The Myth that Growth is BAD and the Earth is Limited

One realizes there are serious environmental issues and that attention to said issues is critical to long term wellbeing of humanity. When there is an environmental issue, look to environmental solutions. A market economy is value neural; an unfettered market distributes goods and services in an extremely efficient manner. It cares not about the environment, it cares not about inequality – it does one thing, it manages the distribution of goods and services between parties under the rubric of supply and demand.  So stop blaming the market economy for social and environmental problems, especially when you look around the world and see the countries with a market economy, rule of law and property rights represent the healthiest and most prosperous in human history.

Growth is a good thing. An expanding economy provides an opportunity for young people and the disadvantaged.  A FREE MARKET permits participation influenced completely by one's ability to bring a good or service to market in a competitive way. A FREE MARKET is colour blind and is blind to sexuality - there is a product, there is a demand, fill the demand and you derive benefit. This is an overriding truth - a FREE MARKET is value-neutral. When you see racial discrimination, sexual inequality or inequality generally, look to what's causing the problem as opposed to blaming the market. 

There is no rational connection between environmental degradation and economic growth. In the 1980's the US economy decoupled from fossil fuels - prior, the consumption of fossil fuel climbed in lockstep with the economy. The reason this transpired is, the economy moved toward an intellectual economy, growth is now coming from services and development of intellectual property in the form of advanced technologies - in the new economy, growth is taking us away from fossil fuel consumption.

The Malthusian proposition is just stupid. This is the belief that the earth's resources are finite and people are going to consume themselves out of existence, it is unfounded. The Malthusian proposition emerges from 1778 and the experience of some island dwellers, it is completely ineffectual as a metaphor for the entire universe. As Churchill once said, "mother earth is a generous provider". The easiest thing to sell to humanity, especially those who have been unjustly treated, is scarcity. Scarcity is lodged in our brains because over our evolution we've had little or no capacity to pull away from it.

The fact is, the universe is limitless, the fact is that we have plenty of resources, food and materials for a generalised state of prosperity. The solution to seeing a generalized state of prosperity lies in seeding opportunity to people and advocating taking things from people only serves to retard progress. I have never understood why in the face of overwhelming evidence, people persist in biting the hand that feeds them.

Dear Canadians – If nothing else, unto thyself be true – know where your bread is buttered.

Canada, a once fledgeling nation, had a competitor, The United States of America. We had on our side the British Empire. The one thing that our founding fathers and the British Empire wanted to avoid was the vision of the US leadership that was expressed as Manifest Destany – a single North American Country. This reality gave rise to the need to propagandize against The US and so came into being – Anti Americanism. To this day, Canadian leadership persist with fomenting a series of negative perceptions of the US in the interests of cultural differentiation. I am a proud Canadian, proud of my Scottish / Anglo heritage and proud of my and my family’s extended relationship with the British Empire. That being said, I find few things more inspiring than the US constitution and the extraordinary success the United States of America has become.

So I ask those spewing Anti America rhetoric, what are you objecting to? Is it human rights? Is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – or security of the person in Canada’s case? The United States was born out of enlightenment values – freedom of religion, speech, association, - are we wanting to throw these things away? Would you throw away the Westminster parliamentary system, common law, the independent judiciary or the three pillars of government? Would you dismiss the separation of church and state? Thomas Jefferson said, in the pursuit of democratic/secular values “if a man neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, what do I care if he has one or a hundred gods”. The comment neither excludes nor enhances my pursuit of a monotheistic faith; it is recognition that another’s truth can be as valid as my own – I dare say, that few would have the courage to make this statement today.

I hear the “post-capitalism” crowd slamming the American dream as a fraud. While the British Empire languished under the yoke of decadence from the mid-1800s onward, the American Dream gave the US the eye of the tiger, the US raced to world dominance and the British Empire crumbled and disintegrated. The US is the Constantinople equivalent to the British Empire – the successful offspring. The people slamming the US are doing so having gained unparalleled prosperity under US hegemony. In many ways, the US and its modalities of governance are the very best expression of British governance. No single entity, with all its foibles, has contributed more to the cause of freedom than the United States of America.

   

I live in fear when I witness widespread relinquishment of core values within the US. I live in fear when I witness full-scale attacks on the United States’ key elements of prosperity and freedom by political, national and international actors. I have no challenge reconciling my being Canadian, having evolved out of the British Empire to a member a secular society and extending unwavering support for the cause of freedom as expressed by the core values in the United States Constitution – the same core values expressed in our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada, at this moment in time, we live at the pinnacle of human existence, the most prosperous people ever, that has happened under United States hegemony and much of our prosperity is bought and paid for by the US. To those that cheer at US misfortune, the insecure/sour grapes brigade, be very careful what you wish for or lockdown may end up being your permeant reality. I for one, attempt to be a secure Canadian, to take pride in our humanity, and at once, support the US to do as it has done and to evolve as they always have done.

