect by informing the individual, so they may respond to their environment as they see fit within their own good judgment. To the extent knowledge is applied under decree from central authority - is the extent to which imperfect response to a local stimulus occurs, to the extent knowledge is applied at the point of action - is the extent to which better outcomes will occur.

Decree governance rarely provisions solutions tailored to the multitude of actions the populous encounters or undertakes, requiring the populous to adjust actions in accord with circumstance rather than decree (law), thereby requiring them to move outside the law – a little at first and then as much as is required to effect the action they want. This reality effects the erosion of the credibility of the law and makes the government a “micro-manager”. As no central body can anticipate every human eventuality, the practical requirements of life push people outside the law and having been forced by practical concern outside the law they become vulnerable to coercive intervention from corrupted officials or competitive actors. The relevance of law is diminished and state authority is appropriated for self-interest, in this phenomenon, the justice in government falls with only its authority remaining. This is a toxic circumstance, as it leads to the corruption of government and, having been driven into the minutia of human actions government becomes increasingly costly and complex.

Government must seek to develop institutional adversity with respect to regulation and prohibition when they fall in conflict with the choice of a reasoned person. Governments' historical roots extend from a modality of direction through control, as was necessary perhaps in antiquity with the masses having greatly reduced intellectual capital relative to the contemporary population. Today, however, the masses are well educated and capable of self-governance. Governmental paternalism has become outmoded and unnecessarily stifling to the populous’ choice. 

By having the first freedom, the absence of coercion as the paramount focus in devising legislation – government removes itself from the enforcement of morality; this removes bias from the governance of one moral position over another, allowing a truly secular society to emerge. Canadian society has as a foundation a set of Christian morals, and for the most part, they have served us well. There are aspects of the application of Christian morality as applied by the government that generates immorality, these aspects are in effect the product of conflicting programming that flows from the Christian narrative into society and by extension government. The errors that emerge from this reality have been on repeat since Christianity appropriated government to further its interests. By allowing the first freedom to lead governance, over time, the positive aspects of the Christian influence will gain prominence and the negative aspects will subside; and this reality will extend to all perspectives – the best of all moral origins will emerge.       

The following is an example of some typical language one encounters in government legislation and an example of how wording may be changed to express the importance of personal choice.

2.3 The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the health and safety of the public and encourage accurate and consistent product representation by prohibiting and regulating certain activities in relation to foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics.

This time with liberty in mind

2.3 The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the health and safety of the public and encourage accurate and consistent product representation, by collecting pertinent information in relation to foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics for distribution to the citizenry and then by regulating certain activities in relation to foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics, in a manner that recognizes a reasonable person's sovereign right to utilize foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics according to their own judgment.

This wording shifts the role of government away from prohibiting to the role of informing. To support the efficacy of this assertion, that extending more judgment to the individual in the context of extremes is rational, consider the following; Arsenic is widely available but rarely eaten as there is a general knowledge that Arsenic is harmful, so reasonable people refrain from consumption based on information as opposed to regulation, so the scientific information pertaining to harm is a de facto prohibition.

Regulations requiring labelling stating Arsenic's presence are all that is required for the safety of the public. Vitamin C, on the other hand, requires judgment in consumption; there is a wide range of views throughout health literature as to varying doses and their affects. Conventional medicine in my view recommends too low of a dosage; I take into consideration the government recommendations and choose to consume a higher dose. I also disagree with my doctor on the proper dosage for Vitamin C. As an informed individual, I personally make a choice as to the risk and benefit of a given dosage, and choose to consume a higher dosage than all the conventional bodies recommend. That is my right.

There is an endless array of examples of government intruding on the individual for any number of reasons, and very rarely are they valid. The first freedom’s focus, in this case, would provide a circumstance where the government extends judgment to the individual by setting the priority to inform rather to prohibit or regulate. There is a continuum of consideration, Arsenic is clearly accepted by people as a substance that one should avoid taking, and rational people avoid it. Vitamin C requires people to inform themselves regarding its use and exercise judgement, Alcohol carries an affect that some desire. By committing to informing people of the potential benefits and harms the government achieves a better outcome by relying on rational people to exercise judgment at the point of consumption.   

It is important to note that the legislation that emerges under the more liberal “purpose” may end up looking similar to the legislation that falls out of the more authoritarian “purpose”, the difference, however, is the spirit is dramatically changed – putting the government in its rightful place – subordinated to people as opposed to subordinating people.    