State Paternalism - The balance between the collective and the individual & Covid 19

State paternalism is problematic for a number of reasons, it obstructs people from helping themselves, it creates dependence rather than independence, it encroaches on personal choice and it kills initiative. The state, rather than regulating and controlling people, should educate and facilitate. Of course, there are extreme instances when the state must respond to the common good, emergencies like Covid 19 or a war. However, even in the context of an extreme circumstance, the government should seek to help people help themselves - rather than forcing people to heal.

When we had H1N1, a family member having a precondition which qualified them for early vaccination attended for vaccination. The government solution to vaccinating people was to set up a vaccination centre in a church - 100s people congregated there to get their vaccination; the most vulnerable. We never knew who was presymptomatic, who was an asymptomatic carrier or who was unaffected and neither did the government - yet they did it anyway. It makes no sense, whatsoever, to respond to a contagious disease by congregating people or by bringing them to a central hospital. It makes more sense to maintain social distancing, to isolate people from one another. So why then did the government do such a silly thing and why are they still doing such silly things? Now with Covid 19, they have people reporting to centralized treatment centres, centralized testing centres etc.. 

I think the reason the government would congregate people during a pandemic to vaccinate is so medical professionals can administer the shot. The better solution would be to distribute the vaccination kits to people's homes via a courier or special Canada Post and have people administer the vaccine to themselves. I give myself B6 and B12 injections all the time, I give myself the flu shot every year - there are few simpler tasks than giving an injection - yet the government is willing to put lives at risk - why.

Why does the government insist that I have a prescription from a doctor to get a drug? A smart person would seek the advice of a doctor before starting on to a new drug - I would - yet the government insists that every time I want drugs I have to get a prescription - even ones I've been taken before. In most cases, it is a complete waste fo time and resources. The doctor prescribes medication often absent the knowledge of what other drugs a person is taking - especially now when so many people rely on walk-in clinics and there is little continuity of care. In all my years of attending to pharmacies, I've never had anyone ask about my diet, my other medications or supplements herbal or otherwise. So the "safeguards" that are touted as the reason these regulations are in place, are ineffective. So why have them?

The challenge we face when state paternalism controls our actions is, the solutions are delivered by edict, top-down, a one size fits all solution for the entire population. It is good for the government to provide pertinent information and to coordinate a response; it is bad when the government impairs people's capacity to care for themselves, especially when governments' assumption of generalised incompetence puts people at greater risk. We need to support people in being self-reliant, independent and resilient - if you give people the data and the tools, they are their best keepers. When you allow varied and independent response to challenges, a 1000 flowers bloom and new best practices emerge.

The depth of knowledge that resides in the population, or in the case of Covid 19 with the medical personnel, can never be accessed under a collection of edicts. Is just a fact of life, if I, by myself, list all the green vegetables I can think of, that 10 people will list many more. It is a paradox, that the collective, is best served by individuals acting in harmony to a cause rather than under the thumb of leadership/authority. It is a truth, that the best decisions are made closest to the point of action, that is to say, that people affected by all the immediacies of a given circumstance are best equipped to respond - rather than some centralized authority somewhere. There is a trend toward the infantilisation of the population, it effects control by dependence - it is insidious and one of the greatest risks to our liberty.

Christmas Letter 2019

Click to read My 2019 Christmas Letter

How I am voting this election

Cathy, Terry - not the issue.

I voted for Cathy several elections running, I believe her service to be excellent and effective. I know Terry and find him an agreeable person. So my decision is absent consideration for either of these two individuals, both are competent. Nor am I a rampant partisan, all things being equal I'll vote conservative due to a long family history with the party, however, for example, I was excited about John Turner, Paul Martin's leadership of the Liberal Party and found much of what Jean Chretien did agreeable. I am voting Conservative again and I am asking you to.

The most critical argument in my case for the Conservative Party is, above all, government procurement processes must be honest, transparent and adhere to the highest ethical principles. The judicial system must be independent. No matter the short term cost, people or entities that seek through graft, violence or political influence to corrupt government procurement or process anywhere must be brought to heel AND under no circumstance can government be in league with or seen to be in league with corrupt operators. It is my belief the present Liberal government has been attached to corrupt parties and as such, they have lost my confidence.

I was excited about the Liberal commitment to infrastructure spending, I have nothing of significance to point to in the way of smart infrastructure now. What has replaced smart infrastructure is too much and bad spending. There has been a rapid increase in "bad debt", no increase in accountability and the election has exposed a readiness to deploy the pork barrel.

Click here for more on infrastructure.

One can argue as to the validity of many of the assertions of the climate activists. If one assumes, then, that fossil fuel use must be curtailed Carbon Tax fails. Carbon Tax is just stupid policy - period. One hundred years of price sensitivity analysis tells the truth, absent product fungibility the demand for fuel is inelastic - Carbon Tax punishes marginal actors in society, beats up commodity producers like farmers AND does nothing.

Click here for more on Carbon Tax and the environment

The Supreme Court of Canada gave direction on death with dignity (DWD) legislation, it was clear we have the constitutional right to direct the end of our lives as we see fit. By failing to allow for prior directives and by placing the decision to execute in the hands of medical professionals rather than in the hands of affected individuals, and failing to offer judicial process to oversee the wishes of individuals; the government has created a dangerous situation.