The Second Freedom - The provision of base resources – knowledge and access to “capital”

The satisfaction of the second freedom is difficult as it is often overexerted, extending government into the realm of personal choice. The addressing of the second freedom must have at its core the avoidance of intrusion on the first freedom. The second freedom should only be exercised in matters of human concern related to minimum standards and personal liberation in the context of societal advancement. At the end of slavery in the USA, slaves were freed to a circumstance lesser than they experienced under slavery-free but physically worse off.  There was an obligation on the part of the government to provide the means and ability to exercise their newfound liberty – through basic sustenance and education. The second freedom’s valid application only extends to the point of execution, insomuch as it draws on the resources of society at large. There is an important distinction to be made with respect to government reasonability, slaves absent knowledge were completely ill-equipped to function – too often in modern society, the second freedom gets extended to include extravagant elements of life.        

In Sweden, the government changed the pension plan from mandatory mass contribution to a pool, to one of the mandatory contribution of an individual to a single account. The Swedish government did an excellent job of mitigating intrusion on the first freedom and attending to the second freedom in the execution of this plan. The government assessed the portion of the pre-accumulated pension attributable to one individual and provided a choice as to how that individual could manage their own pension amount. The individual could choose to self-direct the funds or they could choose a number of plans the government provided. While people were under some coercion to participate, the Swedish government mitigated this intrusion through the provision of choice.  

We are all permitted to purchase alcohol and as a result, a few become afflicted with alcoholism. Policy relating to this issue requires an ex post facto response. The first freedom is rightly extended and then for the few who are proven incapable, via judicial review, then the second freedom is actuated - mitigation programs. This stands in contrast to what is often the approach where the right of a sound individual to exercise good judgment is impaired by legislation designed to administer the actions of those of poor judgment.    

Law, Legislation and Liberty - Policy Creation – Correct Perspective - Government as Educator not Regulator

Law, Legislation and Liberty - Policy Creation – Correct Perspective - Government as Educator not Regulator

When you read any piece of legislation, legislation being the practical expression of policy, the language is always directive by authority. The fundamental view in structuring law has government as the authority and the population to obey or suffer the consequences. This is an errant perspective as it assumes us subordinate to government; a) when the opposite is supposed to be true b) when our charter extends us autonomy as a basic human right. If you believe as I do, that we exist as sovereign beings and liberty is a right of our humanity as opposed to something the state grants us, this authoritarian stance of the government is very offensive. The government should be issuing directions as opposed to edicts.

Government has an important role as a mediator, or, through the law, to provide the effective interaction of the citizenry – the government has no meaningful role in personal choice, especially when personal choices made are benign to the rest of the populous. Government has an important role as a protector from outside threats; it has no role in protecting us from ourselves - saves to the provision of non-biased & reliable information for us to choose with. When thinking about the policy the thrust needs to be, how do we facilitate human action as it originates from the individual, as opposed to how do we control people; Canadians are a collection of individuals as opposed to a group of people, so in providing choice to a well-informed populous, we move decision making closer to the point of action and inherent in exercising choice is ownership, and in ownership is responsibility; a more responsible and actuated population emerges.   

Rather than having a drug policy that enforces a moral code against the altered state, have a drug policy that informs the public of the risks and benefits of all substance use. In the early 1970s, 70% of the adult population smoked, now about 15% do. Cigarettes are still legal, however, by informing the public, the government effected a cultural shift that moved smoking from an action of status to one of a fool. When people see the skull and crossbones on a container they know the contents are poison – rationale people avoid eating the contents. The Canadian landscape has literally millions of dangers, the government is unable to put handrails on every cliff in Canada, and it relies on parents to teach their children to avoid walking off cliffs. People have the capacity to manage their own lives, and government policy should extend them as full a breath of action as possible. 

With law – less is more. In Canada we are over-governed, increasingly our personal lives are governed. This is the case because the government to often is trying to manage personal matters, the government has trouble with managing slow-moving, large and sturdy infrastructure, so it should stay away from micro-managing Canadian’s personal lives by regulating every possible aspect of life. Since my parent's day, there has been an insidious escalation into our private lives, we have become in many ways a totalitarian state – if one measures the breadth of government involvement in our personal lives juxtaposed against any other point in history.