Click here for more on DWD

Finally, the Liberals chose to raise the issue of gun control again - gun control has been a long-standing cultural differentiation tool the Liberals use to define us (Canada) as being different from them (US). They have incited an inaccurate perception of gun ownership and placed fear where none need exist. They once frittered away $2 billion on gun control and now they promise to waste more. It always has been and is again a complete red herring.

Click here for more on Gun Control

If you want greater sensitivity to western needs and concerns, greater fiscal responsibility and a rational approach to resourced development then vote conservative. This seat is more important than it ever has been before. The way the numbers are shaping up, we could end up with a NDP, LIBERAL, GREEN co-operative entity of some sort, I'll let that prospect affect you as it might, we have seen it at work in BC and needlessly, resource development has all but come to a halt.

Click here for more on fiscal policy and policy generally.

  

Small - Ship - Big experience

The small-ship concept has as base DNA the charter boat business; one offers a boat for hire, people occupy said boat, income is generated. The small-ship concept offers other elements than a mere live on boat experience, it offers an upscale on ship experience with premium ancillary activities: onboard skeet shooting, submarine tours, scuba diving, heli-fishing, heli-skiing, heli hiking, wildlife viewing, glacier lunches … all premium all of the time. The market segment this concept is directed toward consists of perhaps readers of the Field, Gray Sporting Journal, Rob Report, Economist – the clearest statement in the definition of the market segment is - $6000/day/person, all-inclusive. Operational modality, the provisioning of one peak experience per day, and more if you can fit it in. 

The backdrop for this business, the west coast of the Americas; in summer the pristine wilderness of British Columbia, in spring and fall the Gallipolis Islands, and in “winter” the west coast of South America.

The ship, a 150’ Cat, big power & fast - 40 knots or better and seaworthy; over the course of a week, this ship provides the ability to hit every premium wilderness destination on the British Columbia Coast. The staterooms offering no perceivable difference from accommodation at the finest hotel, save a superior and ever-changing view.  Guest numbers of less than twenty, staffing numbers of twenty. On board a 15 seat helicopter, a two-person submarine, seaworthy small craft for excursions, hot tubs, health centre, premium galley and group sensitive dining facilities.  

   

The people - the captain, marine biologist, activity director, premium culinary staff, health director, guides, pilots … the goal, the most personable, the most accomplished.

This offering is designed from the ground up to be exceptional; an absolutely premium experience in the right place at the right time. 

Capital Requirements: $40 Million

Preliminary numbers work, the only requirement for success, of course, is guests, while this market is hard to assess, one assumes this offering to be desirable and very popular.  

Morality – A tricky business

The contemplation of morality for me starts by considering the presence or absence of harm that may accrue to me or others by a given action I may take.  The complication comes when one is required to contemplate the degree and nature of harm an action may have relative the degree of necessity for a given action. The goal of administering morality in this fashion is to permit me to live my life in a relationship of beneficence with humanity or in benign coexistence and to avoid inflicting harm or pain on others.  Please note the absence of outside reference for direction in relation to morality, this process at once drives good and right social discourse and liberates.

Morality is a means by which to ensure that members of a society can interface harmoniously, it is a set of rules we voluntarily adhere to. While morality and law often find themselves in league with each other they are separate and apart – or they should be.  Our legal system has emerged from a long-standing Judeo-Christian moral complex and then to a lesser degree perhaps Cannon Law.  As this moral complex has greatly influenced the development of our legal system, the legal system has come into conflict with secular imperatives; the primary secular imperative is the FREE and autonomous individual – in Canada this finds expression in law in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the right to life, liberty and security of person.  The correct application of this law is to permit free people to do as they please absent harm to others – this is an interpretation that is absent moral consideration in Section 7’s application save the presence or absence of harm.   

A moral-complex that harms is in conflict with the purpose of having morality. By way of example, there is a clear direction in the Bible to stone homosexuals to death, in modern society regardless of your view toward homosexuality, the prospect of stoning someone to death is preposterous.  One offers this example as it is extreme and clear. One can see the harm this example illustrates and in the same way, as an 8000-year-old moral-complex comes up against an increasingly informed society, one sees adherence to old moral imperatives doing harm.  Worse, however, we see harm accruing to people in direct contradiction of generally accepted morays, sexual abuse by people in a position of authority for example, or matters of consent as it relates to one’s inherent right to the domain over one’s own mind and body.

The morality I suggest - based on the contemplation of the presence or absence of harm - is also supported by honour and integrity. That is to say, we are allowed to define our association with others as we please – so long as our association is based on consent – honour provides the imperative to adhere to our agreed association and integrity ensures we develop the agreement in good faith. This approach to moral concern permits another’s truth to be as valid as your own and when there is a conflict between one or more individuals’ or groups’ approach to life, they can live in benign coexistence, with harm being the only justification for state intervention